• 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!

Spotify HiFi (finally) Coming Soon?

Loooop said:
At least in Italy, Tidal prices are now identical to those of Apple Music. Amazon Music family costs one euro more per month while Qobuz is much more expensive (the family subscription with high resolution music costs €29.16/month, with the additional condition that it is paid in a single payment for an entire year) .
I expect Qobuz will also lower its fees soon, like Tidal did.
Click to expand...
Qobuz is comparable to tidal's new price per month in the UK if you pay for the year and around £1 more per month to pay monthly. EU is getting ripped off!
 
My total monthly US Apple price is $12.45 which includes the local and state taxes.
Considering I get tons of Atmos and other surround encoded music, I find the Apple deal the
best in the business by far.. I just need to state that I'm NOT an Apple fan and this is the only
Apple thing I pay. IMO my Apple 4K TV box is the best streamer in the business, offering the highest
quality audio and video streaming available short of a very expensive Kaleidescape rig.
 
OH YIPPEE,

"Lossless audio has been one of the most anticipated features on Spotify and now, finally, it’s started rolling out to Premium listeners in select markets.
Premium subscribers will receive a notification in Spotify once Lossless becomes available to them.
With Lossless, you can now stream tracks in up to 24-bit/44.1 kHz FLAC,s ."

Well shiver me timbers, 24-bit/44.1 kHz FLAC, and only 2 channels. LOL, that's it?.
Now I'm the last guy here to be a bit-rate snob and believe in ultra high data rates but ???
Sorry Spotify guys, but this is a fairly lame "lossless" roll out IMHO.
 
Sal1950 said:
OH YIPPEE,

"Lossless audio has been one of the most anticipated features on Spotify and now, finally, it’s started rolling out to Premium listeners in select markets.
Premium subscribers will receive a notification in Spotify once Lossless becomes available to them.
With Lossless, you can now stream tracks in up to 24-bit/44.1 kHz FLAC,s ."

Well shiver me timbers, 24-bit/44.1 kHz FLAC, and only 2 channels. LOL, that's it?.
Now I'm the last guy here to be a bit-rate snob and believe in ultra high data rates but ???
Sorry Spotify guys, but this is a fairly lame "lossless" roll out IMHO.
Click to expand...
I never thought there was anything wrong with SQ on Spotify to begin with, even with my fav albums I know inside out, and I own some at 24/192. And I am old fashioned and have never seen a benefit in listening multi channel, certainly not for music...
 
Last edited:
pablolie said:
I never thought there was anything wrong with SQ on Spotify to begin with, even with my fav albums I know inside out, and I own. some at 24/192.
Click to expand...
Just highlighting market value against the competition. But you make the choice here.

pablolie said:
And I am. old fashioned and have never seen a benefit in listening multi channel, certainly not for. music...
Click to expand...
I'm old and old fashioned too. But I've been doing surround sound since the early 70s and here there is no question about an audible difference.
Your certainly entitled to your opinion, but from my listening chair you have only cheated yourself staying limited to 2ch music.
 
Sal1950 said:
Just highlighting market value against the competition. But you make the choice here.


I'm old and old fashioned too. But I've been doing surround sound since the early 70s and here there is no question about an audible difference.
Your certainly entitled to your opinion, but from my listening chair you have only cheated yourself staying limited to 2ch music.
Click to expand...
Another old person whose totally convinced that surround sound is both fantastic and where audio is going. If you read Toole's book you'll find a vote for it too.

Personally, I'm in the process of rearranging my audio setup and streaming sources to use ATMOS as much as possible which means Tidal.
 
RDoc said:
Another old person whose totally convinced that surround sound is both fantastic and where audio is going. If you read Toole's book you'll find a vote for it too.

Personally, I'm in the process of rearranging my audio setup and streaming sources to use ATMOS as much as possible which means Tidal.
Click to expand...
I see it as where audio has been, as I've been playing Quadraphonic LPs for years. Still buying them!

S
 
RDoc said:
Personally, I'm in the process of rearranging my audio setup and streaming sources to use ATMOS as much as possible which means Tidal.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find Apple has a larger catalog of Atmos and 5.1 files too.
Just sayin
 
Sal1950 said:
I think you'll find Apple has a larger catalog of Atmos and 5.1 files too.
Just sayin
Click to expand...
I don't think I can get that to work though on Google TV which is what my TV and Nvidia shield use.
 
sergeauckland said:
I see it as where audio has been, as I've been playing Quadraphonic LPs for years. Still buying them!

S
Click to expand...
Ah, but all those 70s Quad titles now being released on high resolution, completely discreet Blu Ray discs and sound so much better.
The failing of Quad 50+ years ago was largely due to all the technical & sound problems of getting it on Vinyl or 8 track tapes.

"The old LPs are fun, but nothing beats the modern reissues. Here's hoping the folks at Rhino, Dutton, and elsewhere keeping going back to the vaults of four-channel master tapes and bringing out the high-quality 21st century quadraphonics on silver discs. More than 50 years after it was born, that dog can still hunt."
Tom Fine, Stereophile

2+2=Quad, Dutton and Rhino Reissue Quadraphonic Albums | Stereophile.com

In 1976 Stereophile stablemate Hi-Fi News & Record Review released Quadrafile. Created by then deputy editor Mike Thorne, this limited edition, 2-LP set featured a selection of recordings encoded with the four rival Quadraphonic systems: SQ, QS, CD-4 and UD-4.
www.stereophile.com www.stereophile.com
 
Am I missing something here .. 24/44 .. Why would I move from Qobuz (up to 192) to this?
 
I'm fine with Qobuz. I'm not saying it's better than the other services, only that it has a lot of the music I like at what I think is a reasonable price.
 
F1Fan72 said:
Am I missing something here .. 24/44 .. Why would I move from Qobuz (up to 192) to this?
Click to expand...

Because there is more to a streaming service than "sound quality" that you can not hear. Maybe one service gives artists a bigger share of the income. Maybe it is available on more devices. Maybe it has better features. Maybe it has a larger selection of music.
 
F1Fan72 said:
Am I missing something here .. 24/44 .. Why would I move from Qobuz (up to 192) to this?
Click to expand...
Keith_W said:
Because there is more to a streaming service than "sound quality" that you can not hear. Maybe one service gives artists a bigger share of the income. Maybe it is available on more devices. Maybe it has better features. Maybe it has a larger selection of music.
Click to expand...
Very true Keith, but after years of unfulfilled promises and considering they have the largest number of paid subscribers, I found this bandwidth limited in comparision to the rest a really lame offering. And NO I don't believe it will make any audible difference for 2ch only users in the slightest IF its packaged correctly. OTOH Apple Music, TIDAL, and Amazon Music offer Atmos multich streams for the same or less money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom