Spotify Lossless Streaming

[Sal1950]

I hear a difference on most of the MQA tracks I've listened to,

Yes exactly. I only compared tracks I was pretty sure were from the same masters.

Once you get beyond the bias's and have determined that the two really are audibly different, then you have to ask yourself are they really an improvement, or just different? Beyond that I then think about the fact that if it sounds different than what the producer-artists heard at the original console mix, then it must be a distortion of the real Master Quality Authenticated, and thereby simply a distortion.

 

[Mnyb]

Spotify 320mb ogg ? Or what thier high quality is should be just about completely indistinguishable from CD and it is mostly , but I’m unsure the pedigree of some of thier tracks *anecdote warning” I think I’ve heard differences where it should be none and also tracks that sounds exactly as my CD .

So their QC is probably nonexistent, the record labels upload whatever they see fit for purpose it’s mostly ok but you can’t know.

Imho a real hifi streaming service would have humanly curated masters . The best or one of the better version should be selected for streaming. Then if it’s is 320mp3 24/96flac or MQA would not be important.

 

[Sal1950]

Don't we all have that nagging voice in our heads telling us that Redbook has to sound better than any lossy compression scheme?
If you have a music file available in both Redbook and High Rez for the same cost, don't you get the High Rez?
Only in a few cases I can remember have I picked a 96k file over a 192k, just feeling the 192k would be a ridiculous waste of space.
Just after Amazon first launched their HiRez steaming with a 90 day free trial, I had Amazon, Qobuz, and Spotify's best accounts all active at the same time. I was never able to hear any difference between any of them, Spotify always had the biggest catalog plus the best UI, though maybe it was my long term familiarity with them that made me feel that way. I currently am only using Spotify but waiting for one of them to have a working (for me) Atmos stream, that I would switch to immediately.
We really are living in some amazing times internet wise, I still remember sittting and listening to those damn dialup tones while trying to get my modem logged in.

 

[mSpot]

Of the major streamers Spotify is the last one to NOT offer a lossless tier at around the same price as Spotify's top "Premium" lossy stream.

Don't forget Apple Music, the second largest music streamer (after Spotify). Also, let's put into perspective who is a "major streamer". Tidal and Qobuz are in the noise and often lumped into the "others" category in lists of industry market share.

 

[Vini darko]

Don't forget Apple Music, the second largest music streamer (after Spotify). Also, let's put into perspective who is a "major streamer". Tidal and Qobuz are in the noise and often lumped into the "others" category in lists of industry market share.

This highlights that usb player pro really needs to get Amazon music support sorted.

 

[Sal1950]

Don't forget Apple Music, the second largest music streamer (after Spotify).

Yes, Thank You! I've never owned a Apple anything and often tend to forget them when discussing market shares of various elements.
Apply guys tend to be devotees of the mark and are fiercely loyal to the brand, they will refuse to consider anything else.
I've been on Linux for over 25 years and willingly put up with it's idiosyncrasies in exchange for it's security.
Computers, It's a MAD MAD MAD MAD MAD MAD world.

 

[dkinric]

Here we go again. Maybe this time?

Spotify Platinum HiFi plan could land at $20/month - 9to5Mac

We’re getting close to two years since Spotify announced it would be launching a HiFi offering. After the extended delay,...

9to5mac.com

 

[fieldcar]

Here we go again. Maybe this time?

Spotify Platinum HiFi plan could land at $20/month - 9to5Mac

We’re getting close to two years since Spotify announced it would be launching a HiFi offering. After the extended delay,...

9to5mac.com

I already went to Qobuz + BubbleUpnp to stream to my denon X3700H.

I wonder what all this crap means. Though, who cares, they'll probably cancel it again after promoting it with whoever the current version of Lorde is.

• HiFi
  • Lossless audio? Probably
• Studio Sound
  • Hi-rez/atmos audio?
• Headphone Tuner
  • This could actually be interesting. Correction targets? Powerful EQ?
• Audio Insights
  • meh.
• Library Pro
  • Can we finally export our library to a file?
• Playlist Pro
  • meh
• Limited-ad Spotify podcasts
  • meh

 

[LarsF]

Here we go again. Maybe this time?

Spotify Platinum HiFi plan could land at $20/month - 9to5Mac

We’re getting close to two years since Spotify announced it would be launching a HiFi offering. After the extended delay,...

9to5mac.com

Just now I don't think we ever going to see any lossless audio from Spotify, I hope I will be proven wrong.

 

[SKBubba]

I've begrudgingly settled for Tidal Hifi+ (via Best buy $10/mo deal) and roon for the at-home front end. This seems to give the best combination of sound quality and features and mobile apps, mqa notwithstanding. Total is $20/mo.

For the same price, Spotify would have to deliver an unprecedented level of advancement in ther apps all the way to their back end infractructure that Apple and Amazon could only dream of, and do it in record time. Based on their past performance, I don't see that happening.

It sounds like they have been spending all this time trying to figure out some value-add features to justify the $20/mo they planned to charge for hifi before Apple and Amazon cut them off at the pass. Any such features would likely be half-assed, at best.

 

[Jimbob54]

I've begrudgingly settled for Tidal Hifi+ (via Best buy $10/mo deal) and roon for the at-home front end. This seems to give the best combination of sound quality and features and mobile apps, mqa notwithstanding. Total is $20/mo.

For the same price, Spotify would have to deliver an unprecedented level of advancement in ther apps all the way to their back end infractructure that Apple and Amazon could only dream of, and do it in record time. Based on their past performance, I don't see that happening.

It sounds like they have been spending all this time trying to figure out some value-add features to justify the $20/mo they planned to charge for hifi before Apple and Amazon cut them off at the pass. Any such features would likely be half-assed, at best.

Or, put another way- how many existing customers have they lost or new ones foregone as a result of their decision to stay lossy but stay price comparable to the lossless services? Far less than going to lossless and becoming out of sync on price I would guess. Their response would probably be "content is king" - but if that means Joe Rogan and the rest of the Podcast goobers- then fuck that for a game of soldiers.

And like you say, real improvements in interfaces/ features across all services seems to have stalled. The "Connect" feature of Spotify and Tidal was the last real shift- so nothing for Spotify to aim for / surpass there.

 

[Bernd]

Spotify lossless music is not going to happen, because their business model is shifting from a pure music streaming service to some kind multi 'Meta' like audio platform. Just look at the latest cluttered User Interface. Compare that to Apple Music which just does ... well.... music and you will understand what I mean.

 

[Sal1950]

Spotify lossless music is not going to happen, because their business model is shifting from a pure music streaming service to some kind multi 'Meta' like audio platform.

I still find that surprising seeing that all the competition has gone lossless or better.
I would think they lost quite a few listeners in the last few years.
Time will tell?

 

[bluefuzz]

I still find that surprising seeing that all the competition has gone lossless or better.

I have read elsewhere (i.e hearsay) that Spotify Lossless exists - their whole catalogue is converted to lossless and is in principle ready to go. Executives within the company and testers have access to it. But they simply have no business case to implement it. There being almost no interest in lossless amongst the majority of users. It would only result in an inevitable price hike with no perceived benefit ...

I would think they lost quite a few listeners in the last few years.

The numbers say different:

Source: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/spotify-statistics/

 

[Bernd]

I have read elsewhere (i.e hearsay) that Spotify Lossless exists - their whole catalogue is converted to lossless and is in principle ready to go. Executives within the company and testers have access to it. But they simply have no business case to implement it. There being almost no interest in lossless amongst the majority of users. It would only result in an inevitable price hike with no perceived benefit ...


The numbers say different:

View attachment 278753

View attachment 278754

Source: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/spotify-statistics/

 

[Bernd]

I can see why there is no business case. According to me the vast majority oh Spotify subscribers listen to the music straight from their smartphone via Bluetooth to headphones in 50 to 100 € bracket or some Bluetooth Boombox. In these use cases high-res/FLAC is just a waste of bandwidth. We high-res audiophiles are such a small niche market for which it is indeed no business case.

 

[Galliardist]

I have read elsewhere (i.e hearsay) that Spotify Lossless exists - their whole catalogue is converted to lossless and is in principle ready to go. Executives within the company and testers have access to it. But they simply have no business case to implement it. There being almost no interest in lossless amongst the majority of users. It would only result in an inevitable price hike with no perceived benefit ...


The numbers say different:

View attachment 278753

View attachment 278754

Source: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/spotify-statistics/

Most people won't find any audible difference between Spotify Premium and a lossless service, and Spotify is the service that has got momentum in the market.
The business case for staying lossy increases every year as more users might switch to lossless although they don't need to. So why would Spotify pay for the extra bandwidth? Even audiophiles using Spotify are perfectly happy with the premium level. They can sit back, keep the money rolling in, and watch the opposition fight over around, what, two percent of the market that wants lossless? The only way they can lose is if they wreck their user interface....

 

[bluefuzz]

Most people won't find any audible difference between Spotify Premium and a lossless service

I know I don't. I have tried Tidal, Apple Music and Qubuz lossless services and through my NAD C658 and LXminis I can discern no difference between them and Spotify in casual listening. Perhaps a proper double blinded test could reveal a difference but if you need thet kind of test to establish if there even is a difference then it simply doesn't matter ...

The only way they can lose is if they wreck their user interface.

Which they do seem to do with alarming regularity.

 

[Deleted member 58722]

I know I don't. I have tried Tidal, Apple Music and Qubuz lossless services and through my NAD C658 and LXminis I can discern no difference between them and Spotify in casual listening. Perhaps a proper double blinded test could reveal a difference but if you need thet kind of test to establish if there even is a difference then it simply doesn't matter ...

Which they do seem to do with alarming regularity.

Perhaps a proper double blinded test could reveal a difference but if you need thet kind of test to establish if there even is a difference then it simply doesn't matter ...

Which applies across the board with all devices etc.

 

[bluefuzz]

Which applies across the board with all devices

Exactly.