Will you stop using Spotify now? Vote

[Anon4273]

I am using Spotify (mostly non sub) because I have to a couple of months in order to use Amazon music HD without losing part of the student bonuses(6months free prime but no amazon music and some other things). But After this period I am going to switch because it cost half as much as Spotify if you are a student. Also I am using I was using Spotify for audiobooks but I am quite disappointed because some episodes have been taken down for months although they have the rights/license. Why should I pay (in my case) twice the price for a objectively worse service in the long run.

 

[sergeauckland]

tho, i hope IF spotify finally comes up with hires it will also include 24bit, and not just cd quality, i think (hope) thats also the reason for delay since many compitors have it it by now

So the improvement is doubly inaudible!
S.

 

[BN1]

Technology is rolling on. Lossless, hi-res, & spatial audio is where we are today. Hardware needs to catch up a bit and it will. Spotify is betting that most won't jump ship from Premium subscription because it's too much trouble. They get their talons in by giving students a break on price but the fact is that Premium is now too expensive compared to the competition. 320 kbps ?!! Worth about $2/mo in today's market.

 

[Zensō]

Technology is rolling on. Lossless, hi-res, & spatial audio is where we are today. Hardware needs to catch up a bit and it will. Spotify is betting that most won't jump ship from Premium subscription because it's too much trouble. They get their talons in by giving students a break on price but the fact is that Premium is now too expensive compared to the competition. 320 kbps ?!! Worth about $2/mo in today's market.

Serious question: assuming a person can’t distinguish between 320 Vorbis and higher sample rates (most can’t, not saying you can or can’t either way), what advantages do you feel higher sample rates provide?

 

[goat76]

Have a look at this thread I did a year ago: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...aded-the-audiophile-streaming-services.19308/

Out of the 70 million tracks provided by the streaming services, I can assure you that most of them have never got an alternative remastered version, and are therefore the same version as the CD release. If you mostly listen to mainstream artists who have re-released their records thousand of times with different masters and you need the best version possible, buy it from Discogs and rip it to your collection. You don't need to get rid of your record collection just because you are subscribing to a streaming service, you know.

 

[BN1]

Serious question: assuming a person can’t distinguish between 320 Vorbis and higher sample rates (most can’t, not saying you can or can’t either way), what advantages do you feel higher sample rates provide?

From a practical standpoint, and with damaged hearing & old ears, I enjoy <160 kbps music for background into a distributed audio system. I was a bit surprised how good Amazon Music HD sounded on my primary amp/speakers, something that I never experienced with 160 kbps (maybe a bit of expectation bias playing in but enjoy it never-the-less). Now, with that experience, would I rather pay $10/mo for Spot Premium @ 320 kbps or $8/mo for AMHD @ lossless CD/96/192 ? I also think that hardware/software will continue to improve in order to take advantage of the new tech of hi-res & spatial audio and I question whether Spotify will be able to keep pace based upon their response to just a small step of lossless.

 

[Berwhale]

there is no reason to compress anymore with the storage/bandwidth we have today

You make lots of assumptions about how much storage and bandwidth people have available to them. Sure, I have gigabit capable fibre broadband at home and a phone with 1TB of storage (which mostly occupied with FLACs), but I still use Spotify for finding new music/artists and sharing playlists with others, like this one...

ASR Headphone Test Tracks

ASR Headphone Test Tracks · Playlist · 120 songs · 111 likes

open.spotify.com

 

[Deleted member 23982]

You make lots of assumptions about how much storage and bandwidth people have available to them.

well those are free to still stream in 320kbit but atleast there would be option to stream in flac, spotify dont need to wonder if many jump over to apple/amazon (and amazon/apple probably just made the right call todo so, just to get spotify users at the right time )

tho i will stay with qobuz and pay 5 euro more than apple/amazon since i dont wanna support apple/tidal, maybe amazon would be worth a look tho

but i also like spotify for a few things, playlists/suggestions/spotify connect/linux client.... if they come back with high res (and i talk 24bit) i will probably switch back, for now i will stay with qobuz and last.fm integration in qobuz to get suggestions

 

[Berwhale]

Having had CD lossless quality for ca 40 years and SACD quality for ca 20 years it's not logical to strive for perfect audio reproduction with flawed lossy formats as a source. It's like backdating your beautiful Porsche 911 with an ugly big plastic spoiler, ugly rims and ugly stickers...

You didn't need the words either side...

"it's not logical to strive for perfect audio reproduction"

We live in an imperfect world.

 

[Berwhale]

well those are free to still stream in 320kbit but atleast there would be option to stream in flac, spotify dont need to wonder if many jump over to apple/amazon (and amazon/apple probably just made the right call todo so, just to get spotify users at the right time )

tho i will stay with qobuz and pay 5 euro more than apple/amazon since i dont wanna support apple/tidal, maybe amazon would be worth a look tho

I played about with Amazon HD when it was launched. The quality of the audio and music availability was fine. The UI and experience was very poor compared to Spotify.

I should clarify that I would like Spotify to make lossless audio available to stream and I would switch to this standard if/when it becomes available. I just don't see the point in throwing my toys out of the pram whilst I wait for that to happen.

 

[Zensō]

From a practical standpoint, and with damaged hearing & old ears, I enjoy <160 kbps music for background into a distributed audio system. I was a bit surprised how good Amazon Music HD sounded on my primary amp/speakers, something that I never experienced with 160 kbps (maybe a bit of expectation bias playing in but enjoy it never-the-less). Now, with that experience, would I rather pay $10/mo for Spot Premium @ 320 kbps or $8/mo for AMHD @ lossless CD/96/192 ? I also think that hardware/software will continue to improve in order to take advantage of the new tech of hi-res & spatial audio and I question whether Spotify will be able to keep pace based upon their response to just a small step of lossless.

Most people will hear a difference between 160 kbps MP3 and CD or higher. 320 Vorbis is another animal though.

Regarding Spotify Premium vs Amazon HD, since we seem to agree there should be no audible difference for most people — especially us old guys — then it really comes down to price, catalog, UX, and which company one prefers to support. I’m actually an Apple Music subscriber, but I wouldn’t let 320 Vorbis keep me from using Spotify if I preferred their service for other reasons.

 

[Deleted member 23982]

I played about with Amazon HD when it was launched. The quality of the audio and music availability was fine. The UI and experience was very poor compared to Spotify.

oh i didnt take a look yet, kinda expected more of amazon tho , but yea specially for suggestions and interface spotify is miles beyond others (tho i just took a look like 2 weeks ago and the interface of spotfy seems somewhat more clunky compared to a year ago, but its not that bad)

i kinda like the qobuz interface/client (specially because of wasapi etc i dont think spotify has this feature) BUT it just has a windows/linux client (webplayer is kinda fine too) but bubleupnp somewhat sucks, specially for exploring new music, i basicly search with the webplayer in linux and play it in bubbleupnp afterwards to moode... kinda a hassle i agree , like i said if spotify comes up with high res i "probably" switch back

one really nice feature i just explored 2 weeks ago in spotify is artist-made playlist, kinda fun to listen to favourite songs of your favourite artists
spotify is really topnotch for catalog/playlist/interface/spotify connect/suggestions (tho many claim last.fm gives better suggestions, i just test this right now )

 

[DanielT]

....spotify is really topnotch for catalog/playlist/interface/spotify connect/suggestions (tho many claim last.fm gives better suggestions, i just test this right now )...

Yup, Spotify is good at that. I have been fiddling with this list, so I take the opportunity to advertise it in this thread:

ASR, Songs that depict real events

ASR, Songs that depict real events · Playlist · 103 songs · 4 likes

open.spotify.com

Songs that depict real events...Now also, playlist on Spotify

What tips do you have to give? It can be any type of event. I myself discovered this live version from the thread about Live Albums. Undoubtedly, it also fits into this thread: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/live-albums.42/page-12 Edit: I'm creating a list now. Have...

audiosciencereview.com

When I collected the proposals and compiled the list I discovered that it became a sightly bizarre mixes of music styles. Interesting and good songs, I think.

 

[BN1]

Most people will hear a difference between 160 kbps MP3 and CD or higher. 320 Vorbis is another animal though.

Regarding Spotify vs Amazon HD, since we seem to agree there should be no audible difference for most people — especially us old guys — then it really comes down to price, catalog, UX, and which company one prefers to support. I’m actually an Apple Music subscriber, but I wouldn’t let 320 Vorbis keep me from using Spotify if I preferred their service for other reasons.

For me, Spotify has damaged their reputation with "promising" Hi-Fi for years (started in circa 2017). I wanted to get away from ads and would have likely been happy at 320 kbps and $10/mo as most of my listening is background anyway but when I tried AMHD I actually discovered a new pleasure of listening to hi-res music (up from <160 kbps) on my primary HT system. Most of the services seem to have their individual "warts" and, as you noted, you need to balance them against your wants/needs, some of which are guesses where the tech will take us (eg hardware improvements & spatial audio).

 

[Zensō]

For me, Spotify has damaged their reputation with "promising" Hi-Fi for years (started in circa 2017). I wanted to get away from ads and would have likely been happy at 320 kbps and $10/mo as most of my listening is background anyway but when I tried AMHD I actually discovered a new pleasure of listening to hi-res music (up from <160 kbps) on my primary HT system. Most of the services seem to have their individual "warts" and, as you noted, you need to balance them against your wants/needs, some of which are guesses where the tech will take us (eg hardware improvements & spatial audio).

I agree, promising a HiFi tier then going silent for nearly a year is a deal breaker for me. I'd be fine if they bothered to explain the rationale behind the delay or cancellation, but the lack of communication is aggravating.

 

[BN1]

For music steaming, Spotify has served us well for several years. If you're happy with Spot and have been a long-term user, stick with them as 160/320 kbps is ok for casual listening. But if you are a new user or one looking for sound quality, value, innovation, or customer service there are better deals out there. Lossless, CD, hi-res, & spatial audio is becoming the norm and hardware/software will adapt to this tech in the future and Spot is now lagging badly. I have moved from Pandora (free), to Spot (free), to AMHD and have cursed each app change initially but soon adjusted to the peculiarities and am happy with each change as each brought something new to my experience.

 

[Pattern]

I never used spotify for its fidelity in the first place. For me it is a music exploration tool.

 

[Kegemusha]

If apple, qobuz, amazon and others can have CD quality, why not spotify?
Sometimes 320kbs is fine, when walking/travelling to work and using bluetooth headphones or multiroom, this is ok for me.
Sometimes I would like to stream CD quality to my main system, and spotify do not have that now.
I can hear the diff between 320kbs and CD when the recording is of good DR. Punk music like CRASS or other bands doing loFi I will have hard time to hear a difference.
I have spotify since the start, but I am thinking of apple music now. I do own a lot of CDs, I do listen to CDs as well.

 

[Joe Smith]

Sigh, I cancelled Tidal today for the time being. Another $10 a month seems like something I don't need. But I hope Spotify will eventually get the lossless issues solved. Tidal sounded good, but after two months the AI features of the interface just did not seem to know my preferences as well as Spotify, and the rest of the family is pretty bought-in. So for now, I cave, but I am not thrilled.

 

[DanielT]

I think Spotify, via that moderator, is testing what the response will be. There are market researchers on Spotify and they are analyzing it. They will probably state that: Nothing happened. Some Hifi nerds on various Hifi forums chew a little froth, nothing to worry about.

After that, Spotify shuts down its lossless rollout. It does not affect their position in the market. Note a speculative and somewhat conspiratorial guess on my part.

By the way, I thought that What Hifi could act as serious digging journalists and really investigate how it is. I was naive, of course they only reported what the Spotify moderator wrote: