Lossless Listening Arrives on Spotify Premium

[DanielT]

Here are some miscellaneous questions and answers, if you are curious and interested:


You heard it here first! Lossless will be rolling out in the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Italy, Japan, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Austria, Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Ireland, Taiwan, Portugal, Israel, Greece, Hungary, Singapore, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Hong Kong, Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Iceland, Serbia, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, Kosovo, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino.

https://www.reddit.com/r/truespotify/comments/1nf17py/im_john_engineering_manager_at_spotify_i_helped

By the way, from the thread linked above a question:

C'mon spill the Spotify beans, what took so long?

A fairly broad answer from Spotify's engineering manager, but okay, an answer nonetheless:

And:

 

[Mnyb]

@Mnyb OK, my answer was a bit precise, I was still thinking of high bitrate Ogg Vorbis, not really MP3.

Almost no streaming services are using MP3 anymore I think, not sure why we're still discussing MP3 when we talk about lossy compression. We have Ogg Vorbis on Spotify, and most others use AAC.

As you say MP3 can be configured to do a cutoff, while I do not think Ogg Vorbis does that.

That’s fair i remember ancient history with 128kB and lame and such and reminiscence about it on topic is OGG or AAC which are much better and widely used today including Spotify.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Here are some miscellaneous questions and answers, if you are curious and interested:


You heard it here first! Lossless will be rolling out in the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Italy, Japan, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Austria, Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Ireland, Taiwan, Portugal, Israel, Greece, Hungary, Singapore, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Hong Kong, Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Iceland, Serbia, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, Kosovo, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino.

https://www.reddit.com/r/truespotify/comments/1nf17py/im_john_engineering_manager_at_spotify_i_helped

By the way, from the thread linked above a question:

C'mon spill the Spotify beans, what took so long?

A fairly broad answer from Spotify's engineering manager, but okay, an answer nonetheless:
View attachment 475915

Thanks
But when?

 

[DanielT]

Thanks
But when?

I haven't seen anything more detailed than this:

 

[Karmacoma]

Here are some miscellaneous questions and answers, if you are curious and interested:


You heard it here first! Lossless will be rolling out in the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Italy, Japan, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Austria, Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Ireland, Taiwan, Portugal, Israel, Greece, Hungary, Singapore, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Hong Kong, Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Iceland, Serbia, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, Kosovo, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino.

https://www.reddit.com/r/truespotify/comments/1nf17py/im_john_engineering_manager_at_spotify_i_helped

By the way, from the thread linked above a question:

C'mon spill the Spotify beans, what took so long?

A fairly broad answer from Spotify's engineering manager, but okay, an answer nonetheless:
View attachment 475915
And:
View attachment 475918

They're litteraly the very last to bring it on the market and they make it sound like they engineered the first iPhone.
What a pile of horsesh*t.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Thanks
But when?

From the Reddit thread linked earlier:

"While you may not have access today, if you’re an eligible user you’ll have it by the end of the month."

 

[Rocky Maine]

How funny. I just cancelled Tidal and Amazon recently when i just decided for sure i cannot hear the difference between the best of tidal/Amazon/Spotify. I have a only test with my Buckeye NCx500 amp and either LS50 Metas, LRS+, LSiM703 or Aurum Cantus V7Fs, many headphones, 2 WiiM Ultras and two different AB+AB and AB+ABCD switchers I'm having somebody else use and level match and i just CAN'T tell the damn difference when I'm trying my ass off to listen.

I've been very careful protecting my hearing over the years. While very young someone pointed out to me the world had only been loud for less than 1% of our existence so i decided to never go to concerts or stay in loud bars or clubs. I've only worked 1 blue collar job where i was mercilessly teased for always protecting my ears and it was chemical blending anyway so not exactly loud.

I don't know what else to say. I still have a lot to learn about listening I'm sure but maybe genetically i don't have good ears. I pickup languages quickly for whatever that's worth and whether Korean or Spanish or Japanese or whatever, i have been told i sound almost native when i hardly know shit. So i think that takes some nuanced listening. I'm really at a loss. Pun intended. But wait, this is all pointless now, right?

About 40 years ago I had a temp job (after a layoff) in a large machine shop. It was incredibly loud in there. I worked in the tool crib and there was a big dispenser of ear plugs at the window available for all to use. I started every day by inserting plugs in my ears. Many of the long time workers had hearing loss, including one snarky manager who would patrol the floor in his 3 piece suite and intimidate the workers. One day he asked me why I used the ear plugs. I replied that I didn't want to end up like most of the guys that worked there, half deaf before they were 40!

 

[staticV3]

Yeah I haven't don't any blinde tests but I heard the difference for years so I trust my ears

 

[Mike_Trueman]

I enjoy my music with 320kbps and with lossless audio. I can only hear a difference if it is bad recorded or if it's remasterd. (With speakers)

So know that Spotify has lossless 24bit/44,1kHz the next debate the golden ear guy's will have will be 44kHz vs 192kHz vs 384kHz.

 

[Karmacoma]

192kHz vs 384kHz.

If you find a golden ear ready to debate this, give him the address of this forum and make me aware of it, I want to be here.

 

[TTT15]

I’ll bite but only in friendly debate out of curiosity. The toxicity on this topic in social media is beyond me. I also think it’s entirely academic as hi-res is included in my streaming subscription. It’s there so why not use it when using WiFi.

My subjective perception is that there is no way I can hear the difference between lossy and lossless on the go and on my modest old speakers. On a pair of HD800S I could be listening and think that really doesn’t sound good and then look and see it was an old lossy ALAC file I purchased on iTunes. I could never hear the difference between a lossless and hires file although I had the perception sometimes that 24 bit recording were better recordings. I have heard though a noticeable difference between a recent lossless and hires recording on a highly resolving headphone. I was surprised as I wasn’t expecting to hear any difference. Entirely possible it was just a better recording. I most certainly not claiming golden ears.

It seems 24 bit 48khz is the most popular recording level now. I understand that just gives more recording headroom. So if hires is above redbook the recording industry seems to think that hires is preferable for recording purposes.

It is accepted that according to nyquist Shannon 44khz is suffecient to record the frequency that humans can hear. Not only that but I understand that it is mathematically proven that it contains suffecient info to perfectly reproduce the original analogue sound wave. But the bit that is usually missed out in the argument is that it is for a band width limited signal and to perfectly reproduce the original sound form you need to band width limit and use an infinite sinc function calculation which is not possible to perfectly reproduce the original sound wave. . Humans can also hear tiny timing differences in order to detect the direction of sound.

Therefore there maybe theoretical merit in hires above redbook for recording and more perfectly reproducing the original soundwave which may impact eg the perception of imaging. Studies have shown people can detect hires in ideal listening conditions with training. I could for instance see the benefit of hi res phone screens when I knew what to look for.

I see it like the laws of motion. Newtons laws are entirely accurate for most situations but if you are shooting for the moon there is merit in the theory of relativity.

Either way that is just my current perception and it is certainly not worth getting agitated about and academic as most new recording are above redbook and included in subscription services anyway.

 

[jEDGEc0m]

and most others use AAC.

I don't know about the tube "apps", but in my experience, youtube (on a browser) uses/favours Opus.
Stream 251 ("stats for nerds"). often about 130kb. and it's 48khz, so quite possibly a lot of content is being resampled from 44.1 in the encoding.
even if you set youtube video to lowest quality, it still seems to use the 251 opus stream, ~130kb. (251 is not the bitrate)

and i've no problem with it. Opus is surely very very good, and it's both painful and delightful for me to accept that even that low bitrate is "enough".

Weirdly, maybe a year ago, i noticed an album, which was quite new at the time, was showing audio stream "774", which was a much higher bitrate Opus - ~240kb or so.
and i wondered if youtube were increasing quality. never seen it since. though i'm not premium-tuber.

 

[danadam]

Weirdly, maybe a year ago, i noticed an album, which was quite new at the time, was showing audio stream "774", which was a much higher bitrate Opus - ~240kb or so.
and i wondered if youtube were increasing quality. never seen it since. though i'm not premium-tuber.

It says here:

Format 774 at YT Music: Some music have available high quality of Opus up to 256 kbps to Premium users, music link here and also bypassing is no longer possible to download for non premium users unless you're subscribed to YouTube Premium and can download format available by extra arguments of cookies from browser or the authentication.

Youtube Format IDs

Youtube Format IDs. GitHub Gist: instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

gist.github.com

 

[jEDGEc0m]

It says here:

Youtube Format IDs

Youtube Format IDs. GitHub Gist: instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

gist.github.com

"some" music. that's kinda weird. so even if you're premium, not assured.

oh well, i've tested opus enough to know it's not gonna impact my enjoyment of the music, even at the bitrate youtube chooses for cheapskates, and "some" music.

Like someone else said, pretty much everytime I've heard something that I was like "That's gotta be a data compression artefact", and i've had option to check a lossless source - it's been in the source. an illusion.

Musician Steven Wilson used to be quite the iPod and data compression hater - tell me this - the intro and voice sample at the start of this track - sounds a bit like a sh!tty low bitrate mp3 with artefacts?? I wonder if it's on purpose. or maybe that was the only sample available.
(The song's alright in my books too)

There isn't just one singular truth

 

[Mike_Trueman]

 

[ZolaIII]

Not that I really care but here it goes.
It's plane 24 bit 44100 flac or alike.
I am deaply disappointed. After time it took them a heard of new elephants emerging in the meantime. At least they could cook something little more advanced, like much better quality lossy and who wants rest of shaved off noise or better say insist on it. To 600~700 KB/S they could achieve that much for most content there is (more meaning about 48000 Hz for originally that way maasteed content) in 19 bits no dithering. Simple using open source compressions (lossy/lose less hibrid formats like WavPack that are part of FFmpeg. In any case long term they would save on serving traffic and everyone would be satisfied. If how source whose mastered and avoiding artifacts of any kind is a goal.

 

[ROOSKIE]

The bass always feels deeper and more impactful than MP3 even 320KBPS
Clarity is also higher
Yeah I haven't don't any blinde tests but I heard the difference for years so I trust my ears
Some people can't tell difference between Coke and Pepsi
Others are more sensitive

I used to think that with Tidal. For a few years I paid extra for it in addition to Spotify.
Then I took some of the blind tests. Nope, I can't hear it anymore & any minute variation was not worth agonizing over. 'Very High' quality Spotify stream are excellent sound quality.

Now if you are getting a different master, as some of the lossless and other options are sometimes different masters, there may be differences but that IMHO is obviously due to the remastering not any sort of SQ upgrade based on format.

I don't think this is a Coke vs Pepsi argument in a parallel as they taste very different and have different ingredients. Pepsi is much sweeter tasting. Can you taste the difference of Coke when it has 0.05grams extra sugar? Or when it is slightly watered down by 1% from the ice cubs just staring to melt or if it has been in a can or a bottle?
Or what if the color is changed but the other ingredients are not changed and the taste should be the same, would the change in color affect your view of taste in the moment?

Many cool published research on blind testing of all sorts, much of which has nothing specific about audio involved but is super interesting in to view. Dive in.

I've linked this few times but ALL of these guys were tricked easily.

Audio Listening Test That Fooled the Hollywood Sapphire Group

Some of the most highly trained audiophiles in the industry were asked to do a blind “A-B” listening comparison test of two audio circuits. Were they able to hear a difference, or were they fooled?

www.audioholics.com

Well anyway wine is an area with lots of fun articles published, even movies. Very fun.

 

[DanielT]

I don't really understand. Now Spotify is announcing that it is possible to listen to lossless. Or rather, they don't say anything that lossless will be implemented in the near future. Check out the link below.

Lossless under the following conditions:

Supported devices

• Mobile app running on 9.0.58 and above
• Desktop app running on 1.2.67 and above
• Some third-party devices

...running on 9.0.58 and above.
What is that? Spotify version because in my Spotify it says I have version: 9.0.78 ?
Do you think that is correct?

If you can’t listen in Lossless

• Your device may be incompatible with lossless
• Your audio quality settings aren’t set to lossless
• You may have a poor internet connection
• The content isn't available in lossless

Reasonable, but what is the limit for a poor internet connection? How good a connection do you need?
Edit:
Sorry I missed. Spotify writes:
We recommend a steady internet connection of 1.5 to 2 Mbps for the best lossless listening experience.

Lossless Audio Quality - Spotify

support.spotify.com

 

[pablolie]

I don't really understand. Now Spotify is announcing that it is possible to listen to lossless. Or rather, they don't say anything that lossless will be implemented in the near future. Check out the link below.

Lossless under the following conditions:

Supported devices

• Mobile app running on 9.0.58 and above
• Desktop app running on 1.2.67 and above
• Some third-party devices

...running on 9.0.58 and above.
What is that? Spotify version because in my Spotify it says I have version: 9.0.78 ?
Do you think that is correct?

If you can’t listen in Lossless

• Your device may be incompatible with lossless
• Your audio quality settings aren’t set to lossless
• You may have a poor internet connection
• The content isn't available in lossless

Reasonable, but what is the limit for a poor internet connection? How good a connection do you need?
Edit:
Sorry I missed. Spotify writes:
We recommend a steady internet connection of 1.5 to 2 Mbps for the best lossless listening experience.

View attachment 476383

Lossless Audio Quality - Spotify

support.spotify.com

I read the lossless rollout is gradual. I live in the US, also have version 9.0.78 - and lossless does not appear as an option under "Media quality", things stop at "very high". To be honest, I don't really need lossless on a mobile device. And I find Ogg Vorbis at 320k sounds great on my reference system, too.

 

[DanielT]

To be honest, I don't really need lossless on a mobile device.

Same for me but that doesn't stop me from being curious about when it really comes. A few days, weeks or months here or there actually doesn't play any practical role for me.

And I find Ogg Vorbis at 320k sounds great on my reference system, too.

I'm convinced that I won't hear any difference Ogg Vorbis at 320k vs lossless. No matter how many blind tests I would do. Even if I really tried to try to hear a difference, I wouldn't be able to pass such a test.