Spotify promises Lossless Audio formats later this year with Spotify HiFi
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Fantastic news. That's one big step towards making Spotify an alternative I can be genuinely happy using.
Spotify has been a plague to the music scene in many ways, just like illegal downloading. The reality is, if you're not Billie Eilish or Sia, putting your music on Spotify is often done begrudgingly and with the knowledge that you're throwing money away. With the human malware destroying the gigging scene globally, bands have been hit some of the worst in recent years. Their income and passion has been shot to bits.
But in spite of that, Spotify has been game-changing for me. I've found so much amazing music through it, and it's now my primary app for listening. The sound quality sucks. The app is extremely limited when I compare it to the custom versions of MusicBee and Winamp I've used over the years; even the shuffle function is terrible because it's not random. It's buggy. Bands don't see enough revenue from it. And there's more.
If someone came along and offered the same music variety, higher quality audio (it doesn't have to be FLAC and it doesn't have even have to CD quality), an app that's not built for simpletons, and supports the artists fairly, I will 100% jump ship even if it costs way, way more. But that doesn't exist. No one has come forward with that yet. So I'm left with two choices: One, miss out on tons of amazing music because I cannot afford to buy it all on CDs or MP3s. Two, continue listening to inferior quality audio of all the music I love dearly in a convenient but lacking package for dirt cheap.
If Spotify made a few improvements, even at a higher price, I'd pay it.
Spotify has been a plague to the music scene in many ways, just like illegal downloading. The reality is, if you're not Billie Eilish or Sia, putting your music on Spotify is often done begrudgingly and with the knowledge that you're throwing money away. With the human malware destroying the gigging scene globally, bands have been hit some of the worst in recent years. Their income and passion has been shot to bits.
But in spite of that, Spotify has been game-changing for me. I've found so much amazing music through it, and it's now my primary app for listening. The sound quality sucks. The app is extremely limited when I compare it to the custom versions of MusicBee and Winamp I've used over the years; even the shuffle function is terrible because it's not random. It's buggy. Bands don't see enough revenue from it. And there's more.
If someone came along and offered the same music variety, higher quality audio (it doesn't have to be FLAC and it doesn't have even have to CD quality), an app that's not built for simpletons, and supports the artists fairly, I will 100% jump ship even if it costs way, way more. But that doesn't exist. No one has come forward with that yet. So I'm left with two choices: One, miss out on tons of amazing music because I cannot afford to buy it all on CDs or MP3s. Two, continue listening to inferior quality audio of all the music I love dearly in a convenient but lacking package for dirt cheap.
If Spotify made a few improvements, even at a higher price, I'd pay it.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
I am disappointed in the fact that they are only aiming for CD quality sound. They could easily do 24bit/96khz and with the largest userbase they could easily become the default option for high quality sound and cheaper prices at low tiers.
Tidal would struggle more as well as the other above cd quality apps.
As it is I'd look into it but Tidal is still probably going to sound better at probably the same price
Tidal would struggle more as well as the other above cd quality apps.
As it is I'd look into it but Tidal is still probably going to sound better at probably the same price
looz
Active member
You won't notice any difference between CD quality and 24bit/96kHz, unless you slow the music down, where sample rate will matter. But who does that?
CD quality is plenty, it all boils down to the record's production value and your gear.
Only reason some releases sound better when, for instance, ripped off vinyl at "24bit/96kHz", is because vinyl pressings rarely took part in loudness war which plagued CDs.
CD quality is plenty, it all boils down to the record's production value and your gear.
Only reason some releases sound better when, for instance, ripped off vinyl at "24bit/96kHz", is because vinyl pressings rarely took part in loudness war which plagued CDs.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Thanks for your opinion on what I can and can't notice the difference of.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
I remember a while back there was a video where some sound engineers did blind A/B tests on some audiophiles, The test was 24bit/44KHz, 24bit/48KHz and 24bit/96KHz using a mix of MP3, FLAC, AAC and WAV.
End result was what the sound engineers predicted, The audiophiles thought the 24bit/96KHz was 24bit/44KHz, The 24bit/44KHz was 24bit/96KHz but they all got the 24bit/48KHz correct.
Although I think if you're listening over the net there would be a perceivable difference the higher you go as you are at the mercy of latency, Interference etc...
looz
Active member
It's not a matter of opinion, it has been blind tested over and over.
There's also Nyquist's Theorem to be fair, humans can only hear upto 20kHz so mathematically you can say we only need 40kHz sampling to represent all the sounds humans can hear. Going beyond 40kHz slightly is to aid anti-aliasing filters, but you don't need much overhead for that.
96kHz and such is for music production, not for end user sound quality, you genuinely have to be not-human to be able to tell a quality difference between 48kHz and 96kHz at normal playback speeds and such.
96kHz and such is for music production, not for end user sound quality, you genuinely have to be not-human to be able to tell a quality difference between 48kHz and 96kHz at normal playback speeds and such.
Last edited:
Kleptobot
Member
And thats before you get into the ability of playback devices to accurately produce a signal.
Artist-->transducer-->ADC-->mastering/compression-->DAC-->amp-->transducer-->human ear
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Don't really care about your opinion tbh
There's a difference clearly between 16bit and 24bit. That's the point I made, higher quality sound. Thanks for introducing nothing but irrelevant information to the conversation. If that bothers you then so be it
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
It's hard to tell what "better" is without listening to better. So it comes down to what you said being that you haven't heard it before so you can't imagine how it can be better.
If you took even the lowest end of the spectrum "HiFi" being CD quality audio vs Spotify you should definitely be able to tell a massive difference even on your phone speakers.If you can't hear the difference then all good don't worry about it. Everyone hears differently due to just the nature of humans and no need to worry about it. But many people can and that's also okay too.
Problem is you would have to listen on your computer spotify, pause and play back that same portion of the song with a FLAC(or any other uncompressed format) that has a known CD level quality to it, to be able to hear the difference if you can at all that is.
Last edited:
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
You really need to relax dude, Seem to be getting worse as you age, Grouchy old man ^_^
Last edited:
looz
Active member
Haha, I suppose you didn't choose that nickname by accident.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Ironic you'd mention that considering you proceeded to insert your opinion yet another time after I made it clear about what I know I'm capable of hearing, as if you know me better than I know myself. Kinda like you couldn't just let me comment on a web article and leave it at that. Had to get a word in.
I minded my own and you didn't like it, again not my problem I said nothing wrong to start an irrelevant conversation about your opinion.
That's the end of it now. Stay on topic and dm me if you so desire
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
In fairness, this contention has been going on for years, and I don't think I've ever seen it categorically resolved. You still have two sides of the fence adamant they're right. The reality is, I think both sides are right. Even if one is right and the other isn't, it doesn't matter; it harms no one, as far as I can tell.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Exactly. But that doesn't mean your interpretation should be discounted as impossible by others. The placebo effect is a real thing. The human body is far more complicated than assigning a set of strict numbers and leaving it at that.
I guess it comes down to, are you trying to find out an empirical truth, something that applies to our material existence and therefore is potentially repeatable for other people (A key basis of the Scientific Method - Empiricism - "that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation")
Or are you trying to document your personal perceptions, like a dream book or trip report, psychological placebos and all included? This use case is not invalid or wrong, it's just not usually as useful to other people, but can be interesting
But its an online forum so no big deal
Or are you trying to document your personal perceptions, like a dream book or trip report, psychological placebos and all included? This use case is not invalid or wrong, it's just not usually as useful to other people, but can be interesting
But its an online forum so no big deal
Last edited:
Similar threads
