This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
I think Spotify is missing the point. People who care about Hi-Fi, care about the music, which means they care about the artists, which means they likely care about the treatment of those artists.
In my eyes the only real value Spotify adds is their discovery features.
Oh cool, now they've finally caught up to my Navidrome server
That's nice. I have been streaming lossless for myself for what, two decades now? I see no reason to pay spotify for anything.
The only reason I'm still on Spotify is that I can pay like £2.20 to be in someone's family.
But the incessant push towards podcasts bugs me. When I'm driving, I shouldn't have to scroll through 5+ pages to finally get to the music section. That shit is dangerous.
As soon as Spotify inevitably enforces that families have to be the same household, as so many other streaming services have done before it, I'm gone.
Absolutely this, they are also really shit at giving you what you like and want to snd you to the same hack wankers talking bro politics.
Same for audiobooks, it literally never has the ones I am actively reading as jump back in options, just suggestions of pop psychology manosphere shite. I sear if I see another CEO or Jordan Peterson book... let me fijish the Mark Hoppus book goddamnit.
Their androidauto implenetation is poor
When I'm driving, I shouldn't have to scroll through 5+ pages to finally get to the music section
Į've recently discovered a feature I remember never really using, Car Mode, is no longer
I was the biggest fan of Spotify as soon as they started up. I was one of the first people to get early access and was a huge supporter for years.
Buy your music, own your files, never subscribe for something you can buy instead. You're not listening to 12 new albums a year, if you can subscribe, you can pay for the files that will be yours forever. The fact that Spotify has higher quality streaming doesn't change anything.
Aye. Bandcamp. Buy, download FLAC, put in mediamonkey, listen in cars or anywhere else. If need be, the app is also there for streaming I guess.
I prefer Navidrome
Looks decent on a quick glance. But my library is vast and very much made around mediamonkey for 20 yrs. I need my precise auto-playlists 😉
You're not listening to 12 new albums a year
Uhm…
Even if. Still pretty cheap compared to streaming where you pay and never own, and it's always a second away from being never accessible anymore for whatever reason.
Well, I suppose downloads musn't be that expensive. Vinyls got me like "darn, that thing pricey, innit?", and they skip a lot, very fragile, lots of work. I like the vibe, æsthetic, and just… overall exprience, minus all the cleaning work. I'm pondering switching to CDs, honestly. Don't look as cool as vinyls, don't come in fancy colourful shine in the dark fancy special versions (unless I'm wrong), no big square with cover image to better see and enjoy. But you can back it into a computer, innit? Less fragile as well. And if I get the right device, I could listen to FM Radio as well. Idk
Price depends on bands. Some charge a lot, some charge "what you want to give (at least 1 moneyz though)". The latter are the best. They don't extort me so I pay full price willingly. Those that demand fullprice can lick my hairy...u know which 😁
Tbh, I grew up with vinyl, never liked them. But only because of convenience reasons. Also I'm so ocd that I get nervous after playing it once and knowing it somehow lost quality now due to mechanics. Since CD first came out I was hooked. Convenient, fast and I could quickly choose a song etc. Then came cd-changers... Pure convenience bliss...
But with my first HD and CDROM I simply digitized every CD I had to FLAC, and now they're just....a backup stored safe and dry. Yes they lack in quality compared to a good vinyl. Totally. Even SACDs et al can't really compete with analogue sound.
So long story short. Can't beat vinyl for quality if you're audiophile enough to hear the differences. Me, personally, I'd mostly choose (SA)CDs for ease of use. Also a ripped vinyl with high Bitrate and depth is pretty close to the original yet more comfy 😑
Yeah, I'm adding about 500 songs to my spotify library every year. If I paid 1€ for every single one it would be more than 10x the cost of the 3€ per month for a Spotify Family slot
You add songs to your library? I have albums/EPs and some playlists, but that's about it. Wouldn't mind switching away from Spotify, though.
I probably would pay for albums, but not sure if I'd pay for singles. Pay to get only one song? I guess it's a physical mentality. The latest single doesn't come in vinyl format, after all. If only vinyl wasn't as expensive and so fragile and requiring work to maintain
I do listen to a lot of music, though. And many artists as well. Which makes it difficult knowing for sure what I like. When I can listen to pretty much anything at any point in time anywhere, for no additional cost… got many things in my library, not sure if it all stands
with flacs on soulseek, who needs music subscriptions?
Previously Spotify couldn't develop hifi because they gave hundreds of millions ofl their customers money to that anti vax joe Rogan dick instead. Get bent and die Spotify.
Canceled my sub when that happened and won’t be back.
Fist bump
he’s more than anti vax. he’s an anti-science conspiracy monger, one step short of alex jones.
Too late. Spotify sucks
Lossless music doesn’t matter when it’s all AI generated crap.
Dunno what weird music you listen too but I have no ai slop in my library.
so far...
The Genres I listen to won't work well with that 😁
spotify essentially killed grooveshark no thanks i’m still sour (I worked there)
This is going to affect my monthly fee, isn’t it?
Incoming Spotify premium plus subscription tier. With lossless audio. And then shortly after some previously premium tier features to go plus. Then ads appear on the premium, I mean basic tier (priced at the old premium price).
Incoming Spotify premium plus subscription tier
That was what they were planning to do, a new premium tier that would have lots of extras but then Apple released lossless audio as part of the standard base tier so Spotify gave up on it
To me I don't really get it, I've had flac audio files in the past and I haven't really found much difference in audio quality above 192k
Just to confirm there is no new tier for this
From today (September 10), Spotify Lossless will be rolling out to Premium users across over 50 regions including the US, UK and Australia. Spotify says the rollout is starting now and will continue though October. You’ll receive a notification alerting you when Lossless is available, but that’s not all.
Surprisingly, Spotify Lossless is free for Premium subscribers – a huge sigh of relief given that previous rumors suggested that lossless audio would come in the form of a paid add-on called ‘Music Pro’.
Fuck you Spotify
Is this just music, or will conspiracy theorists podcasts and other right wingers be in high res too?
Well that's one thing Apple did right, aside from a terrible algorithm. Spotify will be jacking up the prices in 3,2,1...
why all this fuss about lossless audio? Spotify premium is literally indistinguishable from lossless audio for 99.9% of the population and songs (because not all songs will be lossless or are even mastered in a way that makes a difference). granted if...
you may hear a difference. if you think otherwise, then do a lossy vs lossless blind test and be impressed that you actually cannot hear the difference most of the time (especially without actively looking for the artifacts)
Lossy audio compression algorithms work based on psychoacoustic effects. The average human ear will not detect all the "parts" in a lossless signal - there are things you can drop from the signal because:
So in order to determine exactly which parts of an audio signal could be dropped because we don't hear them anyway, they measured a couple of thousand people's listening profiles.
And they used that "average human profile" to create their algorithm.
This, of course, has a consequence which most people, including you apparently, do not understand:
The better your personal "ear" matches the average psychoacoustic model used by lossy algorithms, the better the signal will sound to you.
In other words, older people, or people with certain deficiencies in their hearing capabilities, will need higher bitrates not to notice the difference. In the 90s, I used to be happy with 192 kbps CBR MP3. But now, being an old fuck, boy, can I hear the difference.
Ironically, I can detect the difference not because my ears are "trained" or "better", I can detect it because my ears are worse than yours!
So the whole bottom line is this: While it may be true that you, personally, do not require lossless to enjoy music to the fullest, other people do. Claiming that lossless isn't needed by 99.9% of the population is horseshit and only demonstrates that you have no clue about how lossy compression works in the first place.
The fuss is that every time you transcode to a new format you accumulatively lose quality.
So for example if you have an 320kbps mp3, but then that takes too much space so you transcode it to 192 mp3, but then you discover the opus codec is more efficient so you transcode it again, but then you want to make a fan video of the same song, so your video player transcoded it again into video friendly aac.
The quality on your final video is going contain the faults of all the files upstream.
Meanwhile if you edit the video from a lossless source, it will only get encoded once.
So it doesn't matter for streaming, but it matters if you want to download and convert to other formats.
Are you a musician? You can hear whats missing if you know what to listen for.
You don't need a trained ear for lossless audio to be different for lossy audio.
