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

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!

Updated on 2022-01-07

Hey folks,

 

We know that HiFi quality audio is important to you. We feel the same, and we’re excited to deliver a Spotify HiFi experience to Premium users in the future. But we don’t have timing details to share yet.

 

We will of course update you here when we can.

 

Take care.

Comments
LawLee
Music Fan

@1beavis,

 

I'd suggest you do some research on this. MQA is the anchor around Tidal's neck, dragging it down. Its one big reason many audiophiles I can't take Tidal seriously. My friends are jumping off Tidal to Qobuz, like mice from a sinking ship. Be informed and forewarned.

And I quote:

 

A deep dive into MQA, and its problems.

I published music on Tidal to test MQA - MQA Review - YouTube


“MQA is dead, irrelevant, and should go away now that Apple/Amazon have lossless.”

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

 

Its been noted all of Tidal's master music is processed with MQA encoding. Without this decoding on a DAC you will be listening to a poor facsimile of the music that you would hear on a service that offers lossless without secondary encoding.

 

On the other hand most of the services support the humble Google Chromecast TV HDMI based receivers, which costs $29 to $39. The Chromecast is not a DAC but streams the signal to your audio receiver or soundbar at 24bit 48kHz to 96kHz high res reproduction without coloration. That's in comparison to hundreds or more dollars to support DAC/MQA. The reviewer above recognizes how even correctly implemented MQA fundamentally changes the original source. If you want to get as close to the original source you may want to take a hard pass on MQA. It sounds like Spotify did... My $0.02...

mctesterson
Newbie

I signed up for Spotify about a year ago, heard about Spotify HiFi coming soon, and doubled-down on favoriting hundreds of artists to fully invest in our Spotify Duo subscription.

 

But with the unfulfilled promise of Spotify HiFi, and no clear information about whether it will ever happen, today I signed up for Qobuz and now I'm listening to a new release album in 96/24 (sounds SOOOO much better than the same album on Spotify) while scanning through this sad thread about how far Spotify has fallen after once being a market leader.

 

The sound quality of Qobuz is so dramatically better that I'm already in for a year-long subscription after my 30-day free trial ends.  Not sure how long I'll keep both Spotify and Qobuz.  Maybe later this year I'll drop Spotify to the free version and just go with Qobuz for most of my listening.

maiman
Newbie

My audio setup is capable of 32 bit 384k streaming, but breaks Spotify. Looking forward to this being resolved quickly!

LawLee
Music Fan

@maiman hate to tell you this but don't hold your breath on Spotify resolving your problem. Hopefully your device manufacturer can help you.

 

What sort of system do you have? My main AV system is a Yamaha Aventage RX-A1080 which tops out also at 32bit 384kbs for some formats, namely WAV and AIFF. But FLAC is limited to 24bit 384kbs. Not that I'm going to record or stream that resolution anytime in the near future...

pvaibhav
Newbie

Wow. Ten years I've been a Spotify subscriber and evangelist. Heartbroken and finally cancelled today. Sorry Spotify you can't treat your customers like fools and string them along for years.

PaulMac
Roadie

Hey Spotify,

 

If anyone from your company is reading these posts, alarm bells should be ringing. The previous post by @pvaibhav is representative of many other customers who are leaving your platform in droves. A customer who stuck loyally with your service for 10 years until he couldn’t he finally couldn’t tolerate it any longer. You will see similar posts all over the internet.

 

Please focus on the core area of your business that the vast majority of us signed up for - music! 

 

For years Spotify led the way for others to follow. Sadly, that is no longer the case. Spotify’s behaviour over the last year has demonstrated very clearly what many of us have suspected for a long time; music is no longer the priority. And it’s the reason many of us are now jumping ship to your competitors.

arcanekand
Newbie

The reason I suspect they have delayed (indefinitely) HIFI streaming comes down to 2 reasons:

 

1. Spotify were hoping to charge more for a HIFI tier  but now most other streaming services (including tidal) have included hifi with the main 9.99 tier spotify has no option but to include HIFI in their base tier (or add extra value features similar to what tidal has done with their "HIFI plus" tier.

 

2. they are in deadlock with record labels over the pricing of "master" tracks. Record labels don't give away "master quality" tracks for free. the rights to stream them often cost a fair bit more  than  their (current) 160kbps "high quality" setting so spotify could be trying to negotiate a lower price per track (which is hard when other streaming services are likely already paying the higher price).

 

3. their could be delays in getting the spotify app to stream high bit rate songs as they require more bandwidth (due to the file size) and space to store the songs its not as simple as flicking a switch and enabling "hifi" streaming.

 

I am not defending spotify's decision to postpone HIFI streaming ( I moved to apple music at the end of last year while the app and discovery is not as good at the moment it's catching up slowly ) just giving some reasons as to why they (might) need to postpone the HIFI service. 

LawLee
Music Fan

@GBillett I agree Spotify has put themselves in a pickle of a situation. I don't think their situation is as dire as BlackBerry. And quite frankly I don't think it's going to be Apple that puts them in the greatest jeopardy. The one thing that Spotify has done exceptionally well was developing Spotify Connect. With Spotify Connect, Spotify is hardware agnostic. The good thing about Apple is that its Apple Music system works well inside the Apple ecosystem. And that's also the problem with Apple. It doesn't play well with devices outside of their ecosystem. And it seems to be deliberate.

 

Apple really has made fits and starts in wanting to have their music system be dominant. They ignore windows PCs. Poor users of Apple Music on the PC have to use ITunes, the slow and bloated piece of software to access their store. They have to use airplay which is limited in it's bitstream capability. There is no native app for apple music for  Windows PC's, unlike Spotify and all of the major services. Players like Amazon and Qobuz have finely tuned apps to use the WASAPI. WASAPI in exclusive mode allows those other music apps to deliver an unadulterated bitstream to an audio system attached to the PC. This allows me to listen services at 24bit, 192kbs. If you have a PC with either SPDIF, Display Port or HDMI outputs you are now able to rival those with a stand alone DAC system with your PC to your audio system. 

 

Apple's problem right now is that none of their devices, and please correct me if I'm wrong, natively support anything above  24bit, 48kbs. So, even with their devices, within their ecosystem, you are limited. The only way around this is you now have to buy Apple devices AND a stand alone DAC to use Apple Music at higher resolution than 48kbs.

 

Spotify is not hamstrung by hardware. Also though here in America there's a large contingency of Apple users, they are still in the minority. I don't think apple will ever surpass Spotify because of this. You have to use Apple hardware. And that's never going to be 30% of the market.

 

Apple has deep pockets and no doubt right now they're working on revamping their headphones and their Apple TV and computer devices to be able to output 192kbs at 24 bit. When that happens there will be a BlackBerry class cataclysm. But I think it's going to be against the DAC manufacturers. After all, why would I spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a streaming DAC when I can buy an Apple TV for under $200. Right now I can buy a Google Chromecast for $40 that bitstreams at 24bit, 48kbs, with no coloration. It's the DAC guys that need to be quaking in their boots. Not Spotify. Spotify may shrink, but as long as Apple doesn't support people outside of their ecosystem well they're not going to be able to take full advantage of this moment in time.

Mihnea5tyle
Newbie

2022 here, we waitin

Gromushka
Regular

I'm sorry but this is not acceptable.

The delay here requires payment. I think Spotify should reduce minimum 30% of month fees till the high-res will be delayed. 

 

Money lost will be good motivation to don't speak like liars to make advertisement of not real news, and to do work as soon as possible quick. 

 

So Can we stop pay? And what about patience of Spotify in this case. This just delay - yep?