Did You Know that Spotify Uses Peer-to-Peer Networking?

Most people don’t know this, but Spotify uses peer-to-peer networking for its streaming. In other words, when you choose to stream a specific song or album from Spotify, you may get your stream from Spotify itself, or you may get it from other users.

The problem with this is that peer-to-peer networking may affect your internet plan. While many users have unlimited downloads and uploads, this isn’t the case for everyone. If you use Spotify’s desktop client, you’ll not only be downloading music, but you’ll also be uploading, if the music you’ve listened to is popular enough.

Spotify doesn’t seem to have a page explaining this, but here’s a forum thread where a moderator discusses the use of peer-to-peer. Note that mobile apps and the web player don’t use peer-to-peer networking, so if you are on a restricted data plan for your computer, you might want to use either of those.

Also, if you reduce the size of the cache Spotify stores on your computer (Spotify > Preferences), there will be less music available to stream.


So be aware that, if you leave Spotify running, you may be using up a lot of your quota, uploading music to others. Reduce the cache, and quit Spotify when you’re not using it. Or, just use the web player.

Share this article:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedIn

Is there a Right Way to Listen to Music?

There’s an interesting debate going on over at Cnet. Two of their writers are discussing how one should listen to music. In this corner, Geoffrey Morrison says listening to music in the background is fine; not just that, but that he listens to music in the background all the time. In the other corner is Steve Guttenberg, who claims that “The problem with background listening is that it leads to more background listening.”

The initial premise for these two articles was, as Morrison says:

One of the prevailing trends in audiophile circles is the notion that, to fully appreciate music, you have to stop doing anything else and just listen. I disagree.

I think there’s a lot that’s wrong in both articles. I have nothing against listening to music in the background. As I write this article I’m listening to Miles Davis’ Bitches Brew; loud. I often put on music to accompany me in my work. I hear some background music, and I listen to some; in other words, in some cases I’m so absorbed in what I’m doing that I barely notice the music. In other cases, I’m so absorbed in the music that it helps set a rhythm to my typing. My foot taps, my body moves, and I’m listening to the music, making it a part of what I’m doing.

Guttenberg says:

Non-listening leads to more non-listening, including live concerts, where a sizable percentage of the audience is either talking or engaged with their devices. The music is over there, while the real focus is over here. So even when folks spend large amounts of cash to see Radiohead, Tom Petty, or Arcade Fire, the band’s music is background, being present for the fleeting experience of a concert is passé.

It seems that Guttenberg isn’t up on his history. It’s only recently that music listening at performances took on the reverence that he would like to see. For centuries, people would talk among themselves when listening to music in churches, and in concerts. Live music was, for a long time, a social event, where people would go to be seen. They would move around from box to box in theaters, or, if music was made at home, many of the people would be talking. Have you ever heard Bill Evans’ live recordings from the Village Vanguard in 1961? Did you notice the voices and sounds of ice cubes in glasses? There was no solemn silence in jazz clubs back then; people took in the music the way they wanted.

Some people want to turn music into religion. I understand that it’s important for many people (as it is to me), but there’s no need to tell people how they have to listen. I listen to music a lot when I walk; often when I read. But I don’t just leave music on like a running faucet to make sure there’s no silence.

On the other hand, I find Morrison’s approach to be a form of escapism. Silence is not just golden, it is part of the mystery of life. Guttenberg is right when he suggests:

So if you’ve never really focused on your favorite music, try this simple experiment: listen for 10 minutes in a quiet room with your eyes closed. Who knows? Perhaps the more you really listen, the more you’ll want to focus on the music.

The problem is that nearly everyone, in such a situation, will be so overwhelmed by their thoughts that they won’t even appreciate the silence. I’d wager that most people who claim to listen to music attentively are also flitting around in their minds, using the music as a soundtrack for caroming thoughts and ideas.

And then, yes indeed, Guttenberg pulls out the vinyl card. He claims that people listening to vinyl “stopped multitasking and listened.” Yep. Vinyl is better, it helps strengthen your mind and gives you firmer muscles. Come on!

No, there’s no one way to listen to music. Listen any way you want, with good headphones or crappy earbuds, with titanium alloy cables or a boom box; just listen to the music.

Share this article:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedIn

How Hi-Fi Magazines Write about Cables, Part 7

Just in case you thought What Hi-Fi? was the only magazine out there spewing out reviews about magical hi-fi equipment and accessories, here’s another one I found on the Stereophile web site. I have a feeling that the shelf is going to become the next cable; an audiophile device that contains pixie powder and makes everything sound better.

Here’s a review of a shelf. You don’t need to read the whole thing, but the last paragraph I quote may be the best I’ve read so far:

The Pagode Master Reference HD07 rack really did work—at least with components that had an onboard power supply. Each such component I tried, from the lightest line stage to massive, two-chassis CD players, sounded better sitting on the FE rack than on my Bright Star or Merrill stand. Their focus, resolution, and dynamic precision were all slightly but consistently improved; my listening comments were peppered with such phrases as “faster, cleaner dynamics” and “sharper, more dimensional images.”

Alain Lombard and the Paris Opéra-Comique’s recording of Delibes’ Lakmé was a good example. As I moved each component in turn onto the HD07 rack [...] the image of soprano Mady Mesplé became clearer and more solid. Her vocal nuances were more apparent, and I was able to better hear the trailing edges of her phrases. The rear and sides of the soundstage opened up a bit as well, and the space surrounding the performers seemed more transparent.

Repeating the exercise with two different digital systems and Dire Straits’ “Private Investigations,” from Love Over Gold, produced a similar result, but what I really noticed was the improvement in detail resolution. As each component moved onto the HD07, a bit more low-level detail emerged from the background. Distinguishing the multiple echoes around the scuffing shoes traversing the stage was one great example; another was the emerging presence of several different, distinct effects around Mark Knopfler’s speaking voice.

But it gets better. The reviewer added special feet under the shelf.

On the other hand, installing a set of Ceraball or Cerapuc feet under a component was a huge, jaw-dropping change. The differences were the same—improved focus, transparency, resolution, and dynamic precision—but their magnitude was much larger. Slipping a trio of Ceraballs under the VTL TL-7.5 wasn’t like demagnetizing a cartridge; it was like upgrading to a really good moving-coil. And dressing cables? Forget it—this improvement was like replacing all of my freebie and Home Depot wire with a good set of high-end cables.

There he goes, talking about cables…

But I’ve saved the best for last:

Like a kid in a candy store, I kept adding more and more Cera feet. The effects were similar with each step, and similarly dramatic. The biggest improvements came when I slipped Cerapucs under my VTL Ichiban power amplifiers and between my turntable stand’s steel frame and marble top plate. The soundstage became significantly cleaner and the picture snapped into focus. Images inflated from two dimensions to three. The performers on Lakmé felt more like real performers in a real space than like a portrait. And when I played the Oscar Petersen Trio’s Return Engagement I noticed several dramatic improvements. Dynamic transients sounded 10–20% bigger, and the piano had much more inner detail and complexity and a richer, more distinct tonal balance. The bass was more powerful and much tighter.

“Images inflated from two dimensions to three.” The guy’s on acid; that’s the only explanation.

The reviewer is quite precise here: “Dynamic transients sounded 10–20% bigger.” Can we see measurements please?

Oh, the shelf costs $6,195. The feet another $2.200. But the reviewer has “about $100,000 worth of gear,” so it’s no big deal.

Share this article:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedIn

How Hi-Fi Magazines Write about Cables, Part 6

In this episode, we discover that What Hi-Fi? actually likes MP3 files. In an article about the new Sony Music Unlimited, they use adjectives generally only applied to expensive cables.

And then comes the major problem with the quality on offer. On the one hand, its 320kbps high-quality streams are among our favourite sounding on test, with impressive detail levels, precise note formation and a warm and exciting character.

Reading the above, it sounds like Sony’s MP3s are somehow better than others. “Precise note formation…?” Give me a break.

Share this article:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedIn

CD and DVD Copying to Be Legal in the UK on June 1; Finally

As crazy as it sounds, it’s been illegal in the UK to rip CDs and DVDs. New copyright regulations which take effect on June 1, now make this legal:

Personal copies for private use

3. (1) After section 28A(4) insert——

“28B Personal copies for private use

(1) The making of a copy of a work, other than a computer program, by an individual does not infringe copyright in the work provided that the copy—

(a)is a copy of—
(i)the individual’s own copy of the work, or
(ii)a personal copy of the work made by the individual,
(b)is made for the individual’s private use, and
(c)is made for ends which are neither directly nor indirectly commercial.


(5) In subsection (1)(b) “private use” includes private use facilitated by the making of a copy—

(a)as a back up copy,
(b)for the purposes of format-shifting, or
(c)for the purposes of storage, including in an electronic storage area accessed by means of the internet or similar means which is accessible only by the individual (and the person responsible for the storage area).

Finally. I won’t be breaking the law when I rip my CDs and DVDs.

Share this article:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedIn

How Hi-Fi Magazines Write about Cables, Part 4

I really wasn’t planning to write about this any more, but the What Hi-Fi? journalist who believes in magic has doubled down, explaining in detail the testing process and why he is convinced that it works.

His explanation includes things like “We run all cables overnight if not longer,” the myth that all hi-fi gear has to be “broken in,” even digital cables. And he admits that the tests aren’t blind:

We’ve experimented with blind testing over the years but it’s not part of our standard review process for any products.

And, regarding Ethernet cables, he says:

I understand what’s being said. But, I’ve recently been part of a listening session where, in my opinion, I heard differences between such cables, so I can’t really agree.

This is just sad.

Let’s assume there’s something going wrong with an Ethernet cable, and some packets get lost. It would – at its worst, with a lot of packet loss – sound like a damaged CD. You’ve probably had a few, where you get noisy clicks when playing an old, worn CD. That’s the worst that could happen.

So imagine the difference between, say, a cheap Ethernet cable, and a very expensive one. The most difference there would be is a lack of errors, which wouldn’t manifest as clicks in an Ethernet transfer, but probably very, very tiny dropouts. (The cable itself does not manage error correction, but the TCP/IP protocol used on data networks does.)

I actually can’t find any reviews of Ethernet cables on their site, but I did find some of USB cables. Here’s one for a £50 USB cable:

The gains in low-end body and punch, midrange spaciousness and detail, and high-end smoothness alone are significant.

This is simply bullshit. If there is zero packet loss because of this more expensive cable, at best the music will sound exactly the way it sounds at the source. If there is packet loss, there may be some dropout, but no loss in “spaciousness and detail,” or “high-end smoothness.”

The best way to understand this is to read this Cnet article, Why all HDMI cables are the same. Geoffrey Morrison explains – and shows with pictures – what happens if there’s something wrong with an HDMI cable. You can see the sparkles in the images with bad cables; this is what you’d get from a bad USB or Ethernet cable, and you can imagine that it would affect music. As the author says:

If you’re paying more than $5 for a 2-meter HDMI cable, you’re overpaying.

Share this article:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedIn

Which Hard Disk Makes High-Resolution Music Sound Best, or What Makes Audiophiles Tick?

Following up on yesterday’s article about expensive Ethernet cables used in audiophile audio systems, and related to a recent article about why high-resolution music is a marketing ploy, I toss out a question for audiophiles. If things such as cables make a difference, what about hard disks? Has anyone done testing on hard disks, to see which makes music sound better? Do SSDs sound better than spinning-platter hard disks?

What about system busses? They must have an effect too. They could introduce jitter, even when playing music on a computer. And RAM? Is there any audiophile-grade RAM to ensure the proper “tonal neutrality” and “strong dynamics” of the music you listen to?

The ridiculous claims made by audiophiles do more harm than good to the audio industry in general. They allow companies to produce hugely overpriced equipment, and sell it to credulous people, but they also influence the entire audio equipment market, making us low-end people think that we don’t know how to listen to music, with a fair amount of contempt at times.

Yes, there are audio elements that make a difference. No one can deny that speakers and headphones sound very different[1]; that’s no surprise, because they actually create sound (i.e., they convert electrical signals into air waves, which we, in turn, perceive as sound). DACs can make a difference: the cheap DAC in a $30 CD player will be bested by a standalone DAC, or one in a more expensive player, because they are responsible for converting digital signals to sound signals. And there are certainly valid reasons, other than sound, for purchasing a more expensive amplifier: it may have more features, more inputs and outputs, or may be esthetically pleasing.

But what about all the other elements of an audio system? There sure are lots of them, and, according to audiophiles, altering any of them should have an effect on sound.

Assuming that you listen to music on a computer – which is the most complex audio chain – here are the elements that come into play:

  • Power supply
  • Power cable
  • Computer (I won’t isolate all the elements inside a computer that should influence sound, if audiophile theories are accepted)
  • Sound card (if using an analog output)
  • Digital interconnect: USB / Toslink / Ethernet cable (if using a digital output)
  • DAC (digital-analog converter, if used)
  • Audio interconnects: cables from DAC to pre-amplifier to amplifier, or from computer to pre-amplifier or amplifier
  • Pre-amplifier (if used)
  • Amplifier
  • Speaker cables
  • Speakers
  • Headphone amplifier (if used)
  • Headphones (if used)
  • Listening environment (which has much more effect on sound than most people realize)

According to audiophiles, changing any one of those items should affect the resulting sound. And they claim to be able to hear the difference between, say, a power cable or an audio interconnect among that complex chain.

There are two ways of testing such things. One is a purely subjective test; you hook up a new item and decide whether it sounds better. This is clearly influenced by many factors, notably differences in volume, or simply a desire to reinforce beliefs that a new cable, for example, really does sound better. The second method is ABX testing, where listeners hear different items, but don’t know what they’re listening to. While the former method is almost entirely subjective, the latter is fairly objective. Dozens of ABX tests have shown that people simply can’t hear the difference between different components, showing that, in most cases, the difference in price does not translate to a difference in quality. There have been tests that show that coat hangers sound as good as expensive speaker cables, and that all amplifiers sound the same.

So when these ABX tests show such results, and challenge audiophiles and their expenditures, they come up with another explanation: that the concept of ABX tests is flawed. “The answer is that blind listening tests fundamentally distort the listening process and are worthless in determining the audibility of a certain phenomenon.” They have to defend their choices to spend a lot of money on audio equipment.

You would think that, if all these elements made such a difference, recording engineers would use them to ensure the best possible capture of music. But this isn’t the case. As I recently wrote, I found it interesting, when attending a classical recording session in a church, that no expensive cabling was used, just “miles of copper.”

I care about music; a lot. I care about sound; only if it is in service to the music. I don’t have cheap audio equipment, but my setups are around the high end of consumer audio pricing. Because that’s what it’s worth paying; when you pay more, the quality differences become miniscule. I have a full stereo in my office, with good speakers, and I use several different headphones. But it’s a shame to keep reading reviews of things like cables that are simply made up. If all these elements made a difference in sound, then it would be easy to tell them apart. The fact that one can’t tell the difference in blind testing shows that this is an industry built on feet of clay.

  1. Several months ago, I went to a hi-fi store to listen to a number of headphones. I listened to several Grado headphones, and there was a clear difference in clarity across different models; the more expensive ones sounded better. But that doesn’t mean that any headphones at the same price would sound good. I also tried out Bower & Wilkins’ P5 portable headphones, which were nearly as expensive as the best Grados I tested. I disliked their sound very much; it was too bassy for me. So there’s a lot of personal taste that goes into things like speakers and headphones; it may not be the most expensive that sound “best.”  ↩

Share this article:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedIn

How Hi-Fi Magazines Write about Cables, and When They Copy and Paste Reviews

Following yesterday’s article about expensive digital cables and journalists who believe in magic, I thought I’d have a look at how What Hi-Fi? – the magazine for which said journalist pens his reviews – actually writes about cables.

Much of my work involves reviews: professionally, I review apps and music, but I also review books, films and theater productions here on my website. So I know a bit about what it takes to write a review, and the kind of content one needs to write. A review should present a product, and explain what is good (or not) about it, if possible by comparing it to other, similar products.

Apparently, hi-fi cable reviews don’t get that kind of treatment. Here’s one, for a £185, 0.5m digital cable:

Clearly this is a premium cable for premium systems – to connect a CD player to a DAC, perhaps.

But the Clearer Audio Optimus will win you around once you plug it in. It’s a terrific sounding cable, outgunning the opposition for bass depth, midrange drive, treble purity and soundstage openness.

Its chunky Super Suppressor collars make it stand out – so does the brilliance of its sound.

That’s it; that’s the extent of this magazine’s review of a cable that costs £185. You’d think they’d try a little harder, and at least make up some reason why it sounds better, rather than just write four sentences stuffed with fluff.

Two points here. First, for something that pricey, there’s no excuse for such a short review. Second, how much time can the journalist have spent testing this cable to only come up with 66 words, only half of which describe the cable?

Here’s another one, for a £1,000 analog cable (1 m):

Some people will never be able to get past the Indigo Plus’s hefty price. But, expensive though it is, used in the right set-up these interconnects are extraordinary.

Those with systems below the five grand mark shouldn’t even think about getting them. It only really starts to make sense with systems at around double that.

The original Indigo was dynamic, bold and musical in a way that eluded most rivals.

The ‘Plus’ is noticeably cleaner, unearthing even more subtle details. The differences aren’t of the night and day variety, but they are enough for the Plus to keep the Indigo at the cutting edge of high-end interconnects

Out of all that – a whopping 109 words – only half of the review talks about the cable, with just this to actually describe it (in comparison to an earlier model):

The ‘Plus’ is noticeably cleaner, unearthing even more subtle details.

Or how about this, for a £750 cable (1 m):

We know there are many readers who will never get past the price of these Atlas cables. Thankfully for Atlas, these cables are great performers in the context of an appropriate system.

We’re quite fond of the 15 percent rule, which says that you should spend that percentage of the total system cost on cable.

Start thinking of the Mavros in the context of a 20-grand-plus system and the price doesn’t seem so outlandish, particularly when you hear just how clearly this pairing out-performs cheaper, quality competition.

Neutral, detailed and smooth
As you would expect, the Mavros sound is very much in the Atlas mould: it’s neutral, detailed and smooth without blandness, except here it’s to a higher level than we’ve heard from the brand.

Listen to Beethoven’s 5th and the cables deliver a greater level of insight and stronger dynamics than most other cables we’ve tested.

It’ll come as much down to taste and careful system matching as anything else, but either way, at this end of the market, the Mavros makes a strong case for itself.

Now that’s a much longer review; but less than half of it talks about the cable. And there’s one glaring sentence that cannot escape the attention of classical music listeners:

Listen to Beethoven’s 5th and the cables deliver a greater level of insight and stronger dynamics than most other cables we’ve tested.

Which “Beethoven’s 5th?” When was it recorded? How? Was it recorded in analog or digital? If I search Amazon.com, I find 276 hits for “beethoven 5th symphony”, and that’s just on CD. Would any Beethoven’s 5th benefit from “a greater level of insight and stronger dynamics?”

But it gets better. The above review was for an audio interconnect; that’s the cable that you run from, say, a CD player to an amplifier. But look here, at a review for speaker cables from the same company: it’s exactly the same review! Word for word; it’s a copy and paste (though the header, Neutral, detailed and smooth, has been removed from the speaker cable review). Speaker cables and audio interconnects are two totally different kinds of cable, and it would surprise me that it is possible to say exactly the same thing about two different kinds of cable.

These people are charlatans.

Share this article:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedIn