Any audiophiles out there? I have recently made the move from CD and iTunes store to streaming. I am currently using Spotify on a trial basis. I am also considering Deezer. I understand that the audio is better quality.
There’s a wealth of information out there, which I find confusing. Some services offer HD quality, at a premium price. (CD quality, as opposed to mp3.)
I stream my music through my iPad mini to a Bang and Olufsen Beosound portable speaker, via Airplay connection.
Given the nature of the connection between my tablet and speaker, is there any point in getting the higher quality service? Would the Airplay connection negate any gains?
Much of the music I listen to is 40 years old or later. (Classic rock and jazz.) Given the age of the recordings, is there any point in getting the higher quality stream?

Any information appreciated – especially personal recommendations.

Thanks in advance.
PdG

How old are you?

Serious question.

Late 60’s.

I very much doubt that you could detect any difference in the quality of the sound between the normal and the HD.

Thanks Sibeen, you’re probably right. I’ve lost some hearing at the high end of the sound spectrum.
Spotify quality, via the equipment I mentioned, sounds muddy and poorly defined. That’s probably because I’ve previously been used to decent stereophonic hi-fi equipment. But I like the convenience of a portable speaker, which I can take outside.

Much of the music I listen to is 40 years old or later. (Classic rock and jazz.) 

—

Same here. I use Spotify set to a high sampling rate.. sounds great

Ian said:

Same here. I use Spotify set to a high sampling rate.. sounds great

How do you select that?

pesce.del.giorno said:

Ian said:

Same here. I use Spotify set to a high sampling rate.. sounds great

How do you select that?

Settings.. download.. offers 4 different rates

Great, thanks, I’ll try that.

sibeen said:

I very much doubt that you could detect any difference in the quality of the sound between the normal and the HD.

Oof, I sure can.

When recording from microphone I sample at 88,200 Hz.
When saving I can only save at 48,000 Hz.

I can hear the difference. It’s not something I can consciously put my finger on, but it affects the tone and can be enough to turn a piece with great tone into poor tone, like recording from a Steinway and ending up sounding like a Kawai.

mollwollfumble said:

sibeen said:

I very much doubt that you could detect any difference in the quality of the sound between the normal and the HD.

Oof, I sure can.

When recording from microphone I sample at 88,200 Hz.
When saving I can only save at 48,000 Hz.

I can hear the difference. It’s not something I can consciously put my finger on, but it affects the tone and can be enough to turn a piece with great tone into poor tone, like recording from a Steinway and ending up sounding like a Kawai.

I suspect that you should do a series of blind tests to check that. “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”.

sibeen said:

mollwollfumble said:

sibeen said:

I very much doubt that you could detect any difference in the quality of the sound between the normal and the HD.

Oof, I sure can.

When recording from microphone I sample at 88,200 Hz.
When saving I can only save at 48,000 Hz.

I can hear the difference. It’s not something I can consciously put my finger on, but it affects the tone and can be enough to turn a piece with great tone into poor tone, like recording from a Steinway and ending up sounding like a Kawai.

I suspect that you should do a series of blind tests to check that. “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”.

> I suspect that you should do a series of blind tests to check that.

Sensible answer.

As it happens, the sound is so very badly distorted through the process of recording on microphone path through computer and playing on speaker that it can be darn difficult to tell the difference between different sample rates.

I have a top quality microphone, amplifier and speaker, but still the sound coming out of the speaker is nowhere near as nice, not by a million yards, as the natural sound from the acoustic instrument, that goes into the microphone.

mollwollfumble said:

sibeen said:

mollwollfumble said:

Oof, I sure can.

When recording from microphone I sample at 88,200 Hz.
When saving I can only save at 48,000 Hz.

I can hear the difference. It’s not something I can consciously put my finger on, but it affects the tone and can be enough to turn a piece with great tone into poor tone, like recording from a Steinway and ending up sounding like a Kawai.

I suspect that you should do a series of blind tests to check that. “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”.

> I suspect that you should do a series of blind tests to check that.

Sensible answer.

As it happens, the sound is so very badly distorted through the process of recording on microphone path through computer and playing on speaker that it can be darn difficult to tell the difference between different sample rates.

I have a top quality microphone, amplifier and speaker, but still the sound coming out of the speaker is nowhere near as nice, not by a million yards, as the natural sound from the acoustic instrument, that goes into the microphone.

Unfortunately, hi-fi recording and mixing is an art unto itself. A lot of learning and experimentation involved in getting the best out of your set-up, especially when multi-tracking as I do.