Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spotify is officially testing Hi-fi audio. Apple, you have to step up on this.
- Thread starter B/D
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Can anyone really notice the quality difference? I tried Tidal when it launched, and except for using up more space on my phone, needed a much faster 4G connection with more buffering, I didn't notice any difference
Are all songs in Spotify's library offered in lossless?
If so, I would LOVE to try this out with my Audio Technica ATH-M50's. I haven't gotten the in-opp offer yet! Anxiously awaiting!
edit -- I have an Android and a lot of the new Spotify features are absent from the Android app. Hope this isn't the same way.
If so, I would LOVE to try this out with my Audio Technica ATH-M50's. I haven't gotten the in-opp offer yet! Anxiously awaiting!
edit -- I have an Android and a lot of the new Spotify features are absent from the Android app. Hope this isn't the same way.
Are all songs in Spotify's library offered in lossless?
If so, I would LOVE to try this out with my Audio Technica ATH-M50's. I haven't gotten the in-opp offer yet! Anxiously awaiting!
edit -- I have an Android and a lot of the new Spotify features are absent from the Android app. Hope this isn't the same way.
Spotify lossless is not yet available to the public. Spotify is sending this to a few people, however, I suppose to see how much they will be willing to pay, and if they are interested in lossless audio (they are, there is a 62 page thread on Spotify Community requesting this)
I'd suggest for anyone who is interested in this to first do a blind listening test, e.g. using the Foobar ABX Comparator or this web site:
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html
Start with a moderate codec setting such as 160kbps MP3. You'll probably be surprised by the result.
AAC sound's amazing MP3 sounds like mud. If AM would go to 320kbps AAC you won't even be able to tell the difference.
Keyword there for me is "CD quality". Now what that means is that it's lossless 44.1KHz 16-bit. Obviously, objectively speaking, it'll be closer to it's original form when it's less compressed (not talking about what we as humans can perceive - just what is technically measurable). That said, if we're going this route, might as well go 24-bit 192KHz, right? Even if you compress that at a decent bitrate, it'll be measurably more accurate than the lossless "CD quality"
Nope they can't - genuinely. Every single scientific test with equipment up to a million pounds worth of value has shown no one can do anything better than blind guessing.
Of course audiophiles will tell you they can hear depth, width, detail, heights, a soundstage that is incredible. But they're mostly bonkers and delusional.
[doublepost=1488453336][/doublepost]
No, because you'll find about 1% of all music has even been bothered to be recorded and mixed at this range, it's a complete waste of resources. 99% of the masters Spotify and Apple will have been given will be 44khz - this IS the lossless original.
Thing is, CD it´s been around for a long time before compressed audio formats came around. So people ´ve been incapable of appreciate that level of quality for the most part of the last 30 years? CD audio specs are overkill?
[doublepost=1488453618][/doublepost]You can´t also tell between a Netflix 1080p stream and a Blu-Ray Disc? I think you can, particularly with banding issues.
[doublepost=1488453618][/doublepost]You can´t also tell between a Netflix 1080p stream and a Blu-Ray Disc? I think you can, particularly with banding issues.
Actually, Apple have quite a few of 24/192 masters, (or lower, but higher than 16/44), as part of their Mastered for iTunes initiative, I think.
I could be wrong.
[doublepost=1488454289][/doublepost]More than 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.
I could be wrong.
[doublepost=1488454289][/doublepost]More than 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.
[MOD NOTE]
Please join the discussion here: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...less-audio-quality-subscription-tier.2035134/
Please join the discussion here: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...less-audio-quality-subscription-tier.2035134/
- Status