Ty Pendlebury's comparative review of Spotify and Apple Music is getting eaten alive by pedantic commenters. Why? Broad, sweeping statements:

“...the Spotify version had the forward character we’d heard in the mastering studio. There was a greater sense of space around the saxophone while it was also easier to hear the player’s articulations. The Apple Music version sounded a little distant and less vibrant in comparison.”

Get that? Mastering studio recordings sound forward. Which means what?

“...The deep, deep bass travels a whole octave and the sound was smoother on Spotify and more consistent across notes than on its competitor. In comparison the version on Apple Music made the first two and the last notes of the part jut out like broken fence palings.”

I guess the jutting 'out like broken fence palings' is a bit too forward? A bit too articulate?

“Comparing the two services with Tidal, however, the Tidal version did sound better. Where Apple and Spotify sort of smooshed the cymbals and guitars together, the lossless service was able to disentangle them for greater clarity.”

Here's how the dice roll on the child's vomit board that is this review:
roll 1: dice get caught on gerber-spangled audiophile terms
roll 2: dice fall down the lossless thumb-tote hole.

Every poorly researched, subjectivist review needs to clinch itself with homage to lossless audio. Which makes Pendlebury's article as oafish as anything from Steve Guttenberg. Not only doesn't it define terms, it crosses them, then kowtows to something it doesn't understand.

To the objectivist, its skipping over of equalising factors such as volume matching, blind and double blind listening, or even the setting up a sighted control (completely not objective), wreaks of deadline click baiting and a belief in magic.

Spotify may well sound better than Apple Music. But I'll be damned if Ty knows how to suss it.

The short: read it for the comments