[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!

[Blueshound24]

H7p3ri0n, newbie, That is hilarious! Have you ever seen the movie "Amadeus"? Mozart was mocked by the court composer, Salieri. Salieri said to Mozart his compositions were good, but, they had "too many notes"! And to "just remove a few and it would be perfect". Mozart said his music had just enough and if one was removed the entire structure would fail.

This was because Mozart was so far ahead of his time musically that in his time they were not accustomed to such prowess and thought it to be excessive and outlandish. 

So, @H7p3ri0n, you go ahead and throw away half your "notes". I along with mostly everyone here choose to keep all the bits.

Now go troll somewhere else.

H7p3ri0n, newbie.

 "Nope : only the high frequencies which are totally inaudible are discarded by the psychoacoustic filter. So it's a very good reason to remove them. 

You confuse removal of data and removal of sound. at these bitrates nothing hearable is discarded : only useless frequencies. It's the basic of psychoacoustic."

[H7p3ri0n]

OGG 320kbps and AAC 256kbps are both transparent codecs, so they are 100% identical to FLAC for listening (just facts), and confirmed by all blind test.

So it would be a waste of time (and money, that's right) for Spotify to disable OGG encoding for Streaming, because FLAC is not for streaming but for achieving and makes no difference in sound. Furthermore : everybody will start pirating FLAC for personal archiving with moded apps, which is not Spotify business model.

[cl2solutions]

“Your ear can’t hear sounds at 17khz” test me and everyone else in this forum and prepare to be flabbergasted. My ears can hear sounds up to 18-19khz. It’s called having a critical listening something it seems you know nothing about.

Responding to you is becoming a waste of breath because all you are explaining is theory without experience. Words can not explain an experience. Feeling is stronger than pictures or text anytime any day because it is a combination of the 5 senses in real times. You can never really re-communicate feelings and sensations. It seems you’re a bit afraid to live in the moment, but I digress....

[rastaman2000]

@H7p3ri0n

As the N&S figures already show, audio data compression is a far more complex process than just a simple Low-pass filter (LPF) - which is your erroneous belief; simple HF cut-off alone would not reduce/save so much data, as is the case with lossy audio codecs (e.g., 4.41:1 for CD-DA vs. MP3@320 ).

Discrete cosine transform (DCT), dynamic range compression (DRC), Noise shaping (*the biggest difference between MP3 and AAC), even Dithering (intentional noise supplement), and other techniques are being engaged. Even different encoders (original Fraunhofer, LAME...) provide different results, as is notoriously known.

Btw., the by you excused bandwidth reduction has a side effect in the audible spectrum, as well - it slows down the TRANSIENT SIGNALS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave

Even the sampling frequency very significantly affects the TRANSIENT RESPONSE.

https://www.merging.com/highlights/high-resolution

Discrete cosine transform

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_cosine_transform

Dither

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither

Dynamic range compression

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression

Noise shaping

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_shaping

See also:

Transient response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_response

Transient (acoustics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_(acoustics)

Pre-echo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-echo

Do you now understand, why COMPRESSED AUDIO sounds so BLURRED, MUDDY and SMEARED?

[rastaman2000]

Can you HEAR the MOSQUITO?

If so, you can hear 17.4 kHz.

https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_mosquito.php

Can you hear even beyond?

https://onlinetonegenerator.com/

https://www.szynalski.com/tone-generator/

note: You need a reproduction chain capable of reproducing those high frequencies.

[H7p3ri0n]

rastaman2000 : no , false !!!!! Like so many people, (even very skilled) :  ou erroneously apply analog audio concepts to digital audio. 

Removing some hidden freqs in digital won't affect harmonics of lower waves, so no impact on transient response, like it would in analog (harmonics is a math model for analog signal analysis).

All the material you posted above is void.

One thing remain sure: most modern codecs are transparent at high bitrate with respect of the full bandwidth.

It would be a waste of time, a big loss of quality of service, and possibly a loss of copyrighted content if  Spotify disable OGG  encoding

[johan-sson]

Due to lack of response from @Spotify this thread every now and then turns in to these types of discussions. "Can you hear that", "can you hear this", "you can't hear that". 

Isn’t' this a thread for people who actually want something from Spotify? Most of us are not here to argue with the non-believers/sceptics.

[Waltson]

H7p3ri0n: I really don't get what's your point here or what are you trying to prove. Do you think that your OGG and AAC mantras are going to change my mind that Spotify sounds like **bleep** on decent sound system? Tidal/Qobuz/Roon combo sounds so much better on my sound system that there is no way that I will go back to Spotify - unless they start to provide comparable quality of sound. So if you are happy with Spotify and bluetooth speakers then enjoy them and calm down. There's always people who might not agree with you, but why care about it so much...

[H7p3ri0n]

If Spotify adds an option for FLAC : no problem for me !!

I use FLAC for my personal music archive, and I'm aware of the benefits of FLAC for music archiving and transcoding (when I want to remaster an album for me, or friends from my Hifi Community : I must use FLAC, because I need the exact "DATA" copy of the origin master to start from).

I just want to make clear that :

-> For "listening" : FLAC doesn't provide any benefit over modern codecs like OGG/AAC/OPUS at high bitrates

-> If you notice a sound quality degradation with Spotify Connect (pure AAC256 decoded at the renderer) : look elsewhere than the codec, it's not a problem with OGG320 : it's placebo effect or something bad in your receiver or sound system.

-> If you notice a sound quality degradation with Spotify Premium in ""BLUETOOTH"" : poor of you , you're listening to music encoded twice : first time by Spotify in OGG320, and once again in SBC350 by your BLUETOOTH stack (solution to this problem would be that Spotify uses AAC for all, including App)

No matter what average music lamers tell you after reading pseudo-science marketing disinformation with colorful spectrums graphs and other smart looking curves : they understand nothing to nothing in audio

And no matter what "analog-audio" experienced sound engineers tell you : they don't know enough about codecs.

Use FLAC for archiving your music collection, and modern codecs for streaming : same result for human ear !

Have fun

[cl2solutions]

I don’t hear degradations or compression, but do I hear a less pronounced 10khz-20khz range with Spotify when compared to Tidal, Amazon Music, Qobuz, and even Apple Music. I have a Schiit DAC strait from my PC to a CA CXA60 to a pair of Wharfedale Diamond 11.1 bookshelves.

Believe me when I say that a lot of people here say they want FLAC because many other providers offer it. There is clearly at least a small benefit to it in listening situations. In this case, ignorance is not bliss.