Spotify Premium worth it for the audio quality?

[Zensō]

Online streaming quality can never level up with the master tape.

For all intents and purposes, 256 AAC (Apple Music) and 320 Ogg Vorbis (Spotify Premium) are transparent and indistinguishable from 16 and 24 bit masters. This has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in multiple blind tests.

 

[Sukie]

I think I agree. If lossless streaming was massively more expensive than spotify (or other non lossless services/ tiers), I would probably default to spotify premium. But now the difference is less than $10 a month, plus I can use Qobuz/ Tidal with my player of choice (Roon), I dont really care if I can or cant tell the quality level on any form of test as long as it sounds "good" . Which it does.

This is more or less where I am. My source is phone rather than PC. The USB functionality on Android phones is fairly limited and so I use USB Audio Player Pro. Spotify isn't supported but both Tidal and Qobuz are. I like to have my streaming and my physical (micro SD) options handled by the same interface and UAPP does this. When comparing the annual subscriptions for Spotify Premium and Qobuz, in the UK, the difference is only £4 a month.

And, most importantly, I agree that it sounds good!

 

[Jimbob54]

This is more or less where I am. My source is phone rather than PC. The USB functionality on Android phones is fairly limited and so I use USB Audio Player Pro. Spotify isn't supported but both Tidal and Qobuz are. I like to have my streaming and my physical (micro SD) options handled by the same interface and UAPP does this. When comparing the annual subscriptions for Spotify Premium and Qobuz, in the UK, the difference is only £4 a month.

And, most importantly, I agree that it sounds good!

That is (or maybe was) my phone set up too. Though I have just moved from Tidal to Qobuz which has rubbish support for large playlists (999 max) so I've got a partner account with spotify on the back of the wife's sub and playing that via spotify app to phone DAC then out. I can still use UAPP with Qobuz and a quality dongle should I wish.

 

[Astrozombie]

The real question is Spotify Premium Vs. Tidal Lossless. This thread should have had a poll (are polls possible here?)

 

[dasdoing]

on a side note; for me it's actualy not a choice, since I never found contemporary brazilian music on other providers but Spotify (or it is very limited)

 

[gorman]

The real question is Spotify Premium Vs. Tidal Lossless. This thread should have had a poll (are polls possible here?)

Don't think a poll would hold much value on a science forum. Better to read the information that has been provided rather than a subjective yes/no choice. In my opinion, at least.

 

[dasdoing]

Don't think a poll would hold much value on a science forum. Better to read the information that has been provided rather than a subjective yes/no choice. In my opinion, at least.

agreed...facts are not decided by majority...they are just facts

 

[Zedly]

This topic isn't about facts. It's about whether the differences between the different bitrates offered by Spotify make it worth upgrading to the Premium level. The decision about which service to use is inherently subjective because it is a matter of preferences and trade-offs.

 

[dougi]

I've participated in well controlled tests of AAC for the purposes of evaluating bitrates for DAB+ digital radio. For most people I recall that even 96kbps+ is almost transparent. Still, for my use I upgrade to premium so that at least 320kbps in conjunction with a Bluetooth codec such as AptX-HD it should still be good.

 

[Blujackaal]

I've participated in well controlled tests of AAC for the purposes of evaluating bitrates for DAB+ digital radio. For most people I recall that even 96kbps+ is almost transparent. Still, for my use I upgrade to premium so that at least 320kbps in conjunction with a Bluetooth codec such as AptX-HD it should still be good.

56 ~ 160Kbps Lossy audio is tranparent there, If you don't count the killer samples that need 192 ~ 512kbps. With AoTuv encoder vorbis is tranparent at 140 ~ 175kbps let alone 320kbps, Same with other codecs like MP3 when with Lame tranparency starts at V5 ~ V4. Hearing range also counts to since I've heard if it maxes at 10.8 ~ 15KHz the more likely 128kbps will sound fine 99% of the time.

No different to how in video compression 720p/1080p with x.264 at 4mbit is enough for most people.

 

[mansr]

No different to how in video compression 720p/1080p with x.264 at 4mbit is enough for most people.

It's fine until you encounter a flock of birds. Then you're suddenly left with a jumble of blocks. All lossy/perceptual codecs have this problem. No matter how much you test and tweak, there will always be inputs that make them fall apart. If the bandwidth is available, I much prefer lossless coding just to be sure. For audio, this is easy. Lossless video, however, is completely out of the question.

 

[dasdoing]

can't compare to video resolution as it very easy to abx. Obviously you can't abx 1080vs2160 if your 42" is on the other side of the room

 

[Jimbob54]

The real question is Spotify Premium Vs. Tidal Lossless. This thread should have had a poll (are polls possible here?)

Polls are available - never set one up but think its easy if you are the OP

BUT- as others have said, unless asking about functionality and preference, its of little value as science.

1. Only a limited number of possible responders will actually have tried both- you dont really care what people choose to use, do you.
2. Very few if any will have done this using volume levelled blind A/B testing

 

[Blujackaal]

It's fine until you encounter a flock of birds. Then you're suddenly left with a jumble of blocks. All lossy/perceptual codecs have this problem. No matter how much you test and tweak, there will always be inputs that make them fall apart. If the bandwidth is available, I much prefer lossless coding just to be sure. For audio, this is easy. Lossless video, however, is completely out of the question.

Yeah that why their tuned to up the bitrate to very high on modern codecs. AAC/Opus/more shoot up to 502kbps on hard samples, MP3 locks to 320k frames & musepack can do 1.3mbit+ if a song has hard sections. Odd how people say 0.5 ~ 1.3mbit lossy silly when 256k AAC & 320k Vorbis can spit out 640k files on noisy EDM songs since there VBR codecs. Opus 1.3/USAC are already tranparent on the eig.wav sample at 96kbps.

There a reason they made HEVC/H.265 when lossless video for a 1 to 3 hour film at 1080p = 1TB ~ 800Mbit bit rate. For 4K video?, forget about it since hevc 4K Blurays use the codec at 100mbit. But for 720P video it only needs 1 ~ 2mbit.

 

[mansr]

Yeah that why their tuned to up the bitrate to very high on modern codecs. AAC/Opus/more shoot up to 502kbps on hard samples, MP3 locks to 320k frames & musepack can do 1.3mbit+ if a song has hard sections. Odd how people say 0.5 ~ 1.3mbit lossy silly when 256k AAC & 320k Vorbis can spit out 640k files on noisy EDM songs since there VBR codecs.

Uncompressed CD quality is 1.4 Mbps. Depending on the content, FLAC can go below 400 kbps. At rates above 500 kbps, there's no reason to use a lossy codec.

 

[mil]

Hey, I've been debating if I should get Spotify Premium for the sound quality increase from 160kbps to 320kbps Ogg Vorbis on desktop. Please note that the only deciding factor for me is the sound quality in whether or not I'll get premium
I've done some ABX testing(on my hd 600s) with some tracks ...

Warning, subjective comments follow:

The quality difference is huge, but personally I wouldn't trust the HD600s too much on making this difference too obvious. I bought both the HD660s and then the HD600 just to compare them, the HD660s are way more detailed but obviously it depends on the music you are listening to as well and the DAC/Amp you are using.

After listening to your test tracks I would say, the HD600 are fine overall for this type of music and/or the music I used to listen in the past mostly (i.e. Gabba, Speedcore, JCore, EDM etc.) 160Kbps vs 320Kbps do not make that huge of a difference.

Nowadays I have expanded my taste to include more Jazz, Classic, Country, everything...so quality is a bit more important for me and I wouldn't be satisfied with 160Kbps or below.

 

[Blujackaal]

At rates above 500 kbps, there's no reason to use a lossy codec.

Seems like you have no clue how VBR works on modern Lossy codecs. I cant tell 160kbps lossy with Opus/Musepack, The mildly hard to compress stuff in my collection can reach 240k ~ 390kbps & harder stuff >500kbps. It can range from 5 seconds to the whole song.

It no different if you feed <400kbps FLAC to Opus, Musepack, Vorbis you get <112kbps for the song. Atrium Carceri has some tracks with added static that can make any codec hover at 235kbps even if the setting is 128kbps VBR, If you set to CBR mode it sound like trash. With lossless i lothe the compression bug where if FLAC cant compress the song or album it just leaves it at 1405kbps ~ 1490kbps 3.5% larger than the WAV file on the CD.

 

[Jimbob54]

*Fetches popcorn*

 

[mansr]

Seems like you have no clue

*plonk*

 

[Blujackaal]

Ah fuck off.