[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!

[dingo11]

i hear you totally...especially because spotify never replies to this
comments..make sme feel im only good for my money. Also thinking of
switching to tidal

[Thalys]

Bom eu acho que é EXEPCIONALMENTE necessário a implementação da qualidade HI-FI Lossless no Spotify, eu atualmente estou tendo que usar o Spotify E O TIDAL já que a qualidade que eu gosto tem no Tidal e meus artistas indie favoritos no Spotify, é está UMA BAGUNÇA e como viciado em música e em qualidade de áudio eu estou deixando aqui meu comentário, o sistema está ótimo, o Layout está fabuloso, sem bugs, mas depois que tiver qualidade Hi-fi vai ficar PERFEITO :3 obrigado ❤

@ThalysTawan

[luckyducky]

i just canceled spotify family premium for tidal hifi 😄 

[apecat]

---

@augieray wrote:
I find the focus on podcasts a bit puzzling, to be
honest. With so many tools out there to access podcasts, it doesn't strike
me as being the competitive wedge Spotify seems to believe it is.

---

It's actually not puzzling at all.

1) Podcasts are cheap free content for Spotify

Podcasts are usually long, and are very immersive, personal and multi-tasking friendly medium. If Spotify can capture users for another type of audio use, people spend more time in the app, which means more data, more ad revenue etc. And let's not forget that music rights are expensive and an utter drain on Spotify's business model. Podcasts are royalty free to distribute: podcasters willingly add their shows to podcast apps for no compensation. In summary: free, long form content, more user data to capture, more ads to potentially insert.

2) The podcast market is extremely fragmented, especially outside the Apple ecosystem.

This fragmentation also means that podcasting is one of the last bastions of the open web: anyone can publish a podcast and distribute it on numerous platforms through RSS feeds, which can be added to apps/directories/search engines, like Apple's.

Likewise, podcasts never needed anything like the magic free Google bandwidth Youtube brings to the table, for the "low" price of lock-in. Audio files are tiny compared to video. Spoken word content is extremely easy to compress with the world's most popular lossy codec, mp3, which now is patent free. Many of the most popular podcasts are still 64kbps mono mp3. Rich, well produced documentaries with layered soundscapes and background music can sound absolutely fine at 128 kbps joint stereo. As an audiophile, I don't care, at all.

So, any commercial platform would see the opportunity to close down something exremely open when they take a look at podcasts. Anyone who likes podcasts should see Spotify, Luminary etc. as bad-faith attempts to ruin a really nice ecosystem.

If you like podcasts, don't use Spotify to listen to them. Recommend apps like Castbox, Apple Podcasts, Overcast or Pocket Casts to friends and family.

As someone who produces podcasts, I have tons of things to point out: Such as: Spotify has taken an utterly despised practice that even Sticher has dropped. Spotify's mothership downloads all episodes once and re-encode them for distribution to listeners. This worsens audio quality, and even more importantly, it means that I as an indie producer, can't use modern podcast ad systems to dynamically insert ads based on geolocation, or realiably count downloads.

Apple, of all companies, has actually been a gentle giant for podcasts: most small indie podcast apps still use Apple's podcast search engine/catalog, and nothing stops you from adding custom/paid for RSS feeds to Apple podcasts on your own device. Anyone who isn't Alex Jones, is welcome to add their podcast to Apple's search engine.

[augieray]

Saying podcasts are a slam dunk because they're "free content" for Spotify
is like saying consumer-general social blog posts are a slam dunk for any
platform because they're free content. Early on, there was a lot of
fracturing, but the world doesn't need 100 blog platforms (just like they
don't need 100--or 1,000--podcast platforms.)

We'll see how it works out for them, but with podcasts available
EVERYWHERE, this hardly seems differentiating (like, you know, quality of
music might be!)

[apecat]

---

@augieray wrote:
Saying podcasts are a slam dunk because they're "free content" for Spotify
is like saying consumer-general social blog posts are a slam dunk for any
platform because they're free content. Early on, there was a lot of
fracturing, but the world doesn't need 100 blog platforms (just like they
don't need 100--or 1,000--podcast platforms.)

We'll see how it works out for them, but with podcasts available
EVERYWHERE, this hardly seems differentiating (like, you know, quality of
music might be!)

---

You're not wrong. Podcasts are, business wise, smart diversification, but they aren't guaranteed to be a slam dunk for Spotify.

And it's not entirely free either, as Spotify has been buying up podcast production networks for insane amounts of megabucks. It's a real investment, and so far, what they're getting getting is free ad spots for Spotify and tons of data.

But there is a real market share to be had, and a total market size to grow. Podcasts still aren't living up to their full potential, in terms of reaching wide populations. As you might have gathered, I'm not exactly looking forward to Spotify being the defacto, go-to place for podcasts, the way Apple has been until now.

Apple dominates the stats in the podcast download stats I have access to, but Apple's not-horrible-for-creators Podcasts app is iOS only, and frankly, not that great.

However, the reason I took the time to blast about this here, is that this gamble of trying to lock up the podcast ecosystem with everything available elsewhere, plus exclusive content, may look like a distraction to us. But all of this is likely another thing that's much more attractive to Spotify, than all eight of us here telling Spotify to receive our damned currency in exchange for lossless streaming. SAD.

[nanders]

it's the #1 of Top "Live Ideas" so people are actually interested in this, still not happening 😞

[wbearden1237]

When will HD/lossless become available? With the exception of not having HD, I love Spotify and would be willing to pay an additional premium for HD/CD quality music. 

[subfader]

So sad.

[lexspot]

I'm done. I had a premium account for already 11 years. The last few years I had a family account.

No answers from Spotify. They do nothing. On this forum: nothing. On Twitter: the same old automated answer, so nothing.

I compared Qobuz with Tidal. Qobuz is in my opinion the best lossless experience but I can't quite find a lot of music on Qobuz. On Tidal they have much more but not everything. On Tidal there is music that cannot be found on Spotity such as Sevdaliza.

Spotify benefits: family account, nested maps, Spotify connect, very good suggestions and a great experience. The app's updates generally add little.

I stop Spotify and transfer to Tidal. I'm going to miss the nested maps, Spotify connect and the experience. As soon as Spotify arrives with a lossless approach, I go back again.  Unless I like Tidal already too much….

Bye Spotify……