Spotify Testing New Lossless Audio Quality Subscription Tier

[MacRumors]

Spotify is prepping the launch of a lossless audio version of its streaming service, according to The Verge. The new subscription tier is said to be called Spotify Hi-Fi and will offer higher bandwidth lossless audio quality to members.

Currently, Tidal is the only major music streaming service to offer an optional "lossless" audio tier, although other, lesser known lossless services do exist.

Anyone get this invitation for Spotify Hi-Fi? Looks awesome! pic.twitter.com/2aeYXMIHJD - Cody Kloepfer (@Semantics) March 1, 2017

Tidal says tracks heard through its "CD quality" lossless service aren't compressed, so users are said to hear the music the way the artists intended - though whether one can tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed tracks can depend on the listener. What Spotify defines as lossless remains to be seen.

Spotify began testing the service with a small group of users on Tuesday, according to reports, offering the tier for $5 to $10 above the $10 per month price of a standard Spotify subscription.

However, users who received the invitation to sign up for the Hi-Fi service either got an error message or were told the service was unavailable in their area at the time.

A Tidal HiFi subscription costs $19.99. Apple Music streams at a bitrate of 256Kbps, while Spotify's current Premium tier streams at a maximum 320Kbps.

Article Link: Spotify Testing New Lossless Audio Quality Subscription Tier

 

[kalafalas]

Currently:

Spotify uses OGG Vorbis (equilivent or slightly worse than MP3) with a choice between 96kbps, 160kbps, and 320kbps

Apple Music/iTunes uses 256kbps AAC (MP4) with the option of using 80kbps AAC+ On cellular connections (sounds similar to ~160 AAC)

Tidal uses a choice between 96kbps AAC+, 320kbps AAC, and Apple Lossless (Hi-Fi)

SoundCloud is 128kbps MP3

 

[odedia]

Quboz is great but the interface is in French.

 

[dannys1]

Apple Music streams at a bitrate of 256Kbps, which is lower than Spotify's current Premium tier at 320Kbps.

I wish you guys would stop pushing this myth. I use both services and they have pros and cons. But as Spotify uses Ogg and Apple Music 256kbps AAC it's not comparable on bit-rate alone, so you can't just say this and spread misinformation amoungst other people who don't understand it.

 

[keysofanxiety]

I wish you guys would stop pushing this myth. I use both services and they have pros and cons. But as Spotify uses Ogg and Apple Music 256kbps AAC it's not comparable on bit-rate alone, so you can't just say this and spread misinformation amoungst other people who don't understand it.

Yep, bigger numbers =/= better. Same goes for megahertz, megapixels...

 

[B/D]

More than a commercial movement, I think this is a strategic and public image one . It is obvious that most people will not be interested, but it will stops critics that say their music is compressed, even if they are only criticism without weight.

It is the death sentence of Tidal, the only global service of uncompressed music that is usually news every X months for possible purchase by Apple.

And most important of all, it is an added and optional service. It does not harm any customer and offers the way to pay more for the music in Streaming. Even if it sounds crazy, there are people who would pay more for a service that does not make think that they are receiving less than when buying physical CD , even if it's a purely psychological issue.

The increase in subscribers will be noticeable. The option will be there for those who want it, and will no longer be a criticism point . I know many people who do not buy digital music, or subscribe to a service of this type, because think that they are getting less than the format that have been with them almost 30 years.


This is good news.
[doublepost=1488454645][/doublepost]

Yep, bigger numbers =/= better. Same goes for megahertz, megapixels...

Yeah, AAC 256 sounds great (particularly mastered for iTunes albums)

 

[righteye]

Quboz is great but the interface is in French.

Well mine is in English, I'm in the UK.

 

[kissmo]

It depends more than the listener.
The Audio Conversion Chip, the amplifier, the speakers and so on....
MR kinda played it fast and loose with this remark.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Heck, you can make the exact same point (OGG vs AAC not being directly comparable on bit rate alone) for the equivalent lossless codecs, too, for the exact same reasons: different compression methods and priorities. That being said, there are reasons to prefer one over others; the most prominent of these is hardware decode support and availability of software able to use it. If Linux support is a concern for Spotify then using OGG/FLAC makes a lot of sense, since support is readily available for that operating system, and can be enabled with libraries for others. Apple, by contrast, has no plans for Linux software, so this is largely a non-issue for them. They already have an installed base of iTunes users with AAC and ALAC files already; it makes perfect sense that they would reuse existing formats for use cases like music streaming.

 

[righteye]

Good move by Spotify the audio quality was why i stopped using it but it was great for discovering new music.
When are Apple going to catch up, the company that is forever getting less Pro.
If you want to reward your ears use Qobuz. Its just had an interface makeover for the desktop app which is really nice, If you become a Sublime tier user you get discounts on 24bit files that you can stream or download and then use in any player you choose. Use the iPhone through the app (iPhone 6 and below would need a DAC) as it will only play 16bit through the analogue headphone jack, Apple make the lightening to headphone DAC its OK (only £10) A better quality DAC is advisable.

 

[hanser]

Well mine is in English, I'm in the UK.

They even offer a German interface!

 

[timmyh]

I wish you guys would stop pushing this myth. I use both services and they have pros and cons. But as Spotify uses Ogg and Apple Music 256kbps AAC it's not comparable on bit-rate alone, so you can't just say this and spread misinformation amoungst other people who don't understand it.

That was an error on my part. So I've removed the word "lower", to avoid that interpretation.

 

[righteye]

They even offer a German interface!

You Seem surprised, is a German interface unusual?

 

[timmyh]

It depends more than the listener.
The Audio Conversion Chip, the amplifier, the speakers and so on....
MR kinda played it fast and loose with this remark.

Sure, I'd hope that was obvious. Ain't this topic a minefield!

 

[hanser]

It was a bit tongue in cheek since one commenter claimed it had only a French interface, no English, which is not true.

 

[chabig]

"Lossless audio is 44.1KHz 16-bit CD quality, meaning the files aren't compressed..."

This is false. Lossless is about quality, not compression. Lossless audio can be and often is compressed. For example, Apple Lossless (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless) maintains lossless quality while reducing file size. So does FLAC.

 

[timmyh]

"Lossless audio is 44.1KHz 16-bit CD quality, meaning the files aren't compressed..."

This is false. Lossless is about quality, not compression. Lossless audio can be and often is compressed. For example, Apple Lossless (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless) maintains lossless quality while reducing file size. So does FLAC.

That's fine, but Tidal doesn't define it that way: https://support.tidal.com/hc/en-us/articles/202722972-HiFi-vs-Premium-Subscriptions-

Guess we'll have to wait and see how Spotify interprets its claims, because clearly this is a contentious issue.

 

[Music Ambulance]

"whether one can tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed tracks depends on the listener"

Hmmm, Also depends on the listenters hardware. You need good digital to analogue converters to complete the picture. (I.e., a dedicated audio interface; even the cheap ones make a worthwhile difference). Whether it's mp3s or 24 bit audio, it will sound like crud coming straight out your headphone jack

 

[chabig]

Tidal shouldn't be relied as arbiter for industry standard terminology. Compression always refers to file size.

 

[righteye]

"Lossless audio is 44.1KHz 16-bit CD quality, meaning the files aren't compressed..."

This is false. Lossless is about quality, not compression. Lossless audio can be and often is compressed. For example, Apple Lossless (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless) maintains lossless quality while reducing file size. So does FLAC.

So much music is totally ruined by compression and as you say HiRes is not immune from this i started to check files by dragging them into Audacity and was shocked at how compressed some tracks are. I believe Qobuz try to get recordings that are not overly compressed but i doubt if this possible all the time.

 

[saudade]

Omg finally. Now i gonna connect thiz to my home stereo and my car' sound system. Cause i was using Apple Music which is low quality sound u know what i mesn? Thiz is whst we were sll expecting. Top noch sound. Ill also use it with my beats headphones cause i have 4 of them. And i gonna guy Spotify memberships 4 all my females and some friends so they ca appreciate what quality is and it sounds. My neighbors will know what da bass is lol im very popular here cause i use musica super loud and everbody in 350 fts can hear even at night man i don't care cause music is art u know what i mean? Music must be free without compression

 

[MH01]

Okay. I'm interested .

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

It'd be great if Apple Music offered lossless files (ALE). I have been ripping CDs using Apple lossless for years, and the thought of Apple Music taking over my library and replacing everything on my phone with 256k files stopped me from activating the trial.

 

[Defthand]

This is encouraging. I currently subscribe to Tidal and can appreciate the improvement that hi fidelity audio formats bring (When I listen with the house stereo system). My only wish is that someone would sell individual tracks in these audio formats. Currently, the hi-fi track resellers require you to buy the entire album.

 

[adamjackson]

30 years after the compact disk was introduced, Internet Radio stations are finally offering music in CD-Quality.

LOL.


Yes I know Tidal exists and yes I know you could buy Lossless digital copies for many years and yes I know most people can't discern from 256KBS AAC w/ VBR & Losslesss but it is funny that my Mom listening to Pearl Jam's Ten on her Hi-Fi system was better sounding that the majority of people consuming music today.

I personally am waiting for Apple to offer FLAC / Lossless tracks in Apple Music. I'm an Apple Fanboy and don't see the point in going another route. I use a 256GB SD Card in my car w/ FLAC tracks and my 256GB iPhone is loaded up with Lossless tracks from iTunes. My Synology has a terabyte of uncompressed music going back to the 50s that I've transferred over from my CD collection. I see no point (personally) in paying $10 a month to listen to music I already own. I only wish Apple had continued with and released a 1TB iPod so I could finally have all of my music with me. I could always do what Puff-Daddy did and just keep multiple iPods on me. I can't find the story but I think he traveled with 5 iPods to hold his entire music collection.