[Closed] Now Playing XLIX

Apparently, yes there is. For example, it pronounces the difference between the orchestra and electronics in a way that makes me prefer the original album mix. Also, other sections of the score in which I prefer the original orchestral mix. See also: the discussion on the CutThroat Island remastering, in which a flute which was always in the background, was all of a sudden front and center. A clear and open mastering can be wonderful, and large parts of Jurassic Park are, but sometimes a technically 'better' mastering isn't always a more beautiful sound.

It reminds me of the remastering of classic films, if you want to visualise it: there are remasterings which get rid of all the film grain, which gives off a waxy image that has lost all of its texture and charm, and there are masterings that keep its grain intact. To me, at times, Jurassic Park lost its film grain.

I agree! Still, I don't bother with lossless when it comes to portable devices. If there is a person in this world who can tell the difference between 320kbps and FLAC, I'd like to meet them. Or at least get them do to a double-blind test. I'd love to be proven wrong.

I recently did with a friend of mine. We've always been fascinated by this, and with the advent of streaming services like Tidal and their CD quality streams as well as another (French) streaming service which goes even further in providing the actual masters, we sat down for an evening of comparing, both knowing what we were listening, and then testing each other blindly, for a definitive answer. We were streaming to his (high end) stereo set-up.

We were mainly testing with John Williams' The Force Awakens (Rey's Theme and March of the Resistance) because of the orchestral nature of the score and the mixing which lets you hear all of its individual instruments and clear recording.

Results: 320 vs CD (lossless)
There's a clear and very noticeable difference between 320 kb/s and 'CD quality'. The latter broadens the sound palette significantly, making it easier to make the distinctions between instruments, with noticeable improvements in for example solo instruments in parts of Rey's Theme. Especially when listening in lossless and familiarizing yourself with the sound quality, you immediately notice a drop in quality when returning to the 320 version.

Results: CD lossless vs Master
The difference between CD quality and the master was a lot more difficult to establish and although identifiable when heard right after each other when focusing on specific parts of the orchestra, this is for me where the difference becomes uninteresting. Which is interesting, because I recently saw the 1927 silent film Napoleon which features a newly recorded orchestral score in DTS HD Master 7.1 sound, which was phenomenal and definitely above CD quality audio - not just in how the 7.1 mixing mimicked the accoustics of a concert hall, but also in quality of the sound.

Results: CD lossless Tidal vs CD lossless French streaming service
Also, it was interesting to note there's a difference between listening to the same 'CD quality' lever through Tidal and the French streaming service, both sounding not quite the same, as if you're listening with a different pair of headphones, the one slightly more treble, the other slightly more bass, suggesting you cannot solely rely on the actual file, but also the way the app handles its music.

Bottom line was, I've always known I can hear the difference in sound quality, but now it as proven. Also, listening with my high end headphones on bed, in the dark, as I usually do on first listen, makes the difference in quality all the more noticeable. This does not mean I do not enjoy the quality as provided by Apple Music, and especially for everyday music listening purposes it's excellent - if you're listening with in ear headphones while commuting, or walking in the city, whatever, no, you will most likely not hear a difference - it's just that, yes, CD quality is certainly better when you pay attention to it.

Painful the way I see any of my friends mistreated, even if it doesn't affect me, personally.

There's other services beyond SPotify that are worth checking out then? How expensive are the ones you mention Bob?

Skull Island (Henry Jackman)

It's ... function-able, but mostly it's a CD you put in the CD player, it passes by and at the end you pull the CD back out. It basically has zero personality. If you say this was the extended music of This is the End I would have believed you. Though track 22 (The Battle of Skull Island) has some oomph. Arghhh another forgettable blockbuster score

Is that the first time you're having that discussion? No. Do you expect a different outcome now? Not probably.

That is spectacularly selfish of you.

I've been writing my review of this. I wrote "...a bit like Alexandre Desplat's Godzilla if you took out virtually everything that made it so good" then deleted it because it's too facile, but have put it here so it's preserved for all eternity.

NP: The Hunt for Red October (1990) - Basil Poledouris

This music has balls ans brains and punch!

Now, I see many people quite often say things on messageboards like you did at the start of this, "I don't believe anyone could hear the difference between the two", "People claim they can but I don't believe them", and yet, have you yourself tested this out? Have you actually paid attention to the quality difference side by side?

And yet, big streaming services like Spotify continue to invest big money in delivering high fidelity lossless audio to their customers, in the case of Tidal even building their business model and USP on it, so apparently me and my friend are not the only one. We were interested in the phenomenon, so we took action to find out, instead of not knowing what we were talking about.

I'd suggest you try it out for yourself once? Would love to see you do a double blind test and fail and prove me wrong.

Exactly. Placebo. Plus the burden of proof is not with me, it's with those who claim to be able to hear a difference. What Bob has described doesn't appear to be a proper double blind test (he'd have to have a third, disinterested party involved plus the use of far more samples) and therefore isn't a reliable result.

But I do understand why people cling to this audiophile myth and believe it. I used to myself. It feels so intuitive -- and we discerning music fans will always want the best.

I've done a non-blind test and can't hear a difference! Sure, that could be my lack of hearing abilities, but anecdotally at least I can't hear a damn bit of difference. WAV is only useful for editing purposes, then compress afterwards.

I have an idea: how about those who want the highest quality sound possible do what they want to get that, and those who don't care not worry about it? I personally don't have a horse in this race, as I've never had nice enough audio equipment to really put this to the test. Isn't film music great, though?

NP - BLACK GOLD - James Horner

Great stuff. This and WOLF TOTEM are my favorite Horner scores from this decade. This is just sweeping and grand. A proper score for a desert epic.

I agree! I just thought I could contribute to the conversation and respond to what was being said with recent findings, because I find the subject interesting and it's something I've discussed at length with a friend. Didn't think it'd be so easily rejected. Lessons learned about online commenters.

Yeah, it's a good idea after 150 pages....