Slashdot Mirror


SoundCloud Refutes Decreasing Audio Quality, Cites Standard Testing (billboard.com)

cordovaCon83 writes: NestHQ published an article today noting that online streaming service Soundcloud has implemented the Opus codec for its archive of music and started streaming at 64kbps instead of its prior 128kbps streams. Opus has been touted as a more efficient codec than the aging MP3 codec. Whether this will have a major effect on audio fidelity remains to be seen, as well as whether such a move will affect the already ailing music service's business. UPDATE: SoundCloud tells Billboard that this swap in codecs is nothing new and is part of frequent tests it runs with its audio -- just as other streaming services do regularly. "We always appreciate feedback, but these reports are inaccurate," a SoundCloud spokesperson told Billboard in a statement. "SoundCloud has not altered its approach to audio quality. We have been using the Opus codec (among others) since 2016, and we regularly test different combinations of encoding and streaming to offer listeners a quality experience on any device. Furthermore, we store all content from creators at its originally uploaded quality level so we can continually adapt to advances in encoding and playback."

60 comments

  1. Reducing costs by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My guess is they are trying to reduce costs to delay going out of business caused by not having a business model. Beats having a real job I guess!

    1. Re:Reducing costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is they are trying to reduce costs to delay going out of business caused by not having a business model.

      Perhaps issuing proper VAT invoices to EU business customers would also delay their going out of business?

  2. No opec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    128 standard, ok

  3. Streaming is shit anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is like complaining about chunks of vomit in your shit sandwhich.

    LOSSY is for plebs.

  4. Here's a solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep your music on your device. "Problem"...solved.

    1. Re:Here's a solution. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      That is ridiculous. Corporations need a stable flow of income. If you keep the music you won't pay every month. Think of the corporations!

  5. Cables? by dohzer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe they switched their Ethernet cables for low-fidelity cables, or ran them straight along the ground instead of on an elevated platform.

    They could have had them plugged in backwards. It takes a qualified audio technician to hear and identify the optimum cable directionality.

    1. Re: Cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need the latest Monster Rediculous (tm) cables that are forged in zero-gravity, with off-planet metals, and delivered in nitrogen-filled, hermetically-sealed, non-audiophile-proof containers by Monster Audiophile Delivery (MAD) drones.

  6. Sounds plausible by MtHuurne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Opus at 64 kbit/s isn't terrible, probably as good as or possibly better than MP3 at 128 kbit/s (also depends on which MP3 encoder was used). Whether that's good enough depends on what you're using it for, but this change doesn't seem like a downgrade to me. I think the article writer underestimates how much progress was made in audio compression in the last ~20 years.

    1. Re:Sounds plausible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My concern is what they are encoding from. Generation loss is nasty, even from fairly high-bitrate lossy sources. They'd better not be using those 128 kbit/s MP3s as source. If they keep good enough masters, though, then it's an excellent move.

    2. Re:Sounds plausible by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

      In my experience over the last half-decade or so with opus, the rough "approximate quality of various codecs at different bitrates" chart on the opus-codec.org site (http://opus-codec.org/comparison) seems to be pretty accurate - and, yeah, stereo opus at 64kbps really is pretty equivalent to old-and-crusty MP3 at twice the size (128kbps) in general. Or, at least, that's been my experience.

    3. Re:Sounds plausible by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, we store all content from creators at its originally uploaded quality level so we can continually adapt to advances in encoding and playback.

      You have to hope that the creators are uploading in a lossless format. There's nothing SoundCloud can do about that except imposing lossless formats for uploading.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:Sounds plausible by adolf · · Score: 1

      Or at least in an admirably-decent format. MP3 @ 320K, or AAC @ 192, for instance, is fine. (Perfect? No. But fine.)

      They could force FLAC or 44.1/88.2/192k PCM, but that just encourages people to use workflows that they might not be used to, and/or lying through conversion from a very lossy format to a lossy one.

    5. Re:Sounds plausible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      old-and-crusty MP3 of 128 kbps was terrible in the 90's though. Severe ringing artefacts that you could even here trough crappy computer speakers.

      MP3 encoders after the 90's did improve the sound quality a lot.

    6. Re:Sounds plausible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no decent lossy format for later transcoding.

  7. Re:It's because audiophiles are the definition of by jrumney · · Score: 1

    But when YouTube is streaming music videos with the audio encoded as opus at 96k, they are not really keeping up with the competition.

  8. Re: It's because audiophiles are the definition of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    vinyl charm's is caused by the difference in compression. digital mix have a lot more dynamic range than vinyl pressing with the physical constrraInts it implies. digital mix could be superior but they are frequently compressed , not in the soft vinyl way, to abuse that range to artificiality increase perceived loudness. only retards and philosophers likes the artifacts of scratch and dirt. groove wears is something discutable it affect the quality but it has a certrain pleasantness, well up to a point..

  9. ~Re:Streaming is shit anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I like your affinity for shit and vomit...are you German?

  10. "Touted?" by ewhac · · Score: 4, Informative

    Opus has been touted as a more efficient codec than the aging MP3 codec.

    Nothing "touted" about it -- it is better than MP3.

    Opus does have an unusual limitation, however: It has a limited selection of input sample rates, and 44.1KHz is not one of them. So anything recorded at 44.1KHz has to be up-sampled to 48KHz before it can be encoded in Opus.

    1. Re:"Touted?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What sampling rates they use in the US for digital television and cable? Many DVB-T and DVB-C transmissions tend to use 48kHz, so Opus is a natural choice for saving space for recordings.

    2. Re:"Touted?" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What sampling rates they use in the US for digital television and cable? Many DVB-T and DVB-C transmissions tend to use 48kHz, so Opus is a natural choice for saving space for recordings.

      It doesn't matter. Most music is still distributed at 44.1 khz, thanks to CDDA.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:"Touted?" by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 3, Informative

      The resampler in Opus is more than good enough to not have any audible artifacts. The entirety of Opus is built around the 48KHz sample rate, so it's best to just go with the default. You can force it into 44.1KHz mode, but it's not recommended.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    4. Re:"Touted?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is gonna be up-sampled anyway when you play it on your soundcard.

    5. Re:"Touted?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but that chart seems to show that 64kb/s opus is slightly worse than 128kb/s mp3.

    6. Re:"Touted?" by An+Ominous+Cow+Erred · · Score: 1

      This has always struck me as a ridiculous limitation, given the ubiquity of 44.1Khz source material. I don't know the reason for this limitation, but I imagine it has something to do with the psychoacoustics being tuned by hand for the various potential source sampling rates. Still, it seems like a glaring omission.

      I especially don't understand why, as most lossy codecs work on a frequency spectrogram based system, where all your data is going to manipulated in a floating point space calculated via FFT/DCT anyway, at which point, realistically, you lose most meaningful relationship between the sampling rate of the compressed/decompressed streams.

  11. It's all about the CODEC by gordguide · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Soundcloud are absolutely correct in that there are better codecs than mp3 available; mp3 is about 20 years old and it's development goes back at least five more. However 64 kbps codecs are generally quite crude sonically compared to 128 kbps variants of the same codec. So I understand the concern.

    Satellite Radio. which uses a proprietary codec and therefore isn't available to others, is a 64~80 kbps codec. It doesn't sound terrible, and it's also quite old.

    So the idea that a competent 64 kbps codec could be out there isn't all that crazy an idea. I think it's reasonable for Soundcloud to be live testing codecs of any bitrate, and I wouldn't want them to stop. It's far more than most lossy compressed streams ever bother to even consider, let alone practice.

    1. Re:It's all about the CODEC by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      I'd qualify the compression used for SiriusXM as pretty terrible. For some types of music it's listenable, but for others - trap music with the rapid hi-hats for example - totally ruined.

      I haven't tested Opus yet, it's been years since I looked into all the different codecs in detail. But the consensus seems to be that it does very well at 64 kb/s. It's open-source and I'm sure you can find binaries for your platform of choice to perform your own tests.

    2. Re:It's all about the CODEC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ive found the compression on the radio news stations to be so high as to make them intolerable, so many artifacts it makes my ears hurt.

    3. Re:It's all about the CODEC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mp3 is about 20 years old

      Add a decade and I'll agree with you. Well, five at least.

    4. Re:It's all about the CODEC by caseih · · Score: 1

      SiriusXM sounds completely awful. It baffles my mind people actually want to pay a subscription to listen to horrible audio quality like that. The talk channels seem to have the lowest bitrate (obviously), and are so tinny and choppy as to be painful. The music channels are better, but still sound extremely bad, much like 64 kbit mp3s.

    5. Re:It's all about the CODEC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most people are angry in the sense that generally 128 kbps mp3 is good enough for most things, but not for many nicer stereo systems. So why not just stream a better codec at 128 kbps and make everyone happy? I mean at 128 kbps even if you streamed 24 hours a day that's less than 10 gigs... 10 gigs is literally less than a penny at large wholesale rates, and even in most countries at 4G cellular data rates it's pretty low.

    6. Re:It's all about the CODEC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one ever subscribed for the sound.

      It's done for the variety of programming and is a testament to just how shitty terrestrial broadcast programming has become that people are willing to pay for that alternative.

    7. Re:It's all about the CODEC by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Satellite Radio. which uses a proprietary codec and therefore isn't available to others, is a 64~80 kbps codec. It doesn't sound terrible, and it's also quite old.

      It's not proprietary. Initially it probably was, but it's migrated to AAC and now is AAC+ (AAC-HE, I believe).

      Bandwidth though per channel has been dropping - it's 64-80kbps AAC+ right now which isn't great. It's basically a problem of satellite bandwidth - there isn't any more available so to squeeze more channels onto the same bandwidth requires compressing the audio even more. It's why online audio can sound a lot better.

  12. Remember when digital audio was really good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember the hype when CD's came out how digital audio would be so much better then analog recordings. Now days streaming is hardly about good quality, its about using less data for a musical track. I had to stop using XMSirius because the compression was becoming so bad. Funny, I don't think a lot of young people realize anymore their used to be a whole lot more dynamics to music in the vinyl days then there is today. Good lord, its really pathetic what recordings sound like anymore.

    1. Re: Remember when digital audio was really good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're complaining that broadcast radio doesn't sound as good as albums.
      No shit.

      Streaming sounds better than broadcast, downloads sound better than streaming. Get the FLAC and you have a perfect waveform. Analog is awful.

    2. Re: Remember when digital audio was really good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Get the FLAC and you have a perfect waveform.
      Well i don't know what to say to this...

  13. Paying for "streaming" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You people are literally idiots. You talk about "cutting the cord", then you go PAY for something else instead like the idiots you are. WTF is wrong with BUYING your own music that you can listen to all you want anywhere you want and not need any internet connection to do it? Why are you all so goddamned dumb? You're literally paying for the internet equivalent of broadcast radio. Don't even want to hear about "better quality" or "no commericals", YOU ARE PAYING FOR ESSENTIALLY RADIO. You are all dumb, I am LAUGHING at you. Stop being dumb, stop paying for "streaming" anything.

  14. Re: It's because audiophiles are the definition o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The magnitude of the deviation is orders of magnitude lower for digital formats than vinyl, and occurs in less important frequency bands. That's the point of Opus.

  15. Fuck it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damned shit eating midgets.

  16. Try listening for more than 30 min on non lossless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One of the things that I noticed early on with MP3s, even high bit ones, was audio fatigue after listening for a while, maybe after an hour or more. At least compared to lossless codecs and even regular CDs. I used to be into high end audio and fancy DAC to playback good quality CDs back in the day, and this used to happen to me when I started to use high bit MP3s for some things. Granted there are additional variables like quality of speakers/headphones, but for some reason MP3s always fatigued my ears after a while, at least compared to non-compressed formats.

    Not sure if someone else have had the same experience when listening to lossless codec music for longer periods.

    There is no doubt MP3s and new codecs like Opus, which I didn't even know before reading this, are convenient in the nowadays streaming world and some other areas, but there might be more behind the scenes than just a base double-blind comparison with small song samples, even a bunch of them like the one described pointed by the Opus site at http://listening-test.coresv.net/index.htm

    Don't get me wrong, the double-blind type comparison is the way to go, but it'll be also good to test more than some samples...

    Maybe with a modern codec like Opus long term audio fatigue will be less of an issue, at lest for me, but unless I try, I guess I won't know...

  17. Re: It's because audiophiles are the definition of by thesupraman · · Score: 1

    Hmm, let me see..

    No.
    No.
    No.
    Yes.
    No.
    No.

    And slightly more helpfully, vinyl is MASSIVELY compressed in both low and high frequency regions, due to the maximum allowable track deviation (for LF), and the maximum tracking speed (for HF).
    So, while digital CAN be compressed thanks to stupid sound engineers, Vinyl has to be, thanks to physics.

  18. Just give me some notice.... by cormandy · · Score: 1

    Just give me some notice before Soundcloud goes under so I can rip all my favourite tracks. Note that I am a paying subscriber, and like Soundcloud for both original content and obscure DJ remixes.

    1. Re:Just give me some notice.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got a warning about six months ago. SoundCloud is on borrowed time. Rip your favourite tracks now!

  19. Not refute by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    Dispute, not refute. Refute means to prove wrong. When used properly it's is an extremely useful word with a specific meaning. Please don't dilute it when there's the word "dispute", which already says *exactly* what you want to say. It's as if people had never heard "refute" before and thought "Oh, that's a fancy way of saying dispute, so I'm going to use it to sound more elevated."

    1. Re:Not refute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct word is refudiate.

    2. Re:Not refute by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      lol I'd forgotten about that.

  20. Re:9-11 was a Jew job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't take this the wrong way, but I would love to smash your fingers with a sledgehammer.

  21. Re: It's because audiophiles are the definition of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However the phono amplifier reverses the compression, so it is not as simple as you describe it.

  22. Re: It's because audiophiles are the definition of by darkHanzz · · Score: 1

    for which you pay the price in reduced signal-to-noise in those frequency bands, making it roughly as simple as described.

  23. Buying a station's entire playlist costs hundreds by tepples · · Score: 1

    Keep your music on your device.

    How much does it cost to buy downloads of as many songs as are on an entire radio station's playlist?

    And that's provided the artist or his label even allows purchase instead of rental, and I'm told some do not. Kanye West's The Life of Pablo, for instance, was released to the Tidal streaming service several weeks before it was available for purchase. Prince's The Black Album appears to still be exclusive to Tidal except for a few limited edition CD pressings.

  24. DRINK THE KOOLAIDE! by Shogun37 · · Score: 1

    WHY AREN'T YOU DRINKING THE KOOLAIDE!!!??? DRINK IT!! DRINK!! Reading the story, this is all I saw. There are enough other music sources that if one craps the bed, there's no reason to stay with them.

  25. Turn in your Slashdot card. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You act like you never heard of torrenting, downloading or pirating.

    1. Re: Turn in your Slashdot card. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because at the moment we are talking about the LEGAL options.
      This is a conversation about a company's service, and piracy is an externality.

    2. Re:Turn in your Slashdot card. by tepples · · Score: 1

      You act like you never heard of torrenting

      The artists in question do not make the works in question lawfully available to the public through BitTorrent.

      How much does it cost to buy downloads

      You act like you never heard of [...] downloading

      If I hadn't heard of it, I probably wouldn't be asking about it.

  26. phrasing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Furthermore, we store but won't offer all content from creators at its originally uploaded quality level so we can continually adapt to advances in encoding

    FTFY

    Though, as opposed to what? Your master copies coming from youtube? Coming from microphones held next to a radio?

    Soothing non-statements are a bad sign.

  27. Re:Try listening for more than 30 min on non lossl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's largely what you're used to. If you grew up with am/fm radio which has really shitty quality compared to anything, you're not going to get fatigue listening to the radio.

    It's similar from going from Texas to New York...same language, slightly different accent... makes listening much harder. But there isn't anything inherent in their voices that causes fatigue.

  28. FM radio capable of excellent quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FM radio is capable of excellent quality.

    Don't judge it based on HOT 99.5 or whatever shit pop music station you listen to. They mess with the sound in several ways to JUICE IT UP (amp up the compression, add annoying booming bass boost, etc, etc) before it even hits the FM transmitter.

    Listen to a classical music station or National Public Radio. Their engineers really care about putting out a clean sound. It will be airy and natural. FM broadcasts in the US can give a very clean sound for sound frequencies up to about 15 kHz which is approaching the upper limit of what most adults can hear anyway, and certainly at the upper range of music content. (Lossy digital audio typically sounds its worst for the upper frequencies.)

  29. soundcloud by Richcmg · · Score: 1

    i personally like soundcloud i l=thin kthe quality is fine