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.

9 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. $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 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.

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

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

    3. 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
  2. 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 thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.