Amazon Music HD...anyone trying it out?

[Grayson Dere]

Cool! Looks like there's a new music streaming service for those that want something different and possibly cheaper.

$12.99/month for Hi-Res music streaming (Prime Members)

https://www.amazon.com/music/unlimited/hd

 

[Sonnie Parker]

90 Day Free Trial... and I'll try it to compare it to Tidal.

I was not impressed with the majority of Tidal's offerings... way too expensive for nothing more than a discovery network. I can discovery tunes on Amazon, and if I like them listen to the full version on YouTube via headphones... and for that matter, I've discovered music on YouTube. It's all free... and sounds as good as anything I've heard on Tidal.

 

[Todd Anderson]

I agree with you Sonnie. I like TIDAL, but it always feels like something is missing.

 

[GFOviedo]

I have tried Tidal, Apple Music, Pandora Premium, Spotify, Deezer, and Qubuz. I ended up just keeping Amazon Music since I am a prime member, and Spotify. Since, I am a student, I get Hulu and Spority for $4.99.

 

[Grayson Dere]

90 Day Free Trial... and I'll try it to compare it to Tidal.

I was not impressed with the majority of Tidal's offerings... way too expensive for nothing more than a discovery network. I can discovery tunes on Amazon, and if I like them listen to the full version on YouTube via headphones... and for that matter, I've discovered music on YouTube. It's all free... and sounds as good as anything I've heard on Tidal.

That's interesting! Either YouTube has actually very good sound quality or Tidal is not that hi-fi as they claim. I should be listening to more free YouTube : )

 

[Sonnie Parker]

lol... yeah... well... I do always listen to YT on the headphones... and only listened to Tidal on speakers in the listening room. Tidal might sound better on headphones. But my point here is for finding music, YT is sufficient for me. I wanted Tidal because it has been touted as high quality. IMO... it is not high quality.

 

[Jack]

I listen regularly to YT on my larger purple system and it sounds quite good. I will try the Amazon HD as I am a prime member now that I know it is there. Thank You all for discussing this.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I signed up with Amazon HD Tues, dropped Qobuz yesterday.
Spotify might be next. Axed Tidal once they adopted MQA.

 

[Grayson Dere]

I signed up with Amazon HD Tues, dropped Qobuz yesterday.
Spotify might be next. Axed Tidal once they adopted MQA.

I was using Qobuz last last year when they were doing intro trials before the full US release. I thought it was pretty good sounding...but didn't continue since it's a bit high price for me. How did you like it?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Qobuz was fine, SQ, GUI, etc, but streaming is "one" of my sources, not the only one, so was sometimes used rather infrequently.
Amazon is same SQ, more tracks, less cost. Being long time Prime member, seemed a no brainer.

 

[phillihp23]

..

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Sound quality is NOT the same. Qobuz uses WASAPI and ASIO, while Amazon HD goes through the Windows mixer and is therefore resampled.

Apologies then, was unaware of controlled blind testing demonstrating audible difference. Please share, thanks.

 

[adeyfk]

If you are using a standard sound card to listen, then you will likely not hear a difference between YouTube and Tidal . However, run Tidal in HIFI or master quality through an external DAC into a good quality sound system and the difference is massive. You are always dependent upon the uploader in YouTube, so the likelihood that they will ensure 16bit 44.1 standard on their audio is low. Added to the fact that this quality is not that old as a supported format for YouTube means that the vast majority will be highly compressed mp3. That is fine on a default sound card with average 2.1 speakers, but run that through better quality audio kit, and it sounds bad.
There is currently no proof that audio in higher than CD quality sounds better, and countless blind tests have shown the no one has bettered pure luck in distinguishing between 16bit/44.1 and 24bit etc. These are mainly used for studio work so they can store more track information, it doesn't improve the audio quality.
If Amazon are doing CD quality files for $13 a month, then that is well work looking into, and I might even drop Tidal if they do offline storage and playlist support.

 

[josh358]

Apologies then, was unaware of controlled blind testing demonstrating audible difference. Please share, thanks.

I have no idea whether you can hear the difference or not, but the absence of evidence isn't evidence!

 

[josh358]

Sound quality is NOT the same. Qobuz uses WASAPI and ASIO, while Amazon HD goes through the Windows mixer and is therefore resampled. WASAPI and ASIO are not supported on Amazon HD.

I'm hoping Roon or better yet JRiver will pick it up. Roon of course already ties in to Tidal and Qobuz, which is great since I found that Qobuz's PC app rarely worked. And JRiver's excuse for not integrating Tidal and Qobuz is that they weren't sure if they'd survive -- but I don't think anyone can say that about Amazon. At this point, I have both Roon for streaming and JRiver for playing my own library, but I much prefer JRiver because Roon is a stubborn about not allowing you to play from your existing directory structure as JRiver is about not tying in with the streaming services (a short-sighted business decision, I think, because they're starting to supplant other media).

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I have no idea whether you can hear the difference or not, but the absence of evidence isn't evidence!

Ok, I'll take your word there is no evidence to support SQ differences claimed by Jos then.

 

[josh358]

Just checked on the JRiver forum, and they say "It makes no mention of an API for developers, so I don't see how we'd be able to support it, but we'll watch for more news." There's a thread on the Roon forum too, but no response from the developers.

 

[josh358]

Ok, I'll take your word there is no evidence to support SQ differences claimed by Jos then.

Well, I don't know. For all I know, somebody has ABX'd it (or the filters, since I doubt anyone would ABX the Windows mixer per se). But I'm not going to write off someone who says he hears the difference merely because there's no confirmation any more than I'm going to accept it as a done deal. What I will do is say "Hey, I can bypass this crap and it will do no harm, and may in fact do some good." No one can argue with bit accuracy. Besides, I believe that when you use the Windows mixer you have no exclusive access, so other sounds can intrude.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Well, I don't know. For all I know, somebody has ABX'd it (or the filters, since I doubt anyone would ABX the Windows mixer per se).

Let me know if you find any. Only thing I could find were some measurements on Archimagos blog. But the differences were at very high frequency, so detection might prove difficult with music, worse with age. Until I see demonstrable audible evidence, I'll make no asumptions of SQ differences.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

But I have (currently own) two apples to apples side by side albums to compare, lemme tell ya, there is a big difference between a 16 Khz CD and a 352.8 Khz SACD,,,,,, Just sayin. More bits at a higher sampling rate in my specific case means a lower noise floor which equals higher/cleaner better sound quality.

Please cite both albums and the controlled listening test where this has been demonstrated. Here is a peer reviewed published work where that belief was debunked. http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195
..and now back to our regular Amazon music programming

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Maybe we should first discuss how you route your audio signal through your PC system. Because that's important before you can judge if there's a difference in sound quality.

No. They only thing a claimant for audible differences has to do, is a valid controlled listening test demonstrating said differences.
Others being unable to do so due to computer setttings, setup, hearing, etc, etc, etc. is irrelevant.