Forum » Feedback and Ideas

Increase in sound quality

 
    • Nozu82 sa...
    • Användare
    • 21 sep 2009, 20:45
    I agree! The last.fm sound quality is just plain awful! I wish that they would increase the bit-rate to at least 192kbit/s!

    -Soon to be Ex-Subscriber if the quality won't get any better than this...

    • tburny sa...
    • Forum Moderator
    • 23 sep 2009, 07:55
    I guess most of the mp3's are acceptable to listen and the other part just isn't.
    Yesterday I heard the "My Library" station and qualitiy was ok. Now I tuned it again and came to this song. Such a good song, but the quality.....is like from a youtube video,,,,
    I'm using a Sennheiser headset, so it's definitvely not my speakers.

    Maybe a function for reporting bad sound quality of tracks would be good, as I guess not all tracks are affected by the quality issue.....

    Combo.fm: Combine your favourite radio stations! | My Blog | scala-lastfmapi | Cache2k - A high performance Java in-memory cache
    P.S.: Do not click here
    throw new PokemonException(); //Gotta catch 'em all
    My forum post reflects my personal opinion :)
  • Here's another vote for better sound quality. It's not bad, but at the first few songs of my trial period I thought, hmm I wonder if you can up the quality as a subscriber. Now that I am a subscriber I'm not bummed out that it's not possible (if it was that important I would have looked first) but even on my computer speakers I can hear that the quality isn't always that great.

    I would most definitely pay for higher quality.

    By the way, I didn't know that bitrate had anything to do with licensing. Is that a law in the States, or is it something that Last.FM has agreed upon (or had to agree upon) with artists?

    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 10 okt 2009, 17:49
    Any chance of Last.fm getting something like DFX that we could run in conjunction with the radio?

    • omgllgmo sa...
    • Användare
    • 14 okt 2009, 16:51
    [spam removed]

    Redigerad av foreverautumn den 14 okt 2009, 17:41
  • [spam removed]

    [spam removed]
    Redigerad av foreverautumn den 16 okt 2009, 17:48
    • Primoz sa...
    • Användare
    • 3 dec 2009, 01:09
    Any news regarding this issue?

  • We receive our audio content from a number of different sources - record labels, aggregators, direct uploads etc. and due to the sheer volume of this it is impossible for us to actually listen to every new song we receive. We run a number of automated checks to detect corrupt mp3s but we can't catch everything especially something like sound quality which is subjective. If you have specific examples of songs which sound bad you can post them here and we can take a look as we don't currently have any tools that allow tracks to be marked as "broken" (but this would be handy in certain cases).

    • akrde sa...
    • Användare
    • 8 dec 2009, 14:25
    massdosage said:
    We receive our audio content from a number of different sources - record labels, aggregators, direct uploads etc. and due to the sheer volume of this it is impossible for us to actually listen to every new song we receive.


    Every heard of Crowdsourcing? ;-)

    Just implement a flagging system and let us help you detecting bad quality or corrupt or wrong tracks.

    • dabernal sa...
    • Användare
    • 26 dec 2009, 21:59

    Another vote

    I stopped to use last.fm because of the bad quality of some of the songs, as others say, you can definitely identify the difference from a bass or battery or even string instruments. My collection is actually in FLAC, and when go portable AAC+ 128k+ coded with WinAmp.

    -D
  • I want 160kbit at least!!!! PLEASE! Maybe as a special for the people who PAY MONEY for last.fm radio!

    • tburny sa...
    • Forum Moderator
    • 29 dec 2009, 22:19
    Maybe (re-)encoding the whole music into ogg would have two advantages:
    -Better sound and compression
    -Firefox 3.5 supports playing ogg directly ;)

    Combo.fm: Combine your favourite radio stations! | My Blog | scala-lastfmapi | Cache2k - A high performance Java in-memory cache
    P.S.: Do not click here
    throw new PokemonException(); //Gotta catch 'em all
    My forum post reflects my personal opinion :)
  • another vote for better bitrates..

  • Purchased Upgrade to 256kbps

    I am one of the many people who would gladly pay monthly for 256kbps. Personally, analog is my favorite but when it comes to digital music I can blatantly hear the difference between 128 and 256 or even 192. The bass reflex is ENTIRELY different and 128kbps sounds extremely flat. Considering I spend a good $20 on music a month I would gladly pay, say, $15 for the same quality as a download+ the benefit of Last.fm's sort of shuffling/discovery ability

    just sayin...

    "...you can't have a revolution if the music ain't right."
  • No listenable difference between 128kbit and 256kbit

    Uh ... as I read this statement, I though: The person must be deaf. You don't need an AKG/Sennheiser/Westone and so on headphone to really hear the big difference between 128 and 256. I have an abonnement but I'm very unhappy with the sound quality. I would pay 50% more to get the music @ 256. With VBR its possible to reduce the necessary bandwith. And Mobbler & Co (last.fm clients) automaticly change from higher to lower kbit (128->64) if the necessary bandwith is not aviable (eg. changing from 3G to GSM). So the argument of different user = different bandwith is refuted. And a lot of people use quality in-ears on their mobile phones - you hear the big difference of dynamic and quality between 128 -> 256/320!

  • Sometimes I also hear songs that are of ... lesser quality ... witch ticks me of a lot....

    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 12 feb 2010, 03:53
    signed. i wouldnt even consider subscribing with the current audio quality of the radio.

  • wow... people do bitch about the stupidest things... I wish I had that luxury. The quality is fine.

  • upgrade to lossloss quality please - whatever it costs

    I think an "audiophile's upgrade" would be a good idea.
    I have about 170 CDs, that i konverted to FLAC. I am listening to them over foobar2000 -> ASIO driver plugin -> M-Audio-Audio-Interface -> 2 ADAM AUDIO A7 Studio Monitor Speakers (400€ each).
    Sometimes i think "You gotta be kidding me!"
    crash sounds and other brilliant tones are just a sad joke. Bass is .... where the HELL is the BASS???
    I really would appreciate the possibility to have the same sound quality from Last.fm as from my foobar.
    I am willing to pay for it and so are others.
    If it is a bandwith problem let the price be based on Data volume.
    Only if a song is available in higher quality the data is counted.
    Classical Music would profit most from beeing lossless i guess AND the bandwith would be smaller than a loud rock song beeing lossless. (If you want proof for that contact me)
    Also another Button next to "love", "ban", "next" only for audiophile's upgrade subscriber with "please upgrade sound quality" would be great.
    Of course if starting with lossless quality, last.fm would have to start getting all Music again - it would need time.

    • tburny sa...
    • Forum Moderator
    • 14 feb 2010, 00:03
    I guess an subscriber's upgrade to higher quality(where's the super-subscribers thing gone btw?) would need major changes to the radio system, too.
    Currently the streaming server gives a boost so the client has a buffer and then streams with a constant bitrate of 128 kbit/s...
    And I guess it will take more that 6-12 months to re-encode all the tracks in lets say 192 kbit/s (though could be vbr to save some traffic?)

    Combo.fm: Combine your favourite radio stations! | My Blog | scala-lastfmapi | Cache2k - A high performance Java in-memory cache
    P.S.: Do not click here
    throw new PokemonException(); //Gotta catch 'em all
    My forum post reflects my personal opinion :)
  • of course it would need time.
    that's why quality upgrade subscribers would only pay for the tracks in better quality.
    how the pricing is made then - there one (maybe we?) have to hink about.

    I guess if last.fm is not doing this - some other website will do.
    modern technology makes it possible to have better audio-quality everywhere and cheaper. at some point people will recognise the crappi audio and turn away.
    especially if there is an attractive alternative there with higher audio quality.

    maybe if last.fm would work together with artists, they would give them especially made masters in lossless audio for the radio. (not thAT overcompressed loud stuff, that is pressed on cds ... -> youtube - "loudness war")

    so dear last.fm
    do think about this!
    if you're not there is surely some other company.

  • Primoz said:
    At 256 kbits or somewhere thereabout i would REALLY consider buying a premium account. heck, at 36 € a year, i probably would, since last.fm always throws up freakishly good songs, unlike Winamp's random (where you just click next). However, even when it was free, i noticed the quality severely lacking, and i'm not using a top of the line system (only a lowly Kenwood HM-332, connected to the PC via the AUX inputs). I normally listen to V0 MP3s, which are all encoded from CDs/FLAC.

    So yeah, think about upping the quality. I can understand the bandwidth would be a problem, but since it's mandatory to subscribe in all but 3 countries, i can only see fitting to do so. Spotify for example provides a 320 kbit stream, but what good is that, if it doesn't have my listening habbits and can't throw up rocking songs every single time?


    This is true. I pay the £10 ($15.90) a month for the Spotify subscription specifically because I can get get 320 kbps Ogg on new music. It's not all 320k but the new records are and I find the difference noticeable above 192kbps.

    I don't think that very many people are paying the subscription here and I think that the problem is that, other than the free service (which is very good), you're not giving us very much to buy that we can't get elsewhere.

    • Gakboi sa...
    • Användare
    • 2 mar 2010, 21:59
    Jonty said:
    Most people can't tell the difference between 128k mp3 and anything above that (as long as it's encoded well).

    --jonty


    Sorry but you are very wrong. Even the people who don't consciously notice the quality difference still get tired of listening to the lack of dynamic on ***** quality mp3's and turn off the music because their ears can't handle it. To say what you said shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how the human ear works while displaying a disregard/respect for your customers.

    I have signed up to Spotify's premium service because I get what I want. 320k Ogg. Worth every penny. Many of my friends have done the same and agree. It's very sad that a service with such amazing potential as last.fm has shot itself in the foot over such small operational flaw in encoding music.

    I guess last.fm will soon learn the hard way from it's mistakes and follow myspace to the scrap heap.

    Gakboi
    • flapane sa...
    • Användare
    • 3 mar 2010, 17:37
    No, Gakboy.
    That's all a subjective matter.
    I can say 90% of my friend can't tell if a song is more or less compressed, the main motto is "as long as I can hear it it's ok".
    That's not a matter of knowing how the human ear works, but of how normal people listen carefully to a song.
    You'd better say that lastfm users, being more or less audio/web geeks, do pay attention to audio quality.
    Some months ago I switched from mp3 128kbps to flac+nero AAC -q0.55 for every single song.
    It was a pain in the a**, but at least it was worth it. I won't persuade any friend that it was worth, by the way.
    Do you get what I mean? 128kbps mp3 still remains the standard de facto.

    Flapane - www.flapane.com
    • vitos sa...
    • Användare
    • 3 mar 2010, 19:42
    Sorry but you are very wrong. Even the people who don't consciously notice the quality difference still get tired of listening to the lack of dynamic on ***** quality mp3's and turn off the music because their ears can't handle it.
    Sorry Gakboi, but mp3 compression imho is the last cause of lack of dynamic in music (or maybe by 'dynamic' you mean something else)... It's all in mastering. I invite you to read some information about Loudness War issues.

    I agree that 128k is very low especially for paid service, but with a good mp3 encoder it can sound at least 'properly'. The problem is much content here on Last FM is uploaded already in mediocre quality, encoded with bad software (transients lost, warbly 'unterwater' sound)...

Anonyma användare kan inte skriva inlägg. Vänligen logga in eller skapa ett konto för att göra inlägg i forumen.