Spotify to launch 'Hi-Fi' CD Quality Tier.

[Timcognito]

Jeez -- a guy shows a little initiative and look at the thanks he gets!

Trying to figure out what law he broke. Many bands have factious names, write crappy songs, use samplings and have them played on streaming services. Seems like if Spotify carried it, the creator provided it and people played it he should get paid. At the rate they pay, to get over $100K/mo the songs couldn't have been that bad.

 

[mhardy6647]

I am thinking that all of this should bring the resurgence of "bands" like Daft Punk, Gorillaz, Milli Vanilli, The Archies, and The Monkees.
OK, Daft Punk was (is?) kind of real.

tapes of questionable repute by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

 

[mhardy6647]

Trying to figure out what law he broke. Many bands have factious names, write crappy songs, use samplings and have them played on streaming services. Seems like if Spotify carried it, the creator provided it and people played it he should get paid. At the rate they pay, to get over $100K/mo the songs couldn't have been that bad.

Indeed. Seems to me he (they) exploited a rather pathetic loophole on the streamers' part. Their paying for plays of imaginary songs by imaginary bands being streamed by imaginary users seems to be more the streaming service's issue.

 

[Timcognito]

Indeed. Seems to me he (they) exploited a rather pathetic loophole on the streamers' part. Their paying for plays of imaginary songs by imaginary bands being streamed by imaginary users seems to be more the streaming service's issue.

Thanks I didn't read the article, my bad.

 

[Jmudrick]

I am thinking that all of this should bring the resurgence of "bands" like Daft Punk, Gorillaz, Milli Vanilli, The Archies, and The Monkees.
OK, Daft Punk was (is?) kind of real.

tapes of questionable repute by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

Monkees certainly became a real band rather quickly.

 

[mhardy6647]

Monkees certainly became a real band rather quickly.

Not as quickly as they (or at least Mike Nesmith) would have liked.

 

[Jmudrick]

Not as quickly as they (or at least Mike Nesmith) would have liked.

Sure. As would have Peter Tork, he was just less confrontational. But you know how long it was between release of the first album (with studio musicians) and the first sessions for the third (recorded by themselves)? Four months. And they'd started touring two months after release of the first LP. Things happened fast in those days. Loved Papa Nez.

 

[Tell]

In the end I personally don't care if people are stupidly greedy enough to use bots to stream their own music, what I care about though is that I get these tracks by random through Spotify's radio. That music is boring, bland and way to short to be of ANY use. I really want to report those artists just for that or at least have some function to ignore them.

 

[Dumdum]

Trying to figure out what law he broke. Many bands have factious names, write crappy songs, use samplings and have them played on streaming services. Seems like if Spotify carried it, the creator provided it and people played it he should get paid. At the rate they pay, to get over $100K/mo the songs couldn't have been that bad.

‘People’ didn’t stream it for the most part… he and his army of computers did… that’s where he came unstuck

 

[dkinric]

Guys - It "could" happen later this year! We truly live in exciting times.

Spotify could offer its long-awaited HiFi audio tier as a $6 add-on later this year

Spotify is rolling out a Music Pro tier later this year that will give users access to higher-quality audio and remixing tools, according to Bloomberg. But the long-awaited option was announced way back in 2021, and its release schedule could still change.

www.engadget.com

 

[mash]

As the article says....I'll believe it when I see it.

Even if they provide the service, doubt I'll sign up for it. If they added Roon support that would be a different story but I think the odds of that happening are somewhat less than zero. I use Tidal for Roon and streaming to my car and am pretty happy with that service. I find that the Spotify UI has gotten progressively worse over the last few years and only keep my Spotify subscription around so that I can easily share/access playlists with family and friends.

 

[Tell]

I'm still not interested, 320 OGG Vorbis is all we ever need. I so much rather want to pay say 6EUR more where ALL (and preferably a bit more) of that goes directly in the pockets of the artist!

 

[Miguelón]

I'm still not interested, 320 OGG Vorbis is all we ever need. I so much rather want to pay say 6EUR more where ALL (and preferably a bit more) of that goes directly in the pockets of the artist!

I'm still not interested, 320 OGG Vorbis is all we ever need. I so much rather want to pay say 6EUR more where ALL (and preferably a bit more) of that goes directly in the pockets of the artist!

I perceive the difference from loselees to mp3 or OGG in blind tests, though I find not very important except for classical music.

Nevertheless today’s networks and servers make unnecessary the compression algorithms, to me 24 bits / 48 kHz can be an ideal accounting to some degree of room correction and EQ, filtering…

 

[gvl]

to me 24 bits / 48 kHz can be an ideal accounting to some degree of room correction and EQ, filtering…

Is this a good reason? There’s more to lose when starting with 24 bits than 16, so why pay extra.

 

[Miguelón]

Is this a good reason? There’s more to lose when starting with 24 bits than 16, so why pay extra.

More to lose in which sense?

 

[gvl]

More to lose in which sense?

Meaning with less information to begin with there’s less to lose to DSP and whatnot, if anything.

 

[masterhw]

Meaning with less information to begin with there’s less to lose to DSP and whatnot, if anything.

I understand what you mean, but generally the effects of compression are only exacerbated once you've performed (sometimes aggressive) filtering and computations on top of it. For the same reason much of music production happens at 96kHz/24-bit even if the final master is only 44.1/16.

 

[Miguelón]

I understand what you mean, but generally the effects of compression are only exacerbated once you've performed (sometimes aggressive) filtering and computations on top of it. For the same reason much of music production happens at 96kHz/24-bit even if the final master is only 44.1/16.

This is the sense in which I intended to rise a little bit above 16/ 44.1.

Also the fact that many films has to coordinate 24 fps with 48 kHz. Is easier than 44.1 kHz that has no common divisors.

But in my case I didn’t understood what “less information to loose if you begin with less bits on the DSP”, there is something technical I don’t understand. The way to finish is to have a clean 16 bits signal after sacrificing some bits and resolution in FFT and FFT -1 loose, reducing freq. , phase corrections…

Do you know what is the way in which lossy formats work in chain?

I mean, if a mp3 file is transmitted through an bluetooth AAC codec, for example, it looses more information reconstructing time domain and recompressing or chip has algorithms to transform 256 kbps mp3 into a 256 kbps AAC without more lost information?

Do my question has any sense?

 

[antcollinet]

Meaning with less information to begin with there’s less to lose to DSP and whatnot, if anything.

Not how it works. The higher bit depth gives higher resolution in the signal. When DSP processes the signal, errors occur at the resolution of the processing. Lower resolution will result in larger errors.

However in reality the DSP is done (normally) at 32bit floating point. So the only time errors will be relevant for the bit depth of the PCM audio is in the conversion to and from the floating point. Again, here, higher res PCM will give better results - especially when converting back from the FP.

 

[AdamG]

Thought they did this every couple of years. To keep customers hanging on in the hope, this time it’s true. I’ll believe it when I hear it.

Just going to leave this here… (4 years ago almost to the day)