advertisement


Spotify HIFI is here!!!

Doh! Just the sort of click bait thread title I was hoping for. Still no HiFi tier with Spotify. Was hoping this might be out in the wild by now so I can try various trial services from the usual suspects before picking one. Would have been top of my Christmas list and a subscription that would keep on giving (just like Gardeners World subs I gave my OH years ago).

Had Tidals top service but let down by inferior MQA tracks that were bested by CD. Free Spotify doesn’t sound too bad on my system so may hang out for their HiFi tier until early next year.
 
Emericanpie said:
Doh! Just the sort of click bait thread title I was hoping for. Still no HiFi tier with Spotify. Was hoping this might be out in the wild by now so I can try various trial services from the usual suspects before picking one. Would have been top of my Christmas list and a subscription that would keep on giving (just like Gardeners World subs I gave my OH years ago).

Had Tidals top service but let down by inferior MQA tracks that were bested by CD. Free Spotify doesn’t sound too bad on my system so may hang out for their HiFi tier until early next year.
Click to expand...

FWIW Tidal just had a bit of a reshuffle and now offer a CD quality FLAC tier at £9.99 a month.
 
Bested is not a real word, it's a made up term that originated with dumb American sports commentators. I know this makes me appear pedantic when I'm not, I'm normally laid back but the growing use of such nonsense needs to be challenged --- so there you go, I have challenged it and I feel better (not bested) for doing so :)
 
yespsb said:
Bested is not a real word, it's a made up term that originated with dumb American sports commentators. I know this makes me appear pedantic when I'm not, I'm normally laid back but the growing use of such nonsense needs to be challenged --- so there you go, I have challenged it and I feel better (not bested) for doing so :)
Click to expand...

According to Merriam-Webster, the first known use of "best" as a verb was in 1863, so I think you can relax about it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/best

The funny thing about language is that it's constantly evolving and new words regularly are added. It doesn't matter how or why they're added but if they communicate a shared meaning between two people then they're valid.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if there’s a delay because artists are objecting to the upgrade to CD quality? I think I’ve read they get incredibly low revenue from Spotify streams but I guess that would be worth taking a hit on if you acquire new fans who then go out and buy your better sounding CD’s? I know Apple and Tidal are equally meagre with royalty payments but Spotify have the biggest slice of the streaming market and best interface…I’m just conjecting here…
 
My own take is that Spotify were forced to announce there own plans for a hifi tier earlier than they would have preferred because of the moves made by Apple & Amazon.

I think they probably underestimated the complexity of bringing it to to the market hence the delay.

I have also lost patience & have reopened my Tidal account with the new £9.99 hifi tier.

TS
 
I find it incredible that on a hifi forum where people regularly appear to spend incredible amounts in search of relatively minor improvements, that anyone could deny that lossless isn’t miles ahead of lossy formats. It’s like night and day for very little extra cost.
 
JoeJoe said:
I wonder if there’s a delay because artists are objecting to the upgrade to CD quality? I think I’ve read they get incredibly low revenue from Spotify streams but I guess that would be worth taking a hit on if you acquire new fans who then go out and buy your better sounding CD’s? I know Apple and Tidal are equally meagre with royalty payments but Spotify have the biggest slice of the streaming market and best interface…I’m just conjecting here…
Click to expand...

No, there’s no resistance from artists to higher quality streaming. The conversion from stream listener to CD buyer is usually more about support and ownership/tactility than SQ. And Spotify don’t pay any attention to artists on that sort of thing anyway (I use Spotify for artists - they never take any input at all on that sort of thing, they only really care about encouraging artists to do things which look like self promotion, but which just so happen to also promote Spotify and/or make the platform more attractive to customers).

And no, Apple and Tidal aren’t equally meagre - it’s hard to keep track exactly, but Tidal pays roughly double per stream, or did last time I checked. But as you say, Spotify dwarfs the other services in most territories, so unfortunately it makes little difference which platform pays fairer rates to artists.

Personally I suspect that the lack of CD quality Spotify thus far is just down to projected extra revenue and market share not equalling the cost in bandwidth and storage. Promising it ‘soon’ plausibly helps retain customers who might have jumped elsewhere, had higher bitrates not been mentioned. It’s not as if they don’t know how to make it happen.
 
There may also be infrastructure issues, since they're service has been highly optimised around Ogg Vorbis since the start.
 
Dave***t said:
And no, Apple and Tidal aren’t equally meagre - it’s hard to keep track exactly, but Tidal pays roughly double per stream, or did last time I checked. But as you say, Spotify dwarfs the other services in most territories, so unfortunately it makes little difference which platform pays fairer rates to artists.
Click to expand...

…..I feel for artists. Especially the up and coming ones. Once Spotify go to CD quality, musicians just aren’t going to have the same potential to realise the earnings they may have enjoyed pre-streaming?
The only physical carrier streaming can’t perfectly replicate, is vinyl. But vinyl is still niche and I feel there won’t be huge royalties available from the likes of turntable fans like myself! It will be interesting to see how many more of the established artists sell their back-catalogues, as there’s an element of ‘bail-out’ about the recent ones…
 
JoeJoe said:
…..I feel for artists. Especially the up and coming ones. Once Spotify go to CD quality, musicians just aren’t going to have the same potential to realise the earnings they may have enjoyed pre-streaming?
The only physical carrier streaming can’t perfectly replicate, is vinyl. But vinyl is still niche and I feel there won’t be huge royalties available from the likes of turntable fans like myself! It will be interesting to see how many more of the established artists sell their back-catalogues, as there’s an element of ‘bail-out’ about the recent ones…
Click to expand...

Musicians haven’t had the opportunity to realise the earnings they enjoyed pre-streaming for years. 320kbps vs 1411kbps Spotify doesn’t make a jot of difference to that. Young people don’t see the issue and will only ever stream, and older people/more engaged fans already buy stuff they like.

The equaliser to some extent can be vinyl at the moment. I don’t really feel for the big artists selling their catalogues - ISTM they’re largely already in the realms of ‘retire rich’ vs ‘retire rich with a massive yacht’. But for smaller or niche artists, vinyl sales can be importantly more lucrative than other formats, simply because vinyl is both popular and expensive, by the standards of today (though recall CDs being £16ish years ago with massively higher sales because of no streaming/downloading, add in a dash of inflation calculation and you’ll realise that vinyl today is nowhere near that).

The game changer IMO would be forcing Spotify to adopt a different payment model and pay artists more proportionately to the people streaming their music, rather than what currently happens - which is most of your subs going to Taylor Swift(‘s label/management) et al even if you listen exclusively to Peruvian nose flute ensembles or whatever. There are moves afoot along those lines - there have been articles published etc, and a Commons group is looking at it. But there’s a lot of inertia, and the big industry money is largely opposed, as the weird way it works at the moment was devised to favour them and Spotify themselves first and foremost (and the recent Tidal 10% thing is effectively paying lip service while trying to preserve the same model).

But anyway, this is all a bit of a noisy digression - the bottom line is I’m fairly much positive that lossless would make negligible difference to any of that. And even if a majority of people don’t care/can’t tell the difference, it’d be nice to have for those of us who (think they :D) can.
 
John said:
I’m not convinced from what I heard when Robert posted the comparison files. I couldn’t tell a difference. I have Spotify Premium and have no issues with the sound quality on all types of music.

https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/putting-spotify-hi-fi-to-the-test.252886/
Click to expand...
How did you listen?
Music choices were arguable in this test, as I said.

The compressed Spotify versions have little stage depth to them. Where is that cavernous soundstage you can get with analogue or proper digital?
You also lose subtle details and symphonic orchestras are much simplified. Individual instruments are just melted together in complex movements, like in early digital.

But then again, there is precious little difference with already heavily processed music (pop/rock).
And don’t mention Daft Punk!
 
I hear everything about artists struggling and yet there is always a healthy influx of new talent, even in genres which are not main stream.

Isn't it a young (new) artists prerogative to 'struggle' for their art? Has that not always been the same?

Only a few 'really make it'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top