Justin & Jerry's Hifi Blog

[User211]

I've heard Spotify sound flat and dynamically compressed with Steely Dan, and very good with Gil Scot Heron. So the truth is that it is a mixed bag. I don't like it on principle because it isn't 'full fat', and as enthusiasts we shouldn't be supporting lossy compression in playback. Also, as with any streaming service, you have no idea where they got the recording from. Could be off a £1 compilation cd bought in a motorway service station.

I know some people only use it to check out new material, but you can do that on Youtube for free.

I agree. 100%.

YouTube shouldn't be underrated there's an absolute mass of good stuff going for free. Including some very good live concerts.

Dodgy SQ is OK when its free sampling...

[Gordon Steadman]

I live on YouTube some days. Quite apart from wallowing in nostalgia, it's the ideal place for listening to stuff that wouldn't get a listen if I had to pay up front.

Sound quality can be mediocre of course but some is surprisingly good. However as you say, it's free so who's complaining?

[jandl100]

I listen/watch YouTube as well - some fab classical concerts. SQ when it's in HD is excellent, imo, and at least very listenable most of the time. But then I'm obviously not that fussy.

[brian2957]

Aye me too Jerry I've found a medium which sounds very good indeed , is convenient , and has instant access to millions of albums for a tenner a months What's not to like .

[r100]

1+ for Spotify ... more practical than YT for discovering music, building playlists, etc and the quality @ 320kbs is perfect for 99% of what I listen to. Admittedly, some of the old stuff is not that good but still better IMHO than on any youtube videos I have heard so far. just my 2cts

[struth]

sure its not perfect, but its pretty good. It has the edge on similar stream rate Amazon sound wise and i prefer the Ui I think now, even if its not as forgiving via search. Have to say I will mostly use it with headphones, and imo it sounds best this way

[jandl100]

Why do you ask ?

Because I'm interested in what your experience of cans has been, and in your opinions about them.

I've been on quite a wide ranging journey with headphones the last year or so. What you see in the photo I posted is less than 50% of my current cans holding (see my signature, below), and I have owned and moved on quite a few others over the last year. I'm always interested in the opinions of others, even if we disagree in some ways.

[jandl100]

1+ for Spotify ... more practical than YT for discovering music, building playlists, etc and the quality @ 320kbs is perfect for 99% of what I listen to. Admittedly, some of the old stuff is not that good but still better IMHO than on any youtube videos I have heard so far. just my 2cts

Interesting what you say about older recordings on Spotify.

In classical music on Spotify, I have often been amazed at the sound of older recordings that I have found pretty much unlistenable in other formats.
Some 60s and 70s classic recordings, on CBS and RCA for example, sound thin and bass shy on CD and LP but have come up full and well balanced and very listenable indeed on Spotify. It's been a bit of a revelation, actually.

[Macca]

Interesting what you say about older recordings on Spotify.

In classical music on Spotify, I have often been amazed at the sound of older recordings that I have found pretty much unlistenable in other formats.
Some 60s and 70s classic recordings, on CBS and RCA for example, sound thin and bass shy on CD and LP but have come up full and well balanced and very listenable indeed on Spotify. It's been a bit of a revelation, actually.

Isn't this more likely to be due to the kit? I can't see that Spotify do any re-mastering, so what else is the explanation?

[struth]

Some tracks may well benefit from a bit of lossy work.