Article: Amazon Music HD Launches

[miguelito]

50 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

anyone have an MQA DAC to test the content from 2L. 2L delivers MQA to Qobuz whether they want it or not. 

 

This looks strange 24/48. This content is usually at much higher sample rates if left native. 

 

 

Couple of weird things:

1- In Qobuz, there are two of these albums: one at 16/44 and one at 24/192. However, the last one will not play at 24/192 but only at 16/44 - and pretty sure this is not MQA since to get an MQA file at 24/192 final rate would require an input file at 24/48.

2- File plays MQA from TIDAL app on Mac - DragonFly is purple (ie rendering MQA).

2- Normal hires files on Qobuz play hires just fine - even 24/192 gets downsampled to 24/96 --> pretty sure the album above is mislabelled and it's just 16/44, not 24/192.

3- The Amazon Music app on Mac is upsampling to the max rate of the DragonFly (24/96) even thought the file on the Amazon Music app indicates it is 24/48 --> No MQA to be found here.

 

(I actually own the 24/352 version)

[rn701]

4 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

For anyone who still cares about the long discontinued and now distant footnote in audio streaming devices called Google Chromecast Audio (CCA), I connected mine to an optical input on my DAC last night and streamed to it from the Amazon Music app for Android, and I could not get any track to play at anything other than 44.1kHz.

 

When clicking the little yellow HD or UHD icon while casting, the text dialog states no further information about the stream is available while casting. So the software doesn't seem to know (or want to tell you) what the stream exactly is when casting, while the Simaudio DAC is quite sure it's a 44.1kHz sample rate.

 

Amazon said in their faq that hd over chromecast is not supported "at this time." So maybe someday?

 

https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=14070322011

[bbosler]

has anybody looked at the spectrum on these 24/192 Amazon files to see if they are just upsampling 16/44.1 like we used to get a lot of from HdTracks back in the day. Maybe still do, I quit dealing with them years ago when they were selling upsampled files and then claiming it wasn't their fault, it was the labels. 

 

I have Tidal. Does anybody know which service has the more extensive catalog i.e. how does Amazon compare to Tidal, Qobuz, etc. (sorry if this has already been discussed, i didn't see it if it did)

[labjr]

"...up to 192 kHz, and an average bitrate of 3730 kbps."

 

3730 kbps seems low? Shouldn't it be like 5,400 for 192khz sample rate 

[MikeyFresh]

13 minutes ago, rn701 said:

 

Amazon said in their faq that hd over chromecast is not supported "at this time." So maybe someday?

 

https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=14070322011

 

Ahh, thanks, I completely missed that... and yet their statement is a little misleading, it is supported, but only at 44.1kHz.

[rn701]

2 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Ahh, thanks, I completely missed that... and yet their statement is a little misleading, it is supported, but only at 44.1kHz.

 

Wondered about that. Wondering if they are just serving up the mp3 "sd" file in that case, which would also report 44.1?

[MikeyFresh]

3 minutes ago, rn701 said:

 

Wondered about that. Wondering if they are just serving up the mp3 "sd" file in that case, which would also report 44.1?

 

I'm thinking that's a distinct possibility. While I only quickly sampled a few tracks and wasn't doing any critical listening, what I heard over the CCA/Toslink connection wasn't great, kind of thin and bleached out sounding, not a great stereo image, probably MP3.

[The Computer Audiophile]

38 minutes ago, exdmd said:

 

Amazon Music HD does not allow your external DAC to exclusively control the stream like Tidal or Qobuz does, everything is going through the Windows Sound Mixer. As a result you are not going to get bit perfect music until Amazon makes some changes to their desktop app, if they ever do.

 

Bit perfect is still possible, but not an enjoyable process.

 

 

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, bbosler said:

has anybody looked at the spectrum on these 24/192 Amazon files to see if they are just upsampling 16/44.1 like we used to get a lot of from HdTracks back in the day. Maybe still do, I quit dealing with them years ago when they were selling upsampled files and then claiming it wasn't their fault, it was the labels. 

 

I have Tidal. Does anybody know which service has the more extensive catalog i.e. how does Amazon compare to Tidal, Qobuz, etc. (sorry if this has already been discussed, i didn't see it if it did)

 

 

Upsampling has nothing to do with the provider of content such as Amazon or HDtracks. It's the labels who deliver the content. 

 

 

[bbosler]

Quote

Upsampling has nothing to do with the provider of content such as Amazon or HDtracks. It's the labels who deliver the content. 

 

not true.. it does have everything to do with the provider when they claim they are selling you a high rez file and charging a premium for an upsampled file .. perhaps they did not upsample it themselves, but when they claim it is high resolution when it is not and they know some of their files are upsampled then they are culpable. When I called them on it they claimed, like you,  that they were at the mercy of the labels, but it only takes a few seconds playing the file to see whether are not it has a brick wall filter at 20KHz.

 

They were selling upsampled files claiming they were high resolution, they knew it, and they refused to do anything about it unless they got caught... that makes them guilty as charged

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, bbosler said:

 

not true.. it does have everything to do with the provider when they claim they are selling you a high rez file and charging a premium for an upsampled file .. perhaps they did not upsample it themselves, but when they claim it is high resolution when it is not and they know some of their files are upsampled then they are culpable. When I called them on it they claimed, like you,  that they were at the mercy of the labels, but it only takes a few seconds playing the file to see whether are not it has a brick wall filter at 20KHz.

 

They were selling upsampled files claiming they were high resolution, they knew it, and they refused to do anything about it unless they got caught... that makes them guilty as charged

 

We were talking about Amazon.... I see absolutely no reason to think Amazon would go to the trouble of changing what they receive from the labels, for better or worse. Everything about the service (for example, not bothering with bit perfect but just using whatever your player/computer/device setting is) says they are just getting the tracks and putting them out there, period.

[rn701]

26 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Bit perfect is still possible, but not an enjoyable process.

 

I got it to work with JRiver's WDM driver, but yeah, not enjoyable.

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, bbosler said:

 

not true.. it does have everything to do with the provider when they claim they are selling you a high rez file and charging a premium for an upsampled file .. perhaps they did not upsample it themselves, but when they claim it is high resolution when it is not and they know some of their files are upsampled then they are culpable. When I called them on it they claimed, like you,  that they were at the mercy of the labels, but it only takes a few seconds playing the file to see whether are not it has a brick wall filter at 20KHz.

 

They were selling upsampled files claiming they were high resolution, they knew it, and they refused to do anything about it unless they got caught... that makes them guilty as charged

 

Are all the VW dealerships responsible for accepting and selling cars with software workarounds to beat the emissions tests? 

 

I don't want to go down this rabbit hole, but one can't look at the spectral content of a file and deem the seller of that file guilty as charged if it doesn't reach above the immediately lower sample rate.. Most files at 24/192  have no content that a 44.1 file can't capture. 

[mansr]

37 minutes ago, labjr said:

"...up to 192 kHz, and an average bitrate of 3730 kbps."

 

3730 kbps seems low? Shouldn't it be like 5,400 for 192khz sample rate 

How did you arrive at 5400? Uncompressed 192 kHz 24-bit stereo is 9.2 Mbps. With FLAC compression it usually ends up in the 4-5 Mbps range.

[photonman]

I am glad I have a better alternative to Spotify now for only a few USD more.  I think it is a little freaky how they automatically added all my CD purchases from years ago to "My Music" list  and their curated playlists seem to be pretty good, (not Spotify good) but close enough and I am betting they will get there soon.

 

I do think the loudness level is higher than Spotify.  Is that intentional or symptomatic of the higher bit rate and frequencies?

[Jud]

1 minute ago, photonman said:

I do think the loudness level is higher than Spotify.  Is that intentional or symptomatic of the higher bit rate and frequencies?

 

Loudness has nothing to do with resolution, so if it's louder it's for one of two reasons:

 

Very unlikely, Amazon's doing something to the file.

 

Much more likely, the fact that the music goes through your non-bit-perfect computer/player/device settings could easily be responsible for increased loudness.

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, photonman said:

I am glad I have a better alternative to Spotify now for only a few USD more.  I think it is a little freaky how they automatically added all my CD purchases from years ago to "My Music" list  and their curated playlists seem to be pretty good, (not Spotify good) but close enough and I am betting they will get there soon.

 

I do think the loudness level is higher than Spotify.  Is that intentional or symptomatic of the higher bit rate and frequencies?

Check the loudness enable/disable feature in the Amazon app.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Check the loudness enable/disable feature in the Amazon app.

 

Yeah, I disabled that instantly.

[photonman]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Check the loudness enable/disable feature in the Amazon app.

 

I have the "loudness normalization" off and also disabled hardware acceleration.

[labjr]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

How did you arrive at 5400? Uncompressed 192 kHz 24-bit stereo is 9.2 Mbps. With FLAC compression it usually ends up in the 4-5 Mbps range.

 

I was going by what I see in Jriver when a 192k file is playing.

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, labjr said:

I was going by what I see in Jriver when a 192k file is playing.

OK, 5.4 Mbps is also within reason for the compressed bit rate. I agree that 3.7 Mbps seems low. Maybe its the average rate of the whole high-res catalogue with a mix of 96 kHz and 192 kHz.

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 hours ago, Gus141 said:

Can’t Get 24/192 on Bluesound Node 2i.

 

Neil Diamond - 50th Anniversary Collection, Sweet Caroline:

AMZ app (iPad) says 24/192 available and plays that way to external DAC connected via CCK; added that track to library; played that track via BlueSound’s iOS app to Node 2i connected to RME ADI-2 DAC: the DAC reports it is playing 24/96 not 24/192. Play the same track via Qobuz through the same Node 2i/RME setup and the RME DAC reports it is getting 24/192.  Weird that the Amazon stream is downgraded to 96 for this 192 album (tried other songs on this album between AMZ and Qobuz: AMZ plays as 96 on Node 2i, Qobuz plays as 192 on same Node 2i). Maybe this is Amazon doing some dynamic quality control based on network speed, but if that’s the case funny that Qobuz didn’t have a problem with my network.

 

Another example.

J.S. Ondara, Tales of America:

24/192 on Qobuz ->Node 2i-(Coax)->RME ADI-2 DAC;

24/192 on Amazon iOS app on iPad-(CCK)->external DACs;

but, BluOS Amazon Music plays this album as 24/96 on Node 2i-(Coax)->RME ADI-2 DAC

 

@cscamp and @The Computer Audiophile have you been able to get 24/192 from Amazon Music out of your BluOS devices to an external DAC? What tracks? I’ll try them.

 

Gus - You helped find an issue behind the scenes, that wasn't the fault of Bluesound, but will be fixed by a Bluesound patch in the next day or so. 

 

24/192 will stream once the patch is delivered. 

[Jeremy Anderson]

12 hours ago, Gus141 said:

Can’t Get 24/192 on Bluesound Node 2i.

 

Neil Diamond - 50th Anniversary Collection, Sweet Caroline:

 

@cscamp and @The Computer Audiophile have you been able to get 24/192 from Amazon Music out of your BluOS devices to an external DAC? What tracks? I’ll try them.

 

My experience isn't about bluOS per-se, but have found it possible to get 24/192 (in 'shared mode') via the Windows 10 Amazon Music app:

 

 

For those seeking the same, you have to go into your DAC's sound settings and change the Default Format sample rate and bit depth to match the track in question. Yes, this is clunky, but that's all we get until Amazon adds Direct / Exclusive mode playback support... no telling if or when that will happen. I've already called them to request the feature. I suggest y'all do the same.

 

How-To:

 

Right click the volume/speaker in the Taskbar, pick 'Open Sound Settings'

 

Pick 'Device Properties':

 

 

Find and click 'Additional device properties' on the next page:

 

 

In the classic control panel that pops up, click the Advanced tab and then change the Default Format to match the output you want:

[bbosler]

Quote

Upsampling has nothing to do with the provider of content such as Amazon or HDtracks. It's the labels who deliver the content. 

 

Quote

We were talking about Amazon.... I see absolutely no reason to think Amazon would go to the trouble of changing 

 

If Amazon wants to differentiate themselves as the provider who streams 24/192 then they would have an incentive to do it themselves. (however, see conclusion below before you fire off a response) It would be no "trouble" as they can just run it through some software and it is done automatically either on the fly or as the file goes onto their server.

 

 

Quote

Are all the VW dealerships responsible for accepting and selling cars with software workarounds to beat the emissions tests? 

 

I don't want to go down this rabbit hole, but one can't look at the spectral content of a file and deem the seller of that file guilty as charged if it doesn't reach above the immediately lower sample rate.. Most files at 24/192  have no content that a 44.1 file can't capture.

 

The VW dealers were guilty if they knew about the problem. I doubt they did, but HDtracks did know and at the time chose to ignore it.. therefore... guilty

 

As for no content that 44.1 can't capture, that is true , but you are incorrect on the spectrum as  it is very easy to see  when that brick wall filter is used.  AND it does matter as recording at higher rates allows you to use filters that do not reach down into the audio band like the brick wall filters that MUST be used at 44.1. That is the crux of the matter. The filters used at 44.1 do affect the audio band. Upsampling does not change that so it does matter.

 

However, we are off track. If they are upsampled it doesn't matter who is doing it, or why they are doing it,  and I  don't care who is doing it or why they are doing it nor do I care to debate the who or the why...  I'm just asking if the 24/192 files they are streaming are originally 24/192 or if they are upsampled from redbook. It's a very simple question that does not require any debate, it requires a yes or a no.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, bbosler said:

However, we are off track.

Guilty as charged. Back to Amazon Music HD. 

[keeper]

Lots of technical detail, however the whole point of music is to listen and enjoy what you hear.

Technical details aside how do people think it sounds from an enjoyment factor?

A day in I think I prefer the outputted sound to Apple Music.