[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!

[PaulMac]

@H7p3ri0n Newbie: "@trollers above : as I have always stated : what I posted is not an opinion : it's indéniable technical facts"

You have completely dominated over the last couple of days with dozens of posts that are at direct odds with the aims of the thread. And now you're referring to those of us who have the audacity to disagree with your opinion as trollers? 

[Blueshound24]

@H7p3ri0n Newbie go troll somewhere else. We don't agree with your so called "facts". 

[andrewbaker70]

We need Hi-Fi!!!! Bring this to Spotify please!

[rastaman2000]

LOSSY MASKING

further reading

Sound on Sound: What Data Compression Does To Your Music

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/what-data-compression-does-your-music

about the author

Ian Corbett

http://www.aes.org/aes/iancorbett

[l30gillet]

thanks for amazon and deezer who didn't wait for 342 pages of feedback to move their ass;)
it's over for me spotify, I paid the premium from your beta version with a lot of hope for the lossless but I lost patience

[H7p3ri0n]

Hi dear community,

Below is an example between many, of a
serious lossy versus lossless ABX test.
Out of hundreds of testers only
1 managed to differentiate the lossy
codec, and since the testers were free
to use their listening equipment: it
is likely that he peeled the audio files
with the parametric equalizer, or worse:
analyzed spectra with audacity.
Are you wondering why I am posting this?
Well just because Spotify moderator asked
me to keep providing positive information. 😉

cd-vs-itunes-plus-blind-test-results 

[cl2solutions]

I audibly laughed when I saw that you posted again. Keep providing “SeRiOuS dAtA”. Your points still do not hit home with the core reason so many have posted here.


1. Spotify is not transparent, they have not responded to their customers with a thorough explanation on their own message board for an idea that was asked for over 3 years ago. If they would provide a thoughtful yet very well backed app explanation of why they do not want to integrate hi-res audio as a company, more respect would be given to them.
2. Other products have Hi-Res as an option and Spotify doesn’t. A legitimate reason to raise the price of a product by double. Why they have not sent out user polls to actually gauge this I haven’t a clue.
3. To each their own opinion when it comes to sound and tone but what it boils down to is experience. A good user experience can help influence music to sound better to a user. A poor user experience can degrade that influence in a negative fashion. What defines a good user experience is purely subjective to each user, but to me Spotify is solidly middle of the road. For example, Tidal’s user experience when it comes to their desktop app especially, has a more timeless, classic and higher fidelity feeling to it. PLUS, they offer up to MQA in sound quality. To me this a more enjoyable user experience. It just lacks Spotify’s breadth of library and song radios.

Whether there’s a scientific difference or not, which there is: https://youtu.be/FURPQI3VW58 the entire experience of a product and the company’s transparency with customers will, in my opinion, strongly affect a users perception of how excellent the audio is to their taste, and how excellent many other facets of the product are when compared to their expectations.

This doesn’t belong here, but I have to say Spotify’s desktop app design is super stale, boring, and not captivating, but Spotify still shines with the number of songs it can generate radios stations for and how it can be personalized to each user’s taste.

[H7p3ri0n]

I'm afraid to say that, until any contradictory proof is provided (and nobody has ever provided any) : Spotify Premium's sound encoding IS transparent and can be considered as lossless as any music source can be.

Lossless for data : no, of course, but lossless for the ears : obviously, each time placebo effect is taken apart.

Who except marketing advisors and their trusting customers can be concerned about the loose of data? 

Spotify Premium is 100٪ equivalent for listening to any other music streaming service claiming to provide bigger files.

[cl2solutions]

You did not respond to many other points I made. Providing a better user experience can easily make quality of audio sound better. If you say there is no data, then you are being shortsighted and unwilling to understand other people’s point of views. Lack of empathy.

Spotify should reach out to some audiophiles whom I know would love to take staff into some $100k+ setups and AB compare Spotify vs Tidal. We’re the customers, we aren’t going to do it unless Spotify makes the first move. What happened to customers always coming first? Spotify gets big and give a ***bleep** you* to it’s customers because money is more important? What a terrible way to treat people.

[H7p3ri0n]

most audiophiles who are using 100k$ gear are listening to phonograms, which are inferior to low quality 128kbps MP3 when it comes to noise ratio, distortion, frequency bandwidth and dynamics. So I understand why Spotify ignore this small minority of potential customers. 

There's no point in asking more white than white, and it's fair and honest from Spotify to keep providing the greatest possible fidelity at the right price without falling into the audiophiles extremes and marketing myths.