[All Platforms][Music] HiFi Quality - Lossless Streaming 16bit 44.1khz

[timiambeing]

I've just started a trial of Qobuz - they offer the standard 320kbps as well as lossless FLAC streaming (and high res downloads if you purchase them) the sound quality is noticeably better and on classical it's just wonderful to get all that resolution through your hi-fi or headphones! The catalogue has a way to go to get to Spotify's level, but they are getting there. The iPad app isn't' too bad (the desktop app is in need of an upgrade but I hear they are putting all their efforts into mobile apps right now).

So - lossless streaming - if Qobuz can do it then so can Spotify, they must have the same source - and obviously if you are asking £20 a month then those record labels and distributors take enough notice to make the high res tracks available for streaming. What this all means is soon, very soon, we will get lossless streaming and closely followed by high res downloads - but if Spotify aren't careful it will be Apple who get there first with an audiophile premium offering, and when they do it will be a much harder market place to make money in!

** please don't lump this suggestion with the main one on lossless downloads, that's a different idea entirely guys!

[timiambeing]

I've just started a trial of Qobuz - they offer the standard 320kbps as well as lossless FLAC streaming (and high res downloads if you purchase them) the sound quality is noticeably better and on classical it's just wonderful to get all that resolution through your hi-fi or headphones! The catalogue has a way to go to get to Spotify's level, but they are getting there. The iPad app isn't' too bad (the desktop app is in need of an upgrade but I hear they are putting all their efforts into mobile apps right now).

[timiambeing]

So - lossless streaming - if Qobuz can do it then so can Spotify, they must have the same source - and obviously if you are asking £20 a month then those record labels and distributors take enough notice to make the high res tracks available for streaming. What this all means is soon, very soon, we will get lossless streaming and closely followed by high res downloads - but if Spotify aren't careful it will be Apple who get there first with an audiophile premium offering, and when they do it will be a much harder market place to make money in!

[timiambeing]

Good news!

Lossless audio quality is finally starting to roll out to Spotify Premium users! 🔊

Check out this post for more info:

➜ Spotify Premium: Now Streaming in Lossless Quality

[Lukematik]

This is so disappointing. I will have to switch back to Tidal if this does not come soon. 

[PaulMac]

I agree the behaviour of Spotify has been shameful.

To build up customer expectations early last year and then just let the clock run down for 9 months saying absolutely nothing the entire time is difficult to understand.

Then when this years update finally did arrive it was a watered down version with no time frame included. As far as I'm concerned there is now very little chance of it happening this year, anyone holding out for HiFi is in for a VERY long wait. 

[Sergjjii]

Spotify will never move on its own as long as users pay for subscriptions. Do you want change? Stop paying for a Spotify subscription and the more people who leave them because of their lies to other services, the faster they will do something about it.

Spotify raised the price of their service on nothing, but Qobuz lowered the price. Spotify has long been a disappointment as a service, all they can do is paint buttons different colours every week and add some useless functions. And they can't do anything normal for a long time. There are far more interesting services than Spotify. I used Spotify for three years, but then I realised that the service was turning into a green swamp. The company is solely focused on making money; they don't care about the rest. If it continues like this, the end for spotify will be sad as a company.

[paulove]

Here is an excerpt from idropnews.com about Spotify Hifi.

Spotify seems to have decided that’s not worth the trouble for now, since there’s no obvious payoff. It’s still the biggest player in the streaming game, so Hi-Fi tracks aren’t likely to attract or win back any significant numbers of customers. Plus, Spotify has already shown it doesn’t particularly care about losing customers if supporting their needs is more trouble than its worth, as evidenced by its continued lack of support for the HomePod, or even arguably basic technologies like AirPlay 2.

Seems like Apple Music Lossless killed their plan for a higher priced tier, and now it's not worth it. 

[lappymusicman]

Personally I think people would return for lossless CD quality or higher as other than the sound quality they have the best user experience and also Spotify Connect BUT only if they do it soon and keep the price the same as premium or keep any rise down to no more than a couple of pounds (20%). If they leave it too long they’re good as dead I reckon. 

[JaspisB]

Yeah, whatever the reason for the wait, it's really not a good look.

[PaulMac]

It's definitely not a good look for Spotify. Anyone interested in signing up to a music streaming service for the first time will usually first compare the different features of each service. 

They will now see Spotify lagging well behind for sound quality and that's bound to have an impact in the longer term. I think Spotifys current focus away from music will come back to bite them

[user-removed]

Your latest response on this doesn't take accountability, explain or apologize for failing to deliver on your promise of delivering HiFi by the end of 2021.   So we've gone from end of 2021 to we have nothing to share about timetables.   It really sounds like you decided to ditch HiFi once Amazon and Apple decided to include lossless HiFi at no extra cost.  Let's hope the Sptofiy leadership re-commits to delivering the best possible music service and not distracted by podcasts and military ventures.  

[LawLee]

Convenience vs High Resolution

If you see my earlier post a PhD audio expert made the case that hi-res audio is overhyped. I’ll post it here again

Ecoustics Podcast Interview with Dr. Mark Waldrep: Is Hi-Res Audio More Hype Than Reality? - ecousti...

He makes some good points. And my anecdotal experience supports that premise. Just because something is processed 24bit, 192kps does not mean that it’s going to be superior sounding. FLAC is just a container. And if there isn’t much data in the container it can still spit out 24bit, 192kps processed output with not much information in it.

Many people were forced into using Bluetooth headphones because the Apple in their infinite wisdom eliminated the headphone jack from the iPhone. Apple has been leading the industry away from high performance audio for a long time. I owned Apple phones and iPods. I also owned high performance MP3 players by SanDisk, iRiver, Creative Labs, and Archos. The worst fidelity MP3 players were Apple. And the original Apple buds were poor fidelity wired headphones. Since they weren’t sealed it encouraged folks to listen to audio at levels high enough to drown out the noise and damage their hearing.

In pursuit of battery life Apple’s headphone amplifiers were weak. It actually it caused the headphone industry to develop headphones that would sound reasonably well on Apple devices, skewing the headphone fidelity industry. That’s why the whole portable DAC industry got started. Buying a phone for hundreds of dollars and then having to spend another 100 or more dollars for a DAC. Thanks Apple! The whole phone industry followed lockstep in eliminating headphone jacks from phones, which is the way many listen to music today.

Bluetooth is inherently lossy. Your music which was encoded in MP3 or AAC is reencoded to be transmitted from your phone in either SBC, AAC, LDAC, Samsung Scalable Codec or others. Most of these are limited in terms of their data rate below bit rate received on your phone.

So Apple wants the lead the way in hi-res music now? How ironic. To be fair to them apparently they have required the record companies supply them with streaming content at 24bit, 96kHz since 2010. Wow they have been thinking ahead for a long time. But keep in mind most of their streaming devices top out at 24bit, 48kHz. Apple has kind of made a mess of high res. Listen to this podcast.

https://www.ecoustics.com/podcasts/lossless-music-streaming-confusion/

Still Bluetooth is a limiting factor. And it’s true that upstream in your phone you’d like the best possible transmission quality, you then have to squeeze it through the Bluetooth pipe, or I should say straw. So I agree that 320kbs to CD quality is more than good enough for people who are consuming audio using Bluetooth.

Since my Yamaha Aventage Receiver has a Bluetooth input I decided to try to transmit music from my Galaxy Note 10 to my receiver using Bluetooth. It sounded horrible. I have what are arguably accurate and well reviewed Bluetooth headphones. I've done critical listening on Galaxy Buds, Galaxy Buds+, AKG N700NC M2, and Sony WF-1000XM4 Wireless Bluetooth earbuds and headphones. Meh! I'll stick with wired when I'm not working in the yard or exercising.

Because my receiver is trying to process that signal to synthesize 5.1 channels of information using DTS, it had nothing to work with. Spotify Connect directly to my receiver substantially sounded better.

But what sounded best by far was high data rate the lossless files of any type. Spotify connect is a convenience factor like Bluetooth. But either because of their data rate or the inherent limitations of Spotify Connect I'm not interested in convenience. With Qobuz and Amazon music they feed directly into my receiver through MusicCast like Spotify Connect, but at high resolution. And the sound is breathtaking.

I'm interested in quality. Home theater systems that can do DSP processing on a stereo or Dolby Atmos stream is like a microscope. It's going to uncover the inherent problems in the source material. So yes, all things being equal. you can hear every step between 320kps Ogg-Vorbis to 16bit, 44.1kHz though 24bit 192kHz. So for me High Res does matter. I do hope Spotify has an offering soon or they're gonna lose this game.

[MathiasLaubli]

Hi there, I have to say that I disagree. I started this thread years ago
when it was still pertinent. The way things have developed, Spotify know
full well that the vast majority of its audience listens to music on lower
standard playback devices. In order to hear a difference one needs to have
hi.fi equipment that is balanced, and let's face it, the vast majority of
the public does not have that. Most people consider sonos to be hi-fi for
example. I myself have had trials using studio equipment of very high
standard, and in order to hear the difference, you need to be really
listening. If you have your music on in the kitchen whilst you're moving
around doing stuff, the chances are that you wouldn't hear the difference
between 44.1KHz or 320 bit mp.3, even less so if you're listening through a
bluetooth device, like a very high proportion of modern day music listeners
do. Spotify are way ahead of the competition in terms of playlist curators,
and algorithms leading the listener to discover new music. Tidal have hi-fi
quality and pay the artists a lot more, but promote their own and lead the
listener in a direction that is commercially interesting to Tidal (for
example). Personally, if I love an artist and they make an incredible new
album, I buy it on vinyl and listen to it the 'old fashion way'. It is nice
to have vinyl at home methinks.