• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Lossless Listening Arrives on Spotify Premium

I'm in New Zealand. Got lossless today. I hadn't used spotify for a couple of days so I'm not sure exactly when it became available to me.
I haven't had a chance to compare, I doubt I'll be able to notice any difference.
 
Sadly, Spotify lossless can’t be played through CCA or LMS, which are the streaming solutions I’ve been relying on until now.
 
Is that the app version or the player version? I'm still on 4.10
 
shuppatsu said:
If they raise the price without also raising the royalty payments to match the others, I’m out.
Click to expand...

You do realized that there is a cost to higher bitrate? Storage cost, CDN cost, infrastructure cost, cost to developers, etc. etc.
 
xray said:
Is that the app version or the player version? I'm still on 4.10
Click to expand...
Your player should give a msg that there is a new update.
 
PristineSound said:
You do realized that there is a cost to higher bitrate? Storage cost, CDN cost, infrastructure cost, cost to developers, etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Sure, though it’s peanuts compared to the monthly subscription rate. Of course it will increase their marginal expenses by a few cents per customer. They can take it out of Joe Rogan’s next contract, or pay their CEO less so he invests less in AI military drones.

Spotify has many competitors that already offer lossless and spatial formats. Their competitors also pay the artists higher royalties. Some of them cost the same as Spotify. Spotify’s only real benefit is the network effects from being the first on the market. Everybody uses Spotify so my kids can share playlists with their friends and the adults can set up a digital jukebox on the fly during ski trips.

My point is that Spotify’s comparative advantage is already hanging by a thread, and gaining some parity with lossless does not move the needle for me.
 
pablolie said:
No updates of any kind with lossless pushed my way in California.
Click to expand...
See #116 in the thread @gvl has received lossless. In fact, he was the first to report it. Gvl's Location:SoCal
SoCal is Southern California, right? Strange that you didn't receive lossless because you also stated that your location is California.
Have you updated Spotify to the latest version? Gvl's version 9.0.78.1110, see #112

This lossless rollout is strange, but there's probably some logic to it all. It can't be random, can it?

By the way I checked now. I have a later version than gvl : 9.0.80.1343 but I haven't got Spotify lossless yet. :oops:
 
Last edited:
DanielT said:
See #116 in the thread @gvl has received lossless. In fact, he was the first to report it. Gvl's Location:SoCal
SoCal is Southern California, right? Strange that you didn't receive lossless because you also stated that your location is California.
Have you updated Spotify to the latest version? Gvl's version 9.0.78.1110, see #112

This lossless rollout is strange, but there's probably some logic to it all. It can't be random, can it?

By the way I checked now. I have a later version than gvl : 9.0.80.1343 but I haven't got Spotify lossless yet. :oops:
Click to expand...

I also have a later 9.0.80.1343, I am in North California (Bay Area) and no option to go lossless in either desktop or mobile app. But as stated before, I am pretty Yang about it.
 
DanielT said:
See #116 in the thread @gvl has received lossless. In fact, he was the first to report it. Gvl's Location:SoCal
SoCal is Southern California, right? Strange that you didn't receive lossless because you also stated that your location is California.
Have you updated Spotify to the latest version? Gvl's version 9.0.78.1110, see #112

This lossless rollout is strange, but there's probably some logic to it all. It can't be random, can it?

By the way I checked now. I have a later version than gvl : 9.0.80.1343 but I haven't got Spotify lossless yet. :oops:
Click to expand...

It's pretty normal to roll out to a small percentage of the users at first to see that everything works. This is something they control from the server side, so even if you have the version that supports lossless, doesn't mean they've rolled it out to you. It's not only the client that determines who gets it.
 
gvl said:
That was easy.

View attachment 476683
Click to expand...
That's a layup to do a blind test with a friend, to investigate whether you can hear differences and determine the correct quality of the streaming.:)

Layup to conduct a blind test that is. To then correctly identify 320 or lossless is another matter. Maybe best to start with Low vs Lossless, check it off and then Normal vs Lossless and so on. Work your way up the blind test chain so to speak. :)

IMG_5242.jpeg
 
Last edited:
shuppatsu said:
Sure, though it’s peanuts compared to the monthly subscription rate. Of course it will increase their marginal expenses by a few cents per customer. They can take it out of Joe Rogan’s next contract, or pay their CEO less so he invests less in AI military drones.

Spotify has many competitors that already offer lossless and spatial formats. Their competitors also pay the artists higher royalties. Some of them cost the same as Spotify. Spotify’s only real benefit is the network effects from being the first on the market. Everybody uses Spotify so my kids can share playlists with their friends and the adults can set up a digital jukebox on the fly during ski trips.

My point is that Spotify’s comparative advantage is already hanging by a thread, and gaining some parity with lossless does not move the needle for me.
Click to expand...
Few cents per customer? I don't think you have a lot of experience in this field. Such cost is expensive.

Also Spotify offers thing services in their products that other streaming services does not offer.

Also, this whole Joe Rogan and military talk is too woke for some people, myself included. (1) Joe Rogan gets what he gets, if he didn't deserved it, he wouldn't get it. He's getting what he gets because Spotify feels it's a good business decision (2) you can take your political activism to another forum that talks politics.
 
PristineSound said:
Few cents per customer? I don't think you have a lot of experience in this field. Such cost is expensive.
Click to expand...

"Expensive" is a win/loss analysis. It may be simple or very complex. The calculation for Spotify is... "OK people, could we gain more market dominance if we killed this discussion about us not doing lossless vs Tidal and those other competitors?".

I would assume their internal infrastructure already was based on lossless music that then got downsampled into lossy OggVorbis... it would be a really bad practice to convert from a lossy format to another lossy format, that deteriorates SQ quickly.

But yes, it'd cost Spotify corporation more in contracted bandwidth as well as content caching. But... does it attract new customers and hence boost revenue? That calculation is what matters.

PristineSound said:
... Joe Rogan ...
Click to expand...

I have never listened to Joe Rogan's podcast for a single second, and I have been a Spotify user for ages. I have my thoughts about Rogan, but to Spotify it is just a profit/loss equation and in a market economy we need to accept that (unless the content provided is clearly illegal in some way).
 
pablolie said:
"Expensive" is a win/loss analysis. It may be simple or very complex. The calculation for Spotify is... "OK people, could we gain more market dominance if we killed this discussion about us not doing lossless vs Tidal and those other competitors?".

I would assume their internal infrastructure already was based on lossless music that then got downsampled into lossy OggVorbis... it would be a really bad practice to convert from a lossy format to another lossy format, that deteriorates SQ quickly.

But yes, it'd cost Spotify corporation more in contracted bandwidth as well as content caching. But... does it attract new customers and hence boost revenue? That calculation is what matters.



I have never listened to Joe Rogan's podcast for a single second, and I have been a Spotify user for ages. I have my thoughts about Rogan, but to Spotify it is just a profit/loss equation and in a market economy we need to accept that (unless the content provided is clearly illegal in some way).
Click to expand...
But what if it's not illegal but should be? Do we need to accept it then? And if it should be legal, are we still not allowed to frown upon it and take our custom elsewhere?
 
Grimoire said:
But what if it's not illegal but should be? Do we need to accept it then? And if it should be legal, are we still not allowed to frown upon it and take our custom elsewhere?
Click to expand...
You can want it to be illegal, but there is no such thing as "it should be illegal," as not everyone agrees.

If you want it to be illegal then go boycott it. Others are happily using Spotify with a smile. . . myself happily included.
 
PristineSound said:
You can want it to be illegal, but there is no such thing as "it should be illegal," as not everyone agrees.

If you want it to be illegal then go boycott it. Others are happily using Spotify with a smile. . . myself happily included.
Click to expand...
That rather goes against you signature, don't you think?
 
Grimoire said:
That rather goes against you signature, don't you think?
Click to expand...
My signature is to pledge my allegiance to science. What does ones opinion on what should and shouldn't be legal and political activism have anything to do with science? In fact why are you talking politics here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AudioSceptic
Lossless on Apple Music
Replies
4
Views
644
Martini
Martini
Mike_Trueman
YouTube Music PC streaming
Replies
2
Views
724
IngMishael
I
E
To Spotify or Not?
5 6 7
Replies
121
Views
9K
Multicore
Multicore
A
Initial impression of AIYIMA A07 Premium
Replies
0
Views
4K
amano
A
Foxxy
A free way to remote control the Tidal PC app?
Replies
6
Views
2K
julitoole
J
Back
Top Bottom