[Earbones]

Amazon Music HD is one of the best options for high-resolution music on DAPs available- on paper. It appears to have more high-resolution albums than just about anybody, and unlike competitors, features EQ and volume normalization right in the Android app.

However, whenever I investigate the actual bit-perfect compatibility of Amazon Music with a specific DAP, I always seem to get the same response from the manufacturer… That due to how the Amazon Music HD app initiates playback, bit-perfect playback is impossible. This is the response even from DAP manufacturers that incorporate various proprietary softwares to defeat Android’s SRC, allowing all other high-resolution streaming services (that would otherwise be down-sampled by the Android OS) to play bit-perfectly.

The summary of these responses is always the same… It’s not a (insert Android-based DAP X here) problem… it’s an Amazon Music HD problem.

So somebody kick down some logic. What, exactly, IS the problem with Amazon Music HD and Android playback? Why is it seemingly impossible to implement bit-perfect playback with most Android-based DAPs, no matter how much software wizardry a manufacturer throws at the issue? How can Amazon change this?

 

[gregorio]

So somebody kick down some logic. What, exactly, IS the problem with Amazon Music HD and Android playback? Why is it seemingly impossible to implement bit-perfect playback with most Android-based DAPs, no matter how much software wizardry a manufacturer throws at the issue? How can Amazon change this?

The logic is that bit perfect playback doesn't really exist anyway. Virtually all DACs and DAPs sample rate convert (oversample) and alter the bits as part of the conversion process anyway and those few that don't, loose fidelity from not doing so. And of course the features you mentioned, EQ and volume normalisation, alter the bits too. In addition, music recording and mixing involves at least one and typically several sample rate conversions (and bit depth conversions).

Taking all this into account and the fact that SRC should be completely audibly transparent anyway, I presume that Amazon is rightly more concerned about compatibility over a range of devices than bit-perfect playback.

G

 

[Earbones]

The logic is that bit perfect playback doesn't really exist anyway. Virtually all DACs and DAPs sample rate convert (oversample) and alter the bits as part of the conversion process anyway and those few that don't, loose fidelity from not doing so. And of course the features you mentioned, EQ and volume normalisation, alter the bits too. In addition, music recording and mixing involves at least one and typically several sample rate conversions (and bit depth conversions).

Taking all this into account and the fact that SRC should be completely audibly transparent anyway, I presume that Amazon is rightly more concerned about compatibility over a range of devices than bit-perfect playback.

G

Okay, sure, I’m aware of all that. And perhaps I could have worded things more concisely, but the larger questions my post implies, and the only things anyone really cares about, remain unanswered. Is Amazon playing on Android-based DAPs at the lowest possible resolution they offer music in, as some DAP manufacturers state? And if so, why does Amazon block playback in the higher resolutions? Or close to those resolutions, if we want to entertain semantics?

Also, with respect, the statement that Amazon is “rightly more concerned about compatibility over a range of devices than bit-perfect playback” would seem to suggest a couple of things we know are not true. Firstly, that literally every other high-resolution streaming service that does manage to offer (close to) bit-perfect playback on Android must not be concerned about device compatibility. And secondly, that (close to) bit-perfect high-resolution playback on Android and compatibility with a wide array of devices are somehow almost mutually exclusive endeavors, or at least very difficult to simultaneously achieve … which we know is not the case. I mean, even Apple -which has always only grudgingly coded for devices outside their ecosystem- manages both (close to) bit-perfect high-resolution streaming on Android, and compatibility with a wide range of devices. If doing both was at all a hassle, they would be the first guys to dial back to low-resolution on Android and call it a day. So clearly it’s something they were able to implement without a whole lot of trouble.

So what is the problem with Amazon?

 

[bfreedma]

Okay, sure, I’m aware of all that. And perhaps I could have worded things more concisely, but the larger questions my post implies, and the only things anyone really cares about, remain unanswered. Is Amazon playing on Android-based DAPs at the lowest possible resolution they offer music in, as some DAP manufacturers state? And if so, why does Amazon block playback in the higher resolutions? Or close to those resolutions, if we want to entertain semantics?

Also, with respect, the statement that Amazon is “rightly more concerned about compatibility over a range of devices than bit-perfect playback” would seem to suggest a couple of things we know are not true. Firstly, that literally every other high-resolution streaming service that does manage to offer (close to) bit-perfect playback on Android must not be concerned about device compatibility. And secondly, that (close to) bit-perfect high-resolution playback on Android and compatibility with a wide array of devices are somehow almost mutually exclusive endeavors, or at least very difficult to simultaneously achieve … which we know is not the case. I mean, even Apple -which has always only grudgingly coded for devices outside their ecosystem- manages both (close to) bit-perfect high-resolution streaming on Android, and compatibility with a wide range of devices. If doing both was at all a hassle, they would be the first guys to dial back to low-resolution on Android and call it a day. So clearly it’s something they were able to implement without a whole lot of trouble.

So what is the problem with Amazon?

its not a “problem”. Amazon is aware of their market and the reality is, less than 1% care about bit perfect delivery. Given the large ecosystem of devices they would need to cover and the minimal business drivers in play, there is no reason to prioritize development of this feature.

My strong suspicion is that they are simply willing to lose a very small number of customers to avoid the expense and added complexity. Not all business is good business…

 

[Earbones]

Expanding a music streaming service to include high-resolution music is expensive and time-consuming, both from a technical perspective, and a curating and licensing one. Amazon spent around four hundred million dollars doing it.

Amazon Music’s total number of subscribers sits at around 55 million- that figure encompasses the Amazon Music Free tier, the Prime tier, and the pay-subscripton Unlimited tier. 1% of 55 million is 550,000. So if Amazon believes that only 1% of their listeners care about high-resolution music, then it appears they definitely are not willing to lose that small number of customers to avoid expense and added complexity. In fact, they are willing to spend an insane amount of money to keep said customers. Insomuch as they have knowingly spent roughly $730 on each of them. Just to keep them happy.

But then again, that math doesn’t really track when you consider that only the pay subscription, the Unlimited tier, features high-resolution tracks in the first place, right? So if we’re calculating that 1%, we should be crunching numbers from that pool, because that’s the pool where this tiny contingent of customers who care about bit-prefect high-resolution music will be.

Let’s be optimistic and say that fully half of the 55 million total Amazon Music subscribers skip the free tier, skip the tier included with their Prime account, and pony up the extra dough for the Unlimited tier. So now we’re at 27.5 million subscribers… and 1% of that is 275,000. Divide that 400 million dollar expenditure by that number, and we see that Bezos and compny knowingly spent a whopping $1,455 for each and every one of the listeners that Amazon believes care about bit-perfect high-resolution music. Now THAT is customer service.

Or it could be that Amazon believes a lot more than 1% of their Unlimited tier subscribers care about high resolution music, and spending that 400 million had nothing to do with some sort of grand gesture for a tiny portion of their listeners, but was just about increasing the value of their service and netting more subscribers. But I refuse to believe something so jaded and cynical during Christmas time.

Okay, I’ll stop now, ha ha.

Is there anybody who wants to weigh in that actually knows the technical reasons as to why Amazon won’t push high-resolution on Android?

 

[Andrew_WOT]

They had Prime, Unlimited, and HD before. And now just Prime and Unlimited with HD as a freebie. Guess good portion going for Unlimited, that existed even before HD, just care about getting access to full library regardless of the quality.
Really sad as from programming perspective it's literally just few hours of coding and testing. And they added Exclusive mode which makes it even stranger if they didn't care about hi-fi quality at all.

 

[bfreedma]

Expanding a music streaming service to include high-resolution music is expensive and time-consuming, both from a technical perspective, and a curating and licensing one. Amazon spent around four hundred million dollars doing it.

Amazon Music’s total number of subscribers sits at around 55 million- that figure encompasses the Amazon Music Free tier, the Prime tier, and the pay-subscripton Unlimited tier. 1% of 55 million is 550,000. So if Amazon believes that only 1% of their listeners care about high-resolution music, then it appears they definitely are not willing to lose that small number of customers to avoid expense and added complexity. In fact, they are willing to spend an insane amount of money to keep said customers. Insomuch as they have knowingly spent roughly $730 on each of them. Just to keep them happy.

But then again, that math doesn’t really track when you consider that only the pay subscription, the Unlimited tier, features high-resolution tracks in the first place, right? So if we’re calculating that 1%, we should be crunching numbers from that pool, because that’s the pool where this tiny contingent of customers who care about bit-prefect high-resolution music will be.

Let’s be optimistic and say that fully half of the 55 million total Amazon Music subscribers skip the free tier, skip the tier included with their Prime account, and pony up the extra dough for the Unlimited tier. So now we’re at 27.5 million subscribers… and 1% of that is 275,000. Divide that 400 million dollar expenditure by that number, and we see that Bezos and compny knowingly spent a whopping $1,455 for each and every one of the listeners that Amazon believes care about bit-perfect high-resolution music. Now THAT is customer service.

Or it could be that Amazon believes a lot more than 1% of their Unlimited tier subscribers care about high resolution music, and spending that 400 million had nothing to do with some sort of grand gesture for a tiny portion of their listeners, but was just about increasing the value of their service and netting more subscribers. But I refuse to believe something so jaded and cynical during Christmas time.

Okay, I’ll stop now, ha ha.

Is there anybody who wants to weigh in that actually knows the technical reasons as to why Amazon won’t push high-resolution on Android?

Before even bothering with your math, where did you come up with Amazon spending $400 million exclusively on high resolution music? Not on acquiring other companies, just on content licensing and distribution. Please post a link to evidence supporting your claim.

You're massively overestimating both the cost and difficulty of expanding an existing music service to include hi-res. And Amazon’s cost is less than other services given that they run on their own AWS infrastructure, so iterative processing cost is minimal. The internal chargeback costs from AWS to other Amazon business units is far less than what Amazon charges the public, so the uplift cost differential for high res isn‘t substantial. I don’t have the exact numbers for this (nor do you), but based on transaction volume and internal chargeback rates, it would be nearly impossible for the infrastructure uplift to be in excess of $10M.

There is no technical barrier - what you want simply isn’t a business driver for Amazon. If it was, it would have been developed. Everyone wants to find a complex reason when the business rational is simple and direct. The only reason Amazon added high res was to remain feature competitive with the other services when new buyers are comparing offerings. The reality is, once captured, far too low a percentage of those customers actually stream high res for them to be a market sector meaningful enough to develop solutions for. Again, if Amazon was losing meaningful volume of customers/revenue due to this, they would remediate the issue.

Companies the size of Amazon don’t guess when it comes to features - they study and survey their current and desired customer base and deliver based on the results. We tend to forget that as large a community as Head-Fi is, it’s a fraction of a fraction of a percent f the market. Very few people giv a thought as to music container format - they just want music to come out of a device when they want it to.

 

[gregorio]

Divide that 400 million dollar expenditure by that number, and we see that Bezos and compny knowingly spent a whopping $1,455 for each and every one of the listeners that Amazon believes care about bit-perfect high-resolution music. Now THAT is customer service.

No idea where you got those figures. Amazon, like all the other big players, know that Hi-res is just a marketing gimmick, that within the audible range, there is no higher resolution than good ol’ 16/44.

Providing hi-res then becomes only a question of marketing and competition. Hi-res was a great marketing term, it’s pretty self explanatory even though it was originally applied to a format that was arguably lower res than the already dominant format (CD). It’s been around over 20 years and has gained some traction, albeit in a tiny segment of the market. “Bit Perfect” however is not such a great marketing term, has not been marketed much and as mentioned before, can’t really be achieved anyway.

Maybe one day “bit perfect” will have been pushed by the audiophile marketers enough for it to have some marketing/competition value and then Amazon will implement it but until then, why bother?

G

 

[seeteeyou]

Amazon Music HD Is Still Lossy
https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/amazon-music-hd-is-still-lossy-r953

UPDATE: Amazon Music HD Is Still Lossy*
https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/update-amazon-music-hd-is-still-lossy-r961/

Audiophile Style Podcast: Episode 28 | OraStream Interview
https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/audiophilestyle/OraStream320.mp3
https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/podc...podcast-episode-28-orastream-interview-r1033/

For example, it’s fascinating to hear Frankie describe how Amazon Music HD works by slipping lower resolution audio into the middle of a high resolution track, and this being the reason Amazon can’t offer exclusive mode in its applications.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

When bandwidth drops you can either interrupt or lower bitrate, what Frankie describes is how most streaming services including their own OraStream work.
You can always download tracks if network is a suspect.

 

[Earbones]

No idea where you got those figures. Amazon, like all the other big players, know that Hi-res is just a marketing gimmick, that within the audible range, there is no higher resolution than good ol’ 16/44.

Providing hi-res then becomes only a question of marketing and competition. Hi-res was a great marketing term, it’s pretty self explanatory even though it was originally applied to a format that was arguably lower res than the already dominant format (CD). It’s been around over 20 years and has gained some traction, albeit in a tiny segment of the market. “Bit Perfect” however is not such a great marketing term, has not been marketed much and as mentioned before, can’t really be achieved anyway.

Maybe one day “bit perfect” will have been pushed by the audiophile marketers enough for it to have some marketing/competition value and then Amazon will implement it but until then, why bother?

G

A good friend is a VP of production at a major label, and was involved with the deal there. He extrapolated the numbers based on the other labels and the grunt work needed. I imagine his educated guess is pretty accurate.

Listen, your argument was short-sighted back when people were posting on this forum about when major streaming services were going to move to high-resolution. Now that they actually have, and spent fortunes to do so, the argument is, with respect, nonsensical. It is simply not a debate anymore as to whether or not streaming services are going to embrace high-resolution. They already have. They blew a lot of cash to do it. It’s a done deal. Debate over.

And to be clear, I know how the written word can be taken the wrong way, so let me be clear- I’m not trying to be a dick. It’s just that the point of this thread is to determine what the issue is with Amazon and Android-based DAPs, and, if any exists, what the workaround is. I do value your opinion, you’ve been on this forum longer than I have (and I’ve been on it too long, ha ha) so if you know something about this, I’m all ears.

 

[gregorio]

A good friend is a VP of production at a major label, and was involved with the deal there. He extrapolated the numbers based on the other labels and the grunt work needed. I imagine his educated guess is pretty accurate.

I’m not sure what a VP at a major label would know about Amazon’s internet infrastructure, it’s consumer playback hardware or the cost of modifying it’s player software. The only thing he could likely guess reasonably accurately is the licensing/royalty costs.

Listen, your argument was short-sighted back when people were posting on this forum about when major streaming services were going to move to high-resolution. Now that they actually have, and spent fortunes to do so, the argument is, with respect, nonsensical. It is simply not a debate anymore as to whether or not streaming services are going to embrace high-resolution. They already have. They blew a lot of cash to do it. It’s a done deal. Debate over.

I’m not sure they have spent fortunes to provide HR music. Sure, they’ve spent fortunes upgrading their infrastructure, hardware and software but to improve a wide range of streaming content, VOD for example, and relatively little specifically for HR music.

And to be clear, I know how the written word can be taken the wrong way, so let me be clear- I’m not trying to be a dick. It’s just that the point of this thread is to determine what the issue is with Amazon and Android-based DAPs, and, if any exists, what the workaround is.

And I explained what the likely issue is. From Amazon’s perspective, what’s the point in spending time and money to provide something that no one can discern? The only logical corporate answer to that question is marketing/competition. I can’t answer what workarounds there may or may not be.

I do value your opinion, you’ve been on this forum longer than I have (and I’ve been on it too long, ha ha) so if you know something about this, I’m all ears.

There only people who really know something about this are likely Amazon employees and they’re almost certainly contractually obligated not to discuss it. Maybe someone will come up with a real workaround, maybe a real workaround isn’t possible at this time or maybe, sometime in the future, Amazon will see enough of a marketing or competitive advantage in it to provide bit-perfect themselves.

G

 

[Earbones]

Well, I imagine he probably would have to have a working knowledge of Amazon’s infrastructure just to know how much to demand when they negotiate licensing, first rights, debuts, etc. Just for instance. In any event, he clearly knows a lot more about it than you or I, so armchair-quarterbacking his educated guess is probably a waste of time.

As for the rest of it… With respect, you and Bfreedma seem to be arguing the same point… that beyond paying for high-resolution music, advertising that they offer high-resolution music, and, in fact, offering high-resolution music that works on many platforms… the reality is that Amazon doesn’t really offer high-resolution music, nor are they really interested in doing so.

And maybe that’s true. But it’s a little conspiracy-theory, isn’t it? I mean, let’s Occam’s Razor this, shall we? What’s the simplest explanation?

1. Amazon has run a massive and expensive false-flag operation, pretending to embrace high-resolution music, when in reality they hate it and will never really offer it, and also kidnap any users who ask for it, and imprison them in the bowels of Blue Origin space vessels bound for distant planets, where they will be forced to live out their days mining The Spice and dodging giant sand-worms, all while listening to 16/44.1. Also, in this scenario, it probably just makes sense that Jeff Bezos has mutated into a giant wet blob that can manipulate space-time.

2. Amazon HD has some teething problems with Android.

 

[gregorio]

I’m sorry, I’m just laughing right now. This is literal idiocy.

I’m laughing too and agree it’s idiocy!

How else would you describe making up your own argument, arguing with yourself and then insulting someone else about it?

I did not say “never”, I said: “maybe, sometime in the future, Amazon will see enough of a marketing or competitive advantage in it to provide bit-perfect themselves.”

I mean, you realize it happend, right? It’s a thing.

If bit-perfect HR music already “happened” with Amazon, why did you start this thread and state the manufacturer of your DAP said it’s impossible?

I’m still laughing.

It just goes so well with the surrealist denial of something obviously and demonstrably real.

But you haven’t demonstrated anything! You came up with a guess of the cost, extrapolated from that a cost per 1% of customers ($1,455) who supposedly care about HR music and didn’t even consider the possibility that Amazon did it for the other 99% and future consumers purely on the basis of marketing and competition (EG. Not offering what competitors offer). Not to mention that no one outside of Amazon would know what it would cost them to alter their software, hardware or infrastructure.

When you post something that is actually “obvious and demonstrably real” maybe I’ll stop laughing!

G

 

[Earbones]

How long does it take you to format a reply? I deleted that and went with a less inciting reply like three minutes after I posted the original. Were you seriously typing a reply for an hour?

Listen. Dude. Relax. Amazon HD high-resolution music is real, and it was expensive and time-consuming to implement, and they did it on purpose, and they really, really mean it, okay? I’m sorry you don’t know why they are having issues with Android. Because I’d love an answer. If I figure it out, I‘ll let you know.