When is FLAC coming...???? WE NEED LOSSLESS

[no1111111]

14.99 a month and I'd do it. Just do it. Needed. Stop people having to listen to mp3. This isn't 2002.

[Edrysark]

Just for the sake of precision, Spotify don't use MPEG-1/2 Audio Layer III (MP3). It use a superior compression technique named Ogg Vorbis. A format designed so that the listener does not make a difference in tune with the original, by exploiting the characteristics of human acoustic perception, especially by removing frequencies present less audible to another. It's a better solution than the MP3 codec.

[ekalz]

Ogg is just royalty free, but many say Mp3 is superior. Still, what he is saying is right. I really want Spotify to have lossless too. I would even pay 20 € for it.

[Edrysark · Accepted solution]

Today Spotify doesn't support Lossless streaming. Add your comments and votes to this idea to show your support for Lossless quality.   https://community.spotify.com/t5/Spotify-Ideas/Lossless-Streaming-16bit-44-1khz-CD-quality/idi-p/700...

[BertH1]

Aha; wonderful news on the website of WhatHifi

http://www.whathifi.com/news/spotify-hi-fi-tier-set-to-offer-lossless-streaming

Many audiophile members are very happy with FLAC coming to Spotify

[alexandero11]

Ogg Vorbis is objectively superior to mp3, hence why Spotify uses it. Use a 320kbps Spotify stream with a good audio upscalernd and it is pretty much impossible to tell the difference from a CD. If you don't believe me, encode a song at 96kbps for mp3 and Ogg Vorbis. The Ogg one will sound good enough, and the mp3 one will sound "barely good but barely bad". There is a noticeable difference. Yes, if you don't care about audio quality (podcasts, etc) then with some encoding tricks you can get a half hour long podcast to be under 6 megabytes and still be perfectly fine (something I've never been able to achieve with any other codec, believe me, I spent way too long trying). But for music, it's very outdated. My personal choice for lossy music compression is AAC, since everything these days supports it and it is pretty much the same as Ogg Vorbis (give or take) on compression efficiency, but that's really just me.

Sorry for my rambling, but my point is, lossless audio is just a gimmick. I'm an audio equipment enthusiast, so I love lossless audio, and if I could pay like two bucks more, I would do it without thinking, but everyone who thinks they will hear a difference (especially if they already have a good receiver or other playback device) is going to be getting ripped off at 15 or 20 bucks. And besides, it's probably not even true lossless. It's probably going to be cdrips in most cases, not something like you would get with Bluray audio which is REAL lossless audio.

[NH18]

I have a decent system but not over the top audiophile quality by any means.  Paradigm speakers, Denon receiver with Spotify connect, and a Harmon Kardon CD player.  On an A / B test of the same songs it is amazing how much additional depth and presense the music has when playing a CD vs. Spotify.  The CD quality sounds so much better.  I never would have believed it.  This justifies to me the quality of lossless audio and a Tidal subscription.  

[NH18]

My experience, with a decent but by no means over the top system, is that a CD sounds noticeably better than Spotify.  The technical comparisons and logical arguments made me suspect that the difference wouldn't be that great, but when I completed A / B testing last night, I was amazed at the difference.  The CD has so much more depth, presense and clarity.  In my opinion, although Spotify may be better than MP3, this is like saying that a foot is bigger than an inch, but relative to a CD the comparion is a yard.  Bad analogy maybe but it's a noticeable difference.

[PawelBa]

Hello Spotify,

any news in this case? Should I wait for lossless quality or switch to Tidal?

BR

Paweł

[NH18]

I'm thinking if Spotify were moving in that direction, at the very least they would announce that they are considering it.  My guess is they don't believe a business case exists to justify the incremental investment in servers, conversion, etc.  Although the sound quality of CD and of Tidal FLAC is clearly better, based on my experience with A/B testing, I'd guess the question is what percentage of users would even appreciate the difference, and out of those who do, at what price point would they be willing to pay for the increased quality.  At an additional $5/month I'm in for ever, $10 maybe and I'm out at $15.  The math probably doesn't work. 

I tried Tidal on a free 30 day trial.  I didn't like the user interface as much as Spotify's and as off base as the discover / recommendations sometimes are in Spotify, Tidal was awful.  Also, what I didn't appreciate until I subscribed, Tidal FLAC only works through a PC / laptop.  On an iPhone you get MP3 / Spotify quality.  To get CD quality sound I had to run a 20 ft HDMI from my laptop into the back of my receiver.  Who wants to do that?  There may be other ways to do this but I'm not sure if mirroring to a Roku, Fire, AppleTV, etc. would downgrade the quality.  (I have AppleTV on my receiver but I don't have an Apple laptop so I couldn't test this.)  Given the PC / laptop restriction, the other consideration is where do you typically listen to music?  If you listen mostly at home and using a PC isn't a concern, then it may be worth it.  Personally, probably more than 95% of my listening is on my phone through headphones or in my car, and for the other 5%, maybe the sound quality isn't as good but throwing the music from my iPhone to my receiver, which has Spotify connect, is a lot more convenient.     

[nevigo]

I hope Spotify do know just how many that stand ready to jump on the lossless waggon. Come on guys, it's high time!

Nevi

[MattSuda]

Good news!

Spotify has announced that later this year lossless quality is coming and it will be called Spotify HiFi

Check out my blog post about it

Check out this news article for more information:

Five Things to Know About Spotify HiFi