Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spotify Is Testing a Lossless Subscription Tier For $15 to $20 Per Month (techcrunch.com)

Posted by msmash on from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.

Spotify is seemingly preparing to launch a lossless audio version of its streaming service. The offering, which is currently called Spotify Hi-Fi, will offer lossless CD-quality audio to users -- similar to what Tidal offers in its Hi-Fi service. From a report: For an extra $5 to $10, you could get all the features in Spotify Premium as well as lossless high fidelity streaming. There could also be a couple of new features. What is lossless quality anyway? Currently, if you go into Spotify's settings and choose the highest quality, Spotify serves you 320kbps audio files. It's very high quality, but it's not perfect -- in other words, it's a compromise. This way, files are still quite small and load quickly. Lossless files are perfect copies of the songs on an audio CD. They are then compressed, but without any quality loss.

77 comments

  1. Roboute Guilliman is back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i dont know if you guys heard but the primarchs are coming back
    and cypher is with him?
    i bet he kills the emperor

  2. Netflix's HD streaming VIDEO is cheaper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are these people smoking? That is way too much money for this service. People will pirate.

    1. Re: Netflix's HD streaming VIDEO is cheaper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naa, they will just stick with the cheaper plan.

    2. Re:Netflix's HD streaming VIDEO is cheaper. by gnick · · Score: 1

      Anybody who's pirating "lossless" (CD-quality) copies either doesn't know what he's doing or has an unusual set of ears. Your average Joe (me included) won't hear the difference - A 320kbps .mp3 will be indistinguishable from the original .wav. Most pirates pirate .mp3s.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:Netflix's HD streaming VIDEO is cheaper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, the point of lossless files is that they can be converted. So, you can have a lower quality file for the cellphone where you know you're not going to be using the best earbuds and a lossless one for the home theater.

      Every time you convert files, you lose information, so even though it might nominally be a 160kbps VBR if it's coming from a lossy file, you're probably not getting all the information you would normally get.

    4. Re:Netflix's HD streaming VIDEO is cheaper. by gnick · · Score: 1

      ...the point of lossless files is that they can be converted.

      And lossy ones are just locked in their final form forever?

      ...you can have a lower quality file for the cellphone...

      You can mix a .mp3 down to whatever bitrate you feel is appropriate. Downloading a 320 kpbs mp3, inflating to a wav, then compressing again to a lower bitrate won't be exactly the same result as compressing to the lower bitrate from the original wav, but it'll be close enough not to make an audible difference.

      ...even though it might nominally be a 160kbps VBR if it's coming from a lossy file, you're probably not getting all the information you would normally get.

      There's no probably about it. You do lose information. The point of mp3 compression is that you selectively ignore the information that isn't as important as the rest.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  3. $10 for placebo quality by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you think your can hear the difference between 320kbps and lossless on a 44.1/16 track, you deserve to pay the extra $10 a month.

    If you can *actually* hear the difference between 320kbps and lossless on a 44.1/16 track, and complain about it, you shouldn't want to listen to 44.1/16 music in the first place.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is assuming they don't downgrade the current "High Quality Streaming" option to 128k VBR or something.

    2. Re: $10 for placebo quality by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I respect the fact that you're only talking about your own distorted, desensitized hearing. ;)

    3. Re:$10 for placebo quality by misxn · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you think your can hear the difference between 320kbps and lossless on a 44.1/16 track, you deserve to pay the extra $10 a month.

      If you can *actually* hear the difference between 320kbps and lossless on a 44.1/16 track, and complain about it, you shouldn't want to listen to 44.1/16 music in the first place.

      If you've destroyed your hearing sensitivity to not discern compressed music vs uncompressed, then you should be grateful a cheaper version option exists. Classical music is a great example, but if you are trying to hear the difference between a 320 kbps MP3 vs FLAC of Big Daddy Kane then the purpose will be missed.

    4. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is coming from a person that doesn't have the hearing to know the difference. Not all people are created equal.

      Short story...

      I used to go to church with a long ago girlfriend. Upon walking up to the church late one morning from the parking lot, I started hearing this high pitched squeal. Getting closer and closer to the auditorium and getting louder and louder, I could tell it was coming from the PA system. Opening the doors to auditorium the squeal became deafening. I asked my then girlfriend if she heard that. She said heard what.

      I sat down with her and looked around and noticed about 5 people late teens to 20's that had their fingers in their ears or were showing obvious signs of discomfort. That is out of 250 to 300 people in the auditorium. I looked over for the sound guy and he was in his middle to late 60 oblivious to any squeal at all.

      So, yes there are very few people in this world that can hear a higher pitch of say 12k hertz. I am one of them and I can certainly tell the difference of 320kbps and 1100kps flac.

      I'm really sorry that you can't. You are missing some unbelievable sounds out in the real world.

      Just remember that just because your ears can't hear it doesn't mean someone else's ears can't. On multiple hearing tests starting from 40k and going lower from there in a random decreasing hertz, I can constantly stop the decrease in hertz at 18.4k hertz to 18.6k hertz. That is opposed to the hearing test that starts at 1k and goes upward from there and stop when you don't hear it. It is better to stop when you do hear it.

      If I can't get it in lossless, I don't listen to it at all.

    5. Re:$10 for placebo quality by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      But after buying my headphones, I can't afford the extra $10 a month!

    6. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't seriously believe that do you? In fact things like hip-hop with its broad filter sweeps, and rock music with its richly harmonic distorted guitar are far more sensitive to compression than stuff like classical music.

      In either case, properly compressed 320kbps MP3 is almost always indistinguishable from lossless compression.

    7. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Compression artifacts have nothing to do with the audible frequency range. Your ability to hear a dog whistle has no bearing on your ability to tell the difference between 320kbps MP3 and FLAC.

    8. Re:$10 for placebo quality by kalpol · · Score: 1

      > If I can't get it in lossless, I don't listen to it at all that's pretty limiting, seems to me. but enjoy your upper range while you can. It will disappear as you age. I used to be able to hear CRT televisions when they were on, that slowly left me as I got older.

      --
      12:50 - press return.
    9. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thing is, accepting shit quality forever constrains the maximum quality you will ever have.
      Only lossless FLAC, raw DVD-9 VOB rips, and blu-ray rips (transcoded down to DVD-9 for best balance of bandwidth and quality if you're a torrenter that cant handle the raw rip).
      Those are the only way to go.
      After that you can transcode them down to whatever shit quality you want.
      But you can never get original quality from lossy shit.
      Accepting lossy shit gives others a reason to never publish the original quality in the first place.
      And to rape your wallet for lossy.
      Like they're raping you for cellphone data, texts and voice.
      And for cable tv.
      And just about everything.
      Including not even paying cost of inflation interest on your bank accounts.
      You Lossy Fools.
      You're getting EXACTLY what you asked for.

    10. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [The preceding post was brought to you by Spotify's drug-addled marketing department.]

    11. Re:$10 for placebo quality by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I believe that you believe you have superpowers. You'd have to prove it to me with a blind listening test, though.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    12. Re:$10 for placebo quality by GWBasic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Last summer I wrote a program to compare two audio files, mostly to get an objective understanding of how sound degrades in a lossless format: http://andrewrondeau.com/blog/2016/07/deconstructing-lossy-audio-the-case-for-lossless

      My conclusion is that, even at 320 kbps, formats like MP3 and AAC still screw with the sound. The newer Opus codec at 320 kbps is better than an 8-bit flac, though.

      What happens with lossy audio is that it's more about "will someone notice an objectionable artifact" then "can someone notice the difference in an A-B test." Even then, the difference is usually in details that people don't pay close attention to. So, what you pay for in lossless is that the subtle echo in the fadeout sounds perfect, and that the equalization is always perfect, and that the cymbals and clicks of the guitar sound exactly like they do in the studio. Most people will never hear the difference, even in A-B testing.

      In my very subjective experience, I find that AC3 has a certain dullness that lossless doesn't have. MP3 has a particular thinness that's noticeable compared to AC3. I personally don't have any opus files in my collection, so I can't comment there.

      --
      No, I will not work for your startup
    13. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, because 2-3 guitars playing in harmony is more richly complex than 2-3 parts each of violin, viola, cello, double bass, bassoon, trumpet, trombone, tuba, flute, clarinet, etc.

      There's a reason that rock has all the fancy panty electronic augmentation these days; it needs it to try to (vaguely) compete with the rich complexity of a full orchestra. That's not a dig @ rock music, it's just the unavoidable realities of large vs small ensemble music.

    14. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You are an idiot. Compression doesn't destroy the frequency RANGE, which is all you have "proved" you can hear. The fact that you are so focused on range, enough to have tested yourself and say you wont buy anything but lossless is hilarious. I would almost buy your argument for lossless if you had talked about being able to actually discern differences but your range about frequency range proves that you are a moron that thinks he is special.

      I too can hear all the electronics buzzing in my house. I can hear the difference between low quality and high quality audio but I can't, and no one has been able to in a blind test, identify the higher quality source between 320 and lossless.

    15. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true. There can be audible differences between 320kbps MP3's and FLAC recordings not related to frequency, particularly where the recording includes hard-to-compress sounds, like applause. The artifacts may sometimes be perceived as extra sibilance, or can sometimes make an MP3 recording sound "flat." All of this is less likely with higher bit rate MP3s, but can still happen. Whether it's worth upgrading one's Spotify subscription is another matter, but for me the answer is yes, provided it works as advertised with my receiver.

    16. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compression artifacts are actually pretty easy for anyone to hear once they know what they're listening for. It's not a question of having superpowers.

    17. Re:$10 for placebo quality by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Anyone can hear compression artifacts, that is true enough. You pretty much only have those in artificially contrived signals at 320kbps for any competent encoder. Back in the Hydrogen Audio blind test days, I don't think I ever saw anyone able to hear a difference between WAV and Lame encoded "extreme", let alone 320kbps.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    18. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Megane · · Score: 1

      And if you are still deluded enough to think that you can hear that difference, there's always pono. Because some people are delusional enough to think that we need 24/192 audio everywhere, not just in mixing where you need the extra precision because you're altering the original data with lossy transformations.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    19. Re:$10 for placebo quality by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Actually, most modern audio compression schemes will affect the frequency response - and range thereof - as they selectively drop (or highly attenuate) bands based upon overall volume levels and levels of sub-bands which may lead to masking. Take an uncompressed CD of music, capture a 30 second section and run an FFT on it. Then run it through a 128 kbps MP3 compression and do the same again - the FFT is decidely different.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    20. Re:$10 for placebo quality by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Indeed, see the MP3 spectral analysis here.

    21. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I thought I could clearly hear problems with mp3s up to 320kbps when I was getting ready to rip my CD collection (several hundred across most genres) back in the early 2000s. So I decided to take a weekend and do an ABX across the different formats I listen to. The answer: above about 224kbps (256 for well recorded classical) I couldn't reliably tell the difference. Now, that wasn't with a $10,000 listening chain, but it was decent enough cans (7506) and on a system which is better than 95% of my listening time.

      As reference, I was a musician all through school, was a theory class shy of a minor in college, and perform in and direct vocal ensembles, and have a small home recording studio - I know my sound. I don't have golden ears, but I'd wager they're at least somewhere in the average range, and I know what to listen for. I decided that if I can barely tell the difference under optimal conditions I definitely shouldn't waste bandwidth or storage (back when it mattered) on high bitrate files that are going to go on marginal gear like iPods or be listened to in a car or at my desk. OTOH, after a horribly misguided idea of using mp3pro to encode a batch of disks, I realized that my full library rip would be to FLAC. Not for listening, but for archiving. While I may not be able to hear artifacts at 256kbps, I sure as hell can if I were to transcode to a new format. So My flacs (and a handful of alacs) sit in a folder on my server. I transcoded to mp3 for my main listening library, then again in a few years to aac when I got an iPod, then a second time to a higher bitrate aac when I got a really big ipod. I still think lossless is an archival format, not one for carrying around and listening. At least not until they have TB uSD cards to hold my whole collection.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    22. Re:$10 for placebo quality by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      I suggest looking at the result of codec comparison in https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/.... The EBU performed A/B comparisons with different lossy codecs for 5.1. They trained people in how to spot the difference in challenging areas to encode, and then evaluated various codecs with challenging pieces.

      Keep in mind that FLAC is typically 3x as large as 320kbps, and storage sizes are quite huge now.

      --
      No, I will not work for your startup
    23. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because it's hard to market people that look like they play for the symphony.

    24. Re: $10 for placebo quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your link was interesting but the writeup threw me when I read that Dont Let It Show had no more than 22.5 Hz. That's some heavy bass, and if an error it led me to wonder what else was in error. Sorry.

    25. Re:$10 for placebo quality by strstr · · Score: 1

      hearing the difference isn't so hard. I have no abx comparator but mp3 and aac are both huge downgrades. mathmatically they have so many limits they are half the quality or worse. they sound very metalic. the details are washed out. sounds clip. color is missing. noise is prominent. high frequency is cut off. some people listen with cheap equipment that does poor reproduction in which case the loss in quality is probably not of concern but for people like me with $1500 headphones and a $300 DAC with 130dB SNR/dynamic range even the smallest static or noise difference can be heard plus all the other differences..

      as such I am forced to buy CD music because none of the online services have lossless.. also to get HD I have to pirate because the cost is so much more expensive than Ads.

      my headphone set up: Westone W8
      DAC LG v20 with quad DAC

      https://www.obamasweapon.com/

    26. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solving this with a program is the wrong approach.
      Nobody claims, that mp3 is lossless. But the claim is, you won't hear it. It does not use technical tricks to reduce the loss, but it uses audio tricks to prevent you from hearing the loss, see psychoacustic effect.
      So measuring this with code is a hard task, as you would need to emulate the human ear. So better do A/B tests with humans.

    27. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is, but I presume you are just using terms like "richly complex" without really having a specific meaning. I'm talking about the overtones found in a spectrum analysis of the audio waveform. Compare some 2d spectrographs of different types of music and different bitrates. You'll see a significant degradation in the sound of distorted guitar, similar to what you'd expect feeding a finely patterned texture image into a JPEG compression algorithm.

      Oh, sorry, I forgot you can't even understand what I'm saying.

    28. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Sometime's the 'noisiest' sounds, like distorted guitars, suffer worse from compression than the sounds produced by classical instruments.

    29. Re:$10 for placebo quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are comparing 320 kbps and lossless, so what point is there showing there is a difference between 128 kbps and lossless? Who was trying to argue that one?

  4. how do you compress something without losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how do you compress something without losing something? FLAC for example is lossless and files are HUGE compared to lossy formats. And the loss cuts down on the file sizes.

    1. Re:how do you compress something without losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Math.
      This weblog is for perl programmers, I don't know where you were trying to be.

    2. Re:how do you compress something without losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read up. DEFLATE is used by PNG (a lossless compressed format) after a slightly more complex filter is applied.

    3. Re: how do you compress something without losing? by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      The difference between Flac and 256kbps MP3 is far less than you imagine. Roughly speaking 134gb Flac is around 33gb MP3 at 256kbps, and thats around 400 albums.

  5. Money, Money, Money..... by segedunum · · Score: 1

    I suppose they have to think of something.

  6. Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know the arguments of the audiophiles ("quality... I can hear it"), but how many averige people want this subscription ? The averige person probably will not hear the difference between lossless and 256/320 VBR mp3.

  7. Cue the audiophiles in 3...2.... by Bearhouse · · Score: 2

    Pointing out that "CD audio quality" is, in fact, not really "lossless"...
    Of course, unless Spotify can get their hands on the original studio tapes (unlikely) or exotic limited edition releases, they're not going to able to make gonzobyte flac files available anyway, so perhaps a moot point.
    Bearing in mind their target audiences are likely to be listening on crap Beats cans or buds, there's probably little point in this anyway, apart from bragging rights.

    1. Re: Cue the audiophiles in 3...2.... by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      Pointing out that "CD audio quality" is, in fact, not really "lossless"...

      Are you really that stupid that you don't understand the context of the term " lossless?" Surely not.

    2. Re: Cue the audiophiles in 3...2.... by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hahahahah oh man, you've never conversed with an audiophile have you. You're in for a treat.

    3. Re:Cue the audiophiles in 3...2.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have hade zero problems with lossless flac torrents for years.
      Got a letter once from some dmca troll via my isp,
      moved onto the darknets and been torrenting entirely
      within them (no clearnet) with zero fear ever since.
      I2P, onioncat, transmission bt, etc... look it up.

    4. Re: Cue the audiophiles in 3...2.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The context of the term was understood, the OP was simply stating that audiophiles will tell you that a "lossless" audio file is still not "lossless" in the sense that CD quality audio is just not that good.

      But please continue being a jackass - in fact you would make a good audiophile in that respect.

    5. Re: Cue the audiophiles in 3...2.... by MFHFozzy · · Score: 0

      Just to make things actually clear for people:Audio CDs (MP3) are already a lossy format. MP3 does not capture all the audio in a live recording. This is why audiophiles love vinyl records and why the vinyl industry *grew* in 2016. https://www.lifewire.com/what-... http://fortune.com/2016/04/16/...

    6. Re: Cue the audiophiles in 3...2.... by QRDeNameland · · Score: 3, Informative

      What are you talking about? Standard (Redbook) CD Audio is not in MP3 format by any stretch of the imagination.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    7. Re: Cue the audiophiles in 3...2.... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Just to make things clearer, audio CDs are NOT MP3. If your definition of 'lossy' is that there is an upper frequency limit, then there is no such thing as 'lossless' recording, digital or analog.

      The vinyl record industry grew because people are idiots.

    8. Re: Cue the audiophiles in 3...2.... by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      Do studios stil master on tape? Well in mu ignorance I though they mastered to dom high deffinition 24bit/96khz file, and kt eas downsamled from there to whatever the publisher wanred. Well I'm not in this field so please corecct me if I'm wrong. For older recordongs I guess masters ar on tape tho, but who says spotify ever seees any masters?

    9. Re: Cue the audiophiles in 3...2.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They love vinyl because they're morons. Vinyl has less dynamic range than redbook does and degrades every time you listen to it. Modern CDs are mastered in a way that gives up a lot of the extra dynamic range, but claiming that vinyl sounds better is ignorant.

      And as for the growth bit, you could say the same thing about the iPod. The iPod had demonstrably worse sound quality and less storage capacity than the competition, but over time it grew to be nearly the entire market. Just because there's a lot of morons out there, does not mean that the quality is better, it just means that there's another one born every minute.

    10. Re: Cue the audiophiles in 3...2.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? Audio CDs are not MP3. Also, audiophiles love records the same way they love $20,000 snake-oil speaker cables.

      Let me guess, you're confused by the dual-meanings of the word compression?

    11. Re:Cue the audiophiles in 3...2.... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Bring back Dolby

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  8. perfect copies of the songs on an audio CD.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how long until someone strips the drm and enables local saves so you can make your own 'perfect cd' from the streams?

  9. Should be perfect for Apple Beats headphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will go nicely together.

  10. I can tell the difference... by kalpol · · Score: 2

    ...between 128k and 192k files. I can't tell the difference between anything much above 192k and 320k. I have a vintage Marantz amplifier and decent speakers, and even with classical I can't tell any difference between a CD and 320kbps. So more power to Spotify if they can convince people they are audiophiles and require lossless compression, which (protip) is already digitally sampled at 44.1khz anyway.

    --
    12:50 - press return.
    1. Re:I can tell the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. I have multiple sets of studio reference monitors and twenty years of experience using them. 128k sounds absolutely dreadful and I can't bear it. Somewhere above 192k I can no longer hear the difference between mp3s and wavs. Blind A/B comparisons would render most all of these conversations moot.

    2. Re:I can tell the difference... by slinches · · Score: 1

      Agreed, current high bitrate lossy compression is not audibly distinguishable from lossless. That's not to say lossless formats aren't useful. They're necessary for storing original recordings and CD rips so that they can later be used to make transcoded copies in whatever lossy compression formats are best at the time. So unless there's been a breakthrough in lossless compression that beats 320kbps mp3 for size, then streaming lossless files is just a waste of bandwidth.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    3. Re:I can tell the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It entirely depends on what you are listening to. The music that will show the greatest difference is prog rock (Genesis, Yes, Queen...). Most classical and pop/rap are relatively simple and well suited to psycho-acoustic compression, extremely complex music is not suited to it at all.

    4. Re:I can tell the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another agreement here...
      I rip CDs to FLAC for archiving/streaming at home, but for anything else it's Ogg files at q5. The only reason I stream FLAC in the house is the CD archives are all on the NAS (with remote backup, of course!).

  11. is audio-watermarking also one of the features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://www.mattmontag.com/mus...
    That is actually worse than compression artifacts, which by far most people cannot hear anyway.

  12. Audio fidelity on large sound systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It can be very hard to detect losses in audio fidelity on small sound systems. Once you pump sound out of a large system, however, those minor differences in fidelity can make a huge difference. Food for thought

  13. Not worth the money by jbrizz · · Score: 2

    I have a a Yamaha Aventage AVR, Anthem MCA 325 power amp and Dynaudio DM3/7 speakers, some pretty high end audio kit and it's in an acoustically treated room, and I don't think this would be worth it. I can sometimes notice a very subtle difference between a 320k mp3 and flac, but only if the recording is very good, and a recording that good is very rare today. For the few artists that I really enjoy who actually record and master their music well I'd just buy the CD.

    1. Re:Not worth the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much of the stuff on Spotify is even true 320k? Isnt a lot of it is up-sampled from much lower bitrates? And no one has ever claimed the difference between 320k and FLAC was huge. It's real, but not huge and you can only hear it on audiophile grade kit, but when you have a $10k system what do you care about $10 a month for? Why would you not feed it the best to get that slight improvement?

  14. Nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not worth to listen on your phone's crappy DAC converter.

    1. Re:Nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DACs are one of the bigger audiophile lies. DAC tech was perfected with the advent of the 24 bit DAC with jitter control in the early 90's. Any TI DAC chip since 1994 or so has, if anything, been total overkill, in the processing department. There were legitimate audible issues with 16 and 18 bit DACs in the 80's and with the first 24bit DACs with no jitter control functionality. But sound is not that complicated and we are long passed the point where any limitations in the software or silicon can be audible. DACs in todays phones measure nearly flawlessly -- as good as any $2000 DAC built on a custom DSP. To the extent there are difference its in the software filters and your tastes. With expensive DACs you get to play with filters but all filters really do in introduce distortions. To the extent one phones output sounds worse than another's -- it's not the DAC but the amplification. Power out from headphone jacks varies greatly as does the quality of the preamp circuit.

    2. Re:Nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a fan of headphone amps for this reason. The amplification offered by phones is the problem. It's not the DAC chip or even its implementations per se. You just cant drive a good set of headphones with the power out from your phone and even if the power out was fine the preamp circuit is just bad.

  15. lossless vs mp3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MP3s at 320kbps vs 44.1Khz wav are very close. You can somewhat tell the difference if you pay attention to elements like the hi-hats and bass. You lose a bit of harmonic content. There's a bit less depth, and clarity. Most of all, the attack and transients are is a bit off. But at 320Kbps, it's a LOT less noticable than 128/192Kbps. 320Kbps vs wav are very, very close.

    For most people, convenience outweighs everything. Having it free (other than needing to listen through ads) with access to the catalog pretty much makes it unbeatable. For people that want CD quality, it's mostly because during the recording process, that was what it was recorded in (sometimes even with higher sample rate), mixed and mastered in. You're listening to the product the way it was made to be listened to.

    I'd imagine it'd be similar to why some photographers prefer RAW format over JPEG formats. Well, probably for archiving purposes at least.

    I very much enjoy having a meal freshly prepared by a chef, but having left overs that I can microwave at home the next day is good too and convenient.

    My personal opinion is that all streaming services should give an option for 44.1Khz wav for free. It's not like the added revenue they can potentially get would be given back to the artists. It goes to the Major labels and Spotify's own pockets.

  16. How are you listening? by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 1
    Are you listening on a legit Hi-Fi rig? Speakers (or preferably Phones) set up, broken in, correctly tuned, on actual good amps? If you are, great, you may see a TINY benefit from a lossless streaming service. Anything short of that, and you are already mutilating the signal worse than any dropped samples.

    Lossless is great for storage to preserve fidelity, but it's just overload for actual casting. You want the source of your transcode to be lossless, but the actual output can be 'good enough' for the use-case.

    --
    Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
  17. Can't even get basics right = no money from me by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 1

    They can't even get basic UI stuff down after all these years. Why they think I'd give them any money for a service missing such basic interactivity is beyond me.

    https://community.spotify.com/...

  18. ONLY TAKES ONE FAULT TO RENDER CD DEFECTIVE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Overall, that is true. But if I hear a fault - just one - on a CD, the CD is considered defective. 320kbps mp3 will have many of those over the course of a CD-hour.

  19. Ah, the rabbit hole of becoming an audiophile by PuddleBoy · · Score: 1

    Having dipped my toe in the shallow end of high-end audio, I can attest that judging the relative quality of recordings and equipment and cables requires a lot of close A-B comparisons and is fraught with conflicting opinions. The merits of one element can be obscured by other elements in the system, leading to a very different conclusion than if those interfering elements had been replaced with higher-quality ones.

    Sometimes hearing the difference between types of recordings will depend entirely on the source material.

    I will admit that I *never* thought that cable upgrades could make much of a difference, until I got some fairly serious kit (ARC, Manley, Magnepan, etc.) then swapped out cheap cables and borrowed some spendy ones. True, the difference was hardly night and day, but, if you were looking for it, you could reliably and repeatedly hear it.

    The real question becomes; Can you justify the difference in cost? While I might be able to hear the difference between an mp3 and some lossless format, if I have to consistently pay more for the lossless service (and pay more for the gear that is capable of making those differences accessible), am I getting X dollars worth of value?

    Be honest with yourself, don't rely on others to provide you with an opinion. Relax and listen. If you hear a difference and it gives you pleasure, then you have your answer.

  20. I will rip and put on my own server thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    very much. Oh an suck my nuts.