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

[bluefuzz]

Spotify sound quality is sketchy

Based on what? Using Spotify Connect 320 kb/s on decent gear I can hear no difference whatsoever between Spotify, a ripped flac or original CD played through same signal chain. When I had Tidal lossless I could hear no difference to that either. Obviously, low bitrate stream through earbuds on a telephone will sound less good ...

won’t improve with lossless because of technical reasons and weirdness

Waves hands manically ...

Apps are a hot mess, and sort of incomprehensible

Spotify have a somewhat annoying habit of frequently changing the UI, but the basic features work fine and haven't really changed much in the five or so years I've had Spotify.

Just checking off a box, with no concept, care, or plan for catering to serious music listeners.

And how, prey tell, do you define a 'serious' music listener?

They are all about earbuds, social features, memes and the like.

Funny, I don't use any of these yet Spotify is by far my favourite streaming service ...

Tidal apps are way better than Spotify

I found Tidal's app rather poor. Discovery was awful, frequent dropouts and poor search. Not to mention the limited catalogue compared to Spotify. I much preferred accessing it through BluOS.

I now conclude it’s a meh, or worse, a grift.

As I posted previously, the 'lossless' tier is quite obviously an excuse to put the price up. As they continue to lose money, it had to come at some point.

because your typical Spotify user doesn’t care about any of the above

Hmm. This Spotify user cares very much about the above and has long since concluded that Spotify runs rings round the competition in every way. However, I agree lossless will add little of worth to the service other than a price increase.

 

[PierreV]

Some of this thread is hilarious, to be honest. While I am willing to admit that most of the "hi-res" offering is just a scam (resampling of lower res recordings), if we throw "cheap trash" CDs and "dishonest, technically incompetent, unreliable" streaming services in the same category, where does that leave us? What should we listen to? Self-made recordings of artists we invited in our homes?

I can't deny that I am part of the audiophile community since I like music, the recording and reproduction of music and, the hardware required for its reproduction.

But taking a step back and looking at us as a whole, I have to admit we seem to be an insane group of people. Endless arguments about the couch in the room, cables, speaker binding posts, class D vs the world, the shape of our ear canals, preference scores etc...

My head is spinning...

Let's not forget that, on the whole, the hardware, from DACs to speakers - even the cheap stuff - has never been as good as it is now and that 99.9% of the music we might want to listen to is instantly available, one way or another.

Does anyone remember ordering "imports" at the vinyl store and waiting 3-4 weeks to listen to them on systems whose FR was a mystery?

Is whining for the sake of whining a defining characteristic of our kind or even the human race?

 

[voodooless]

Let's not forget that, on the whole, the hardware, from DACs to speakers - even the cheap stuff - has never been as good as it is now and that 99.9% of the music we might want to listen to is instantly available, one way or another.

It's rather ironic then that the sound mixes are probably as bad as they have ever been since the invention of the mass consumer vinyl.

 

[jannek]

That is because these cheap CD mixes probably not only end up at Wallmart. It's probably the same stuff that goes to the streamers. So it's no extra work at all.

See here an example of not a cheap CD mix, but still telling. I've always found the original 1988 CD sound marvellous... Might just be me have some childhood nostalgia of course, but the latest "remaster" of 2020, sounds decidedly dull on Quboz (next to the fact that they butchered some of the sons). And this is probably not even a very bad example. Did not compare the old version on Qubuz yet. It's not really clear what the source of that one is though. And no (functioning) CD player anymore in the house to compare with the original View attachment 114541

Edit: Just did a quick compare with "Learning to Fly" Oh man, that new master is fucked up. One thing they did well, is to remove some of the reverberance of the live recording, but otherwise it quite a shitshow

View attachment 114545

Edit2: Just checked the Spotify version of the 1988 album: it seems to be the same...

So at this example there was a new version in 1995 which didnt harm DR. Then a remaster in 2005 which took some and another heavy remaster in 2020 which crapped everything. The last one as a remix for sure influenced by loudness wars.
What about a more recent recording?

 

[sfdoddsy]

I've been a card-carrying audiophile for over 40 years. I'm now nudging 60, but most of my Damascene audio moments happened when my hearing was in its prime.

So when I bought my first serious audio system 40 years ago (Meridian 101/105) I was utterly convinced I could easily hear the difference between these very expensive examples of the current creme de la creme of hifi and lesser boxes. Likewise I was convinced that the Quicksilver Mono valve amps I flirted with dove somehow deeper into the heart of the music.

Shortly after laying out large amounts of money for these and their compatriots (equally expensive Linn Sondek/Oracle turntables paired with pricey, band-width limited Celestion SL600 speakers) my choice of career saw me spend a lot of time in professional audio studios.

The engineers humoured my arrogant audiophilia and pretended to consider my suggestions about warming up the audio chain with valve amps, but eventually they got sick of it and did an intervention. I was sat down and made to do a bunch of blind tests.

It turns out I couldn't hear the difference between my Class A rated amps, and cheapo ones. I couldn't hear the difference between my delicate Koetsu cartidge and a cheaper Shure. I could hear the difference between expensive analog and the cheap digital I sneered at. Alas, digital was more accurate.

I learned couldn't hear the difference between DACs. Or (again) between huge heavy power amps and cheap-ass receivers. I couldn't hear the difference between cables, interconnects and any physics defying tweak (foil, green markers on CDs, freezing cables, cable lifters, harmonic dots, vibration feet and so many more).

I bought dozens of SACDs before being shown that I was unable to tell them from their redbook alternative (unless the mix was tweaked).

Nevertheless when lossy codecs arrived I snubbed them in favour of lossless rips and streaming. I thought physics was on my side and they couldn't possible sound as good as lossless.

Until I did some of blind A/B tests hosted at the Hydrogen Audio forum quite a few years back.

There I learned I couldn't reliably tell the difference between anything above 256K and lossless.

Napier's links here showed me nothing has changed.

https://thenextweb.com/plugged/2021...fy-hifi-try-to-pass-this-lossless-audio-test/

Most of the 50000 or so tracks on my server are encoded at 320k. Not because I think I can tell the difference between them and 256K (or less) but because storage is cheap these days.

I like that Apple Music (my only streaming service) also uses 320K, because bandwidth is also cheap these days.

I wouldn't mind lossless, even though I know I can't hear the difference. It would just make me feel fuzzier.

But I wouldn't pay extra for it.

The only think I would pay a (slight) premium for is streaming or downloadable discrete surround music (DTS 5.1 would be just fine) or binaural.

 

[SKBubba]

How did you find that out in half an hour? What technical reasons and weirdness are you referring to?

For one thing, you can't select an output device on the PC. It uses the default Windows sound device and the Windows mixer. You can’t select a USB DAC unless you make it the default Windows sound device and you can’t set it for exclusive mode or bypass the Windows sound mixer.

Spotify Connect works great and sounds good, but can only play to one device at a time and there's no transparancy as to what it's doing.

 

[Liberal Democracy]

I'd take a 10 band EQ and some kind of rudimentary integrated ( to the music player of Spotify, amazon music etc ) software that measures room response and adjusts tracks to suit, headphones, ear buds or full hifi playback systems over content thats in excess of 16 44.1.

I'd pay extra for that and maybe some other sound processing like binaural designed for either of those playback methods rather than treating them all the same .

 

[pjug]

For one thing, you can't select an output device on the PC. It uses the default Windows sound device and the Windows mixer. You can’t select a USB DAC unless you make it the default Windows sound device and you can’t set it for exclusive mode or bypass the Windows sound mixer.

Spotify Connect works great and sounds good, but can only play to one device at a time and there's no transparancy as to what it's doing.

I might have been willing to bend my habits and use Spotify Connect with a decent mobile app. But Spotify's Android app is a crapped out thing, nothing like to their desktop app. Just pushing playlists about 20 different different ways, no way to browse for albums that I can see. So I'd have to use the desktop app and I don't want to have to use a laptop all the time. I'll be much happier staying with another service.

I have to say I was really expecting much better. I assumed that with the market share that Spotify has, they would have figured out how to do things in step with someone with my habits.

edit: OOOH, I figured out the Android app. "Search" is really "browse". So maybe I can make this work.

 

[Sal1950]

That is because these cheap CD mixes probably not only end up at Wallmart. It's probably the same stuff that goes to the streamers. So it's no extra work at all.

That's simply an example of the DR wars and not telling of any conspiracy to sell bad sounding copies to Wallies or supply them to the steamers. They're the same crappy remasters you would have bought at any other retail outlet over the last decade or two. Let's not go looking for a boogieman other then those responsible for creating and maintaining the DR wars in the first place.

 

[buz]

That's simply an example of the DR wars and not telling of any conspiracy to sell bad sounding copies to Wallies or supply them to the steamers. They're the same crappy remasters you would have bought at any other retail outlet over the last decade or two. Let's not go looking for a boogieman other then those responsible for creating and maintaining the DR wars in the first place.

This. And for many bands you can even chose between original and remaster on streaming services.

 

[Sal1950]

This. And for many bands you can even chose between original and remaster on streaming services.

Yep

 

[voodooless]

That's simply an example of the DR wars and not telling of any conspiracy to sell bad sounding copies to Wallies or supply them to the steamers. They're the same crappy remasters you would have bought at any other retail outlet over the last decade or two. Let's not go looking for a boogieman other then those responsible for creating and maintaining the DR wars in the first place.

Your absolutely right. Though I never said there was a conspiracy.

 

[MrJoePike]

Has anyone taken the test and if so how did you do?
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html

https://thenextweb.com/plugged/2021...fy-hifi-try-to-pass-this-lossless-audio-test/

 

[Jimbob54]

I've been a card-carrying audiophile for over 40 years. I'm now nudging 60, but most of my Damascene audio moments happened when my hearing was in its prime.

So when I bought my first serious audio system 40 years ago (Meridian 101/105) I was utterly convinced I could easily hear the difference between these very expensive examples of the current creme de la creme of hifi and lesser boxes. Likewise I was convinced that the Quicksilver Mono valve amps I flirted with dove somehow deeper into the heart of the music.

Shortly after laying out large amounts of money for these and their compatriots (equally expensive Linn Sondek/Oracle turntables paired with pricey, band-width limited Celestion SL600 speakers) my choice of career saw me spend a lot of time in professional audio studios.

The engineers humoured my arrogant audiophilia and pretended to consider my suggestions about warming up the audio chain with valve amps, but eventually they got sick of it and did an intervention. I was sat down and made to do a bunch of blind tests.

It turns out I couldn't hear the difference between my Class A rated amps, and cheapo ones. I couldn't hear the difference between my delicate Koetsu cartidge and a cheaper Shure. I could hear the difference between expensive analog and the cheap digital I sneered at. Alas, digital was more accurate.

I learned couldn't hear the difference between DACs. Or (again) between huge heavy power amps and cheap-ass receivers. I couldn't hear the difference between cables, interconnects and any physics defying tweak (foil, green markers on CDs, freezing cables, cable lifters, harmonic dots, vibration feet and so many more).

I bought dozens of SACDs before being shown that I was unable to tell them from their redbook alternative (unless the mix was tweaked).

Nevertheless when lossy codecs arrived I snubbed them in favour of lossless rips and streaming. I thought physics was on my side and they couldn't possible sound as good as lossless.

Until I did some of blind A/B tests hosted at the Hydrogen Audio forum quite a few years back.

There I learned I couldn't reliably tell the difference between anything above 256K and lossless.

Napier's links here showed me nothing has changed.

https://thenextweb.com/plugged/2021...fy-hifi-try-to-pass-this-lossless-audio-test/

Most of the 50000 or so tracks on my server are encoded at 320k. Not because I think I can tell the difference between them and 256K (or less) but because storage is cheap these days.

I like that Apple Music (my only streaming service) also uses 320K, because bandwidth is also cheap these days.

I wouldn't mind lossless, even though I know I can't hear the difference. It would just make me feel fuzzier.

But I wouldn't pay extra for it.

The only think I would pay a (slight) premium for is streaming or downloadable discrete surround music (DTS 5.1 would be just fine) or binaural.

Great post. Maybe there's a lot in the $$ value of the fuzzy feeling. It's no different to other tech based consumer products. Outdoor wear is somewhat similar. Cycling too. Warmer and faster because of the blurb and cost.

 

[ShadowFiend]

This posting let's me assume that this is maybe no general problem but of individual tracks or albums. Maybe you have some examples so someone else could verify this?

I can throw out name of albums I tested, but it is also pointless as you still need my CD rip as well as the bought download from qobuz. And I can't provide my Rip as it is not allowed.

 

[cany89]

It's really interesting to read comments like I can't tell the difference between this and that.
I said it before and I'll say it again: you should be able to pick the one that you listen to. And if you know what you've been listening to, you can tell which is which. It's not a bold claim either. I'm not saying you can pick the better quality or anything. Just the one that you know. Sure, on a system you are not really familiar with, with songs that you don't know very well, there is no way of telling anything. You wouldn't know how the snare would sound on lossy vs lossless. How the bass would change etc. (please ignore the fact that some so called high-quality tracks are just oversampled from 16/44 or they just have empty bits - like the original recording is really 24/96, but there is no sound on that extra 8bits, etc.)

It turns out I couldn't hear the difference between my Class A rated amps, and cheapo ones.

and you couldn't hear the difference between two things that really, absolutely, change the sound? Like a power amp or speakers? C'mon!

 

[Sal1950]

Like a power amp or speakers?

Speakers, always.
Power amps, Properly designed SS power amps have been fully transparent for a number of decades now.
If your talking about fringe design SS or tube power amps, in todays market they're designed to sound different, and inaccurate.

 

[m_g_s_g]

For one thing, you can't select an output device on the PC. It uses the default Windows sound device and the Windows mixer.

Have you tried VoiceMeeter?

 

[Zensō]

I've been a card-carrying audiophile for over 40 years. I'm now nudging 60, but most of my Damascene audio moments happened when my hearing was in its prime.

So when I bought my first serious audio system 40 years ago (Meridian 101/105) I was utterly convinced I could easily hear the difference between these very expensive examples of the current creme de la creme of hifi and lesser boxes. Likewise I was convinced that the Quicksilver Mono valve amps I flirted with dove somehow deeper into the heart of the music.

Shortly after laying out large amounts of money for these and their compatriots (equally expensive Linn Sondek/Oracle turntables paired with pricey, band-width limited Celestion SL600 speakers) my choice of career saw me spend a lot of time in professional audio studios.

The engineers humoured my arrogant audiophilia and pretended to consider my suggestions about warming up the audio chain with valve amps, but eventually they got sick of it and did an intervention. I was sat down and made to do a bunch of blind tests.

It turns out I couldn't hear the difference between my Class A rated amps, and cheapo ones. I couldn't hear the difference between my delicate Koetsu cartidge and a cheaper Shure. I could hear the difference between expensive analog and the cheap digital I sneered at. Alas, digital was more accurate.

I learned couldn't hear the difference between DACs. Or (again) between huge heavy power amps and cheap-ass receivers. I couldn't hear the difference between cables, interconnects and any physics defying tweak (foil, green markers on CDs, freezing cables, cable lifters, harmonic dots, vibration feet and so many more).

I bought dozens of SACDs before being shown that I was unable to tell them from their redbook alternative (unless the mix was tweaked).

Nevertheless when lossy codecs arrived I snubbed them in favour of lossless rips and streaming. I thought physics was on my side and they couldn't possible sound as good as lossless.

Until I did some of blind A/B tests hosted at the Hydrogen Audio forum quite a few years back.

There I learned I couldn't reliably tell the difference between anything above 256K and lossless.

Napier's links here showed me nothing has changed.

https://thenextweb.com/plugged/2021...fy-hifi-try-to-pass-this-lossless-audio-test/

Most of the 50000 or so tracks on my server are encoded at 320k. Not because I think I can tell the difference between them and 256K (or less) but because storage is cheap these days.

I like that Apple Music (my only streaming service) also uses 320K, because bandwidth is also cheap these days.

I wouldn't mind lossless, even though I know I can't hear the difference. It would just make me feel fuzzier.

But I wouldn't pay extra for it.

The only think I would pay a (slight) premium for is streaming or downloadable discrete surround music (DTS 5.1 would be just fine) or binaural.

Nice post. One thing (being a putz here), I believe Apple Music is 256k AAC, and Spotify Premium is 320k Ogg...

 

[cyruz]

What's the betting that any new 'Hi-fi' tier will include the current 320 kb rate + 'lossless' for a 75-100% price hike while the current low and medium bitrates will remain at the current price. This will make me sad as I can't hear any difference between 320 kb and lossless flac or cd anyway ...

I'm afraid of this. I can digest a 1$ raise for the service as it is, but I don't want to shell out $5 more to keep listening at 320 kbps (I don't care about lossless).