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.
Cue the audiophiles in 3...2....
By Bearhouse
•
2017-Mar-1 14:03
• Score: 3
• Thread
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.
I can tell the difference...
By kalpol
•
2017-Mar-1 14:27
• Score: 3
• Thread
...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.
Re: Cue the audiophiles in 3...2....
By thegarbz
•
2017-Mar-1 14:41
• Score: 5, Insightful
• Thread
Hahahahah oh man, you've never conversed with an audiophile have you. You're in for a treat.
Re:$10 for placebo quality
By GWBasic
•
2017-Mar-1 15:35
• Score: 4, Interesting
• Thread
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.
Re: Cue the audiophiles in 3...2....
By QRDeNameland
•
2017-Mar-1 15:47
• Score: 4, Informative
• Thread
What are you talking about? Standard (Redbook) CD Audio is not in MP3 format by any stretch of the imagination.