Lossless Listening Arrives on Spotify Premium

[bluefuzz]

I just got Spotify lossless here in DK too, as well as the BluOS upgrade for NAD C658 to also support lossless. And WOW what a diiference - talk about veils lifted - obviously better even when listening from the kitchen with the extractor fan running ...


... only joking! It sounds fine of course – exactly the same as it always has ... ;-)

 

[pablolie]

I just got Spotify lossless here in DK too, as well as the BluOS upgrade for NAD C658 to also support lossless. And WOW what a diiference - talk about veils lifted - obviously better even when listening from the kitchen with the extractor fan running ...


... only joking! It sounds fine of course – exactly the same as it always has ... ;-)

Ja sa sand! Couldn't agree more.

I mean I am glad it's there and I enjoy it (as always). Has anyone encountered a track that is higher than 16 bit? Nothing in my playlists yet. But then again, as stated prior, doesn't make a difference in my enjoyment at all. I was perfectly happy with 320k OV.

 

[A Surfer]

Feels like a lot of imagination is happening here. Really don't think this will sound any better. I have been using Tidal for years. Originally I paid for lossless but when I went down to the next highest tier that wasn't lossless, there was no audible difference.

Unless people are level matching and blind testing I am not convinced people are hearing any difference.

 

[Moti]

I see some posts here and there where huge differences were audiotoned. And afterwards was noticed that it was not Lossless due some settings etc. Kudos for those who dare to write this in public forum.

 

[mikitm]

It can be

Yep, after tweaking with the settings I managed to play Lossless on my devices, although I can't prove it with Deltawave since I don't have a way to test it.
I listened to some songs from Alice Cooper and Motley Crue; it definitely feels better on the chorus and on busy parts of the songs.
Btw, you NEED to set Data Save Mode to OFF and then check if Lossless is checked, otherwise it will not play above 320k.

 

[RedCometZero]

Yup, that Goldensound vid is basically just about app and OS limitations and setting up Spotify *wrong* for the purpose of listening to lossless. That guy is clueless, no wonder he gets himself into trouble...

He gives all of those caveats though. Without an exclusive listening mode in the app on Android and Windows, you can't bypass the internal audio mixers that then prevent bitperfect playback. He doesn't say that it does that on other platforms that he's not testing. There isn't any misinformation in the video.

 

[sergeauckland]

Is it? If so, why?*
Some of this stuff does just elude me.

_______________
* N.B. this is a rhetorical question/grumble -- I don't mean to be picking on either of the quoted posters!

For me, it's because Spotify have been banging on about it for years, so it's nice for it actually to happen. As to sound quality, I can't hear the difference.

Similarly, when I play Radio Paradise, I use their FLAC stream, even though to me it sounds the same as their compressed streams.

I know that's hypocritical, as I've also banged on about not wasting resources as it takes more energy to stream lossless than lossy, but then I'm just a squidgy inconsistent human.

S

 

[pablolie]

He gives all of those caveats though. Without an exclusive listening mode in the app on Android and Windows, you can't bypass the internal audio mixers that then prevent bitperfect playback. He doesn't say that it does that on other platforms that he's not testing. There isn't any misinformation in the video.

Disagree. Those who can't see through the sheer incompetence of his methodology will think that Sportify lossless is *not* lossless, and in fact that has surfaced in this very thread. He could have written the exact same nonsense about *every* lossless streaming service. Why not listen to the lossless stream through $5 earbuds and blame the lossless service for the lack of fidelity while you're at it?

 

[RedCometZero]

Disagree. Those who can't see through the sheer incompetence of his methodology will think that Sportify lossless is *not* lossless, and in fact that has surfaced in this very thread. He could have written the exact same nonsense about *every* lossless streaming service. Why not listen to the lossless stream through $5 earbuds and blame the lossless service for the lack of fidelity while you're at it?

He does in fact compare it to other streaming services, and explains which ones do and do not offer exclusive modes. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize Spotify for not offering a way in their software to get true lossless playback on the Windows app.

It's valid to criticize the title or thumbnail for being misleading, but the information in the video itself is accurate.

 

[Mike_Trueman]

Ja sa sand! Couldn't agree more.

I mean I am glad it's there and I enjoy it (as always). Has anyone encountered a track that is higher than 16 bit? Nothing in my playlists yet. But then again, as stated prior, doesn't make a difference in my enjoyment at all. I was perfectly happy with 320k OV.

Oct 8 19:02:54 (none) user.info sovi-spotify: media_format: 16 bitrate: 700 sample_rate: 44100 bits_per_sample: 24
Oct 8 19:03:49 (none) user.info sovi-spotify: media_format: 16 bitrate: 700 sample_rate: 44100 bits_per_sample: 16

Most is 16bit but if i check my NAD logs there are some tracks 24bit.

 

[pablolie]

... the information in the video itself is accurate.

The conclusion that Spotify is not lossless is absolutely not. Which is what he implies with his flawed "measurement" approach.

I don't like exclusive mode for apps because then notifications from other apps can be blocked. But people have to realize the quality of the "lossless output" is system dependent on computers, as with every audio device. Has zero to do with the lossless nature of the stream.

As to the Spotify app itself... adding support for exclusive mode probably is on their roadmap, that's easy to fix... it's "just" software... :-D

 

[Mike_Trueman]

The conclusion that Sportify is not lossless is absolutely not. Which is what he implies with his flawed "measurement" approach.

I don't like exclusive mode for apps because then notifications from other apps can be blocked. But people have to realize the quality of the "lossless output" is system dependent on computers, as with every audio device. Has zero to do with the lossless nature of the stream.

As to the Spotify app itself... adding support for exclusive mode probably is on their roadmap, that's easy to fix... it's "just" software... :-D

Spotify is lossless but the best way is to run it on a streamer and "remote controle" it with the app on any device (Windows,android,apple,...).
Works very well for me.

 

[tccalvin]

Update for macOS and iOS:

By the way, some have suggested that 44.1kHz is all you need for correct audio reproduction and that is true, but it's only true if the audio file has been produced and mastered at 44.1kHz.

If there is any resampling in the pipeline, then the end product will necessarily differ from what it was in the producer's DAW (added distortion/artifacts).

The quality of the resampling might vary depending on which algorithm was used and whether or not the resampling was done by Spotify or before sending the master to Spotify, but any resampling will introduce "loss" of some kind.

Are these resampling artifacts audible? Most certainly not. But then again, I can't tell the difference between compressed and lossless anyway.

But are these new Spotify files lossless? That's only if they were at 44.1kHz before being sent to Spotify, and they are only lossless when compared to the sent file. When compared to the original project in the producer's DAW, then the sent file is only lossless if the project was at 44.1kHz to start with (not many producers work with 44.1kHz projects...).

In that sense, using the word "lossless" is misleading marketing.

 

[pablolie]

Update for macOS and iOS:

By the way, some have suggested that 44.1kHz is all you need for correct audio reproduction and that is true, but it's only true if the audio file has been produced and mastered at 44.1kHz.

If there is any resampling in the pipeline, then the end product will necessarily differ from what it was in the producer's DAW (added distortion/artifacts).

The quality of the resampling might vary depending on which algorithm was used and whether or not the resampling was done by Spotify or before sending the master to Spotify, but any resampling will introduce "loss" of some kind.

Are these resampling artifacts audible? Most certainly not. But then again, I can't tell the difference between compressed and lossless anyway.

But are these new Spotify files lossless? That's only if they were at 44.1kHz before being sent to Spotify, and they are only lossless when compared to the sent file. When compared to the original project in the producer's DAW, then the sent file is only lossless if the project was at 44.1kHz to start with (not many producers work with 44.1kHz projects...).

In that sense, using the word "lossless" is misleading marketing.

Lossless formats can be converted into each other without adding any distortion or any other issues. The original lossless signal remains preserved.

 

[tccalvin]

Lossless formats can be converted into each other without adding any distortion or any other issues. The original lossless signal remains preserved.

As long as sampling rate and bit depth are the same.

 

[pablolie]

As long as sampling rate and bit depth are the same.

Respectfully - not sure where you got that from. It's just not true.

any_lossless_file_A --convert to analog-> True-to_original_analog_output -> convert_to_any_other_lossless_irrespective_of_rate_or_bitdepth = lossless_file_B

Key condition is a good re-sampler in that conversion, but that's not a challenge these days.

 

[masterhw]

Respectfully - not sure where you got that from. It's just not true.

any_lossless_file_A --convert to analog-> True-to_original_analog_output -> convert_to_any_other_lossless_irrespective_of_rate_or_bitdepth = lossless_file_B

Key condition is a good re-sampler in that conversion, but that's not a challenge these days.

I think he’s taking issue that there is necessarily a loss of information when downsampling, but all that information is out of audible band and I don’t think the term “lossless” typically relates to this meaning, but rather compression.

 

[pablolie]

I think he’s taking issue that there is necessarily a loss of information when downsampling, but all that information is out of audible band and I don’t think the term “lossless” typically relates to this meaning, but rather compression.

Sure, what's lossless to the human ear may not be lossless to advanced measuring equipment or a Fennec fox' ear... ...if that's the premise, I agree.

 

[tccalvin]

Key condition is a good re-sampler in that conversion, but that's not a challenge these days.

I'm not talking about audibility. Like I said, I can't even tell the difference between lossy and lossless compression.

But we are using a very specific word here, which is "lossless". Any resampled content is not lossless by definition because it alters the information contained in the original file.

If we instead interpret "lossless" to mean "audibly lossless", then the 320kbps Ogg Vorbis files were already "lossless" in that sense to most people.

 

[Petrushka]

I'm not talking about audibility. Like I said, I can't even tell the difference between lossy and lossless compression.

But we are using a very specific word here, which is "lossless". Any resampled content is not lossless by definition because it alters the information contained in the original file.

If we instead interpret "lossless" to mean "audibly lossless", then the 320kbps Ogg Vorbis files were already "lossless" in that sense to most people.

Define resembled, and why is the term relevant?

Can you put a SNAD number on your hypothetical resampling?