advertisement


Spotify strategy

To these ears the difference between lossless and Spotify is night and day, even on a modest system. I am baffled that Spotify can to appeal to anyone using something better than cheap ear buds through a phone.
 
To these ears there is a difference in quality but a tiny one and I’m quite happy with Spotify.
 
Spotify is what you listen to in the car (vs Radio propaganda) or when you're like 12 years old and can't afford to buy anything for real.
 
Flybynight said:
To these ears the difference between lossless and Spotify is night and day,even on a modest system. I am baffled that Spotify can to appeal to anyone using something better than cheap ear buds through a phone.
Click to expand...

Most of the target audience are likely using a smart speaker and using it is a backdrop to their main activities. Alot are listening to podcasts too. No great demand for HiFi quality.
 
I don't subscribe to any of them. Only streaming I do is Nordic Lodge and Linn Jazz on the internet radio of my CXNV2
dot.jpg
 
Last edited:
Whaleblue said:
I have to disagree. Having done some testing of Qobuz HiRes, Spotify MP3 along with locally held CD quality FLAC and 320mbps MP3s I (and a friend) came to the conclusion that Spotify are doing something that messes up the sound. Could be watermarking, could be poor choice of which mastering is in the catalogue, or something else. But listen to a few things back to back and I think you’ll find this. As it happens we were mostly listening to older titles as that’s my friend’s preference, so if it’s mastering it might be less of an issue with newer releases that are likely to have just the one mastering. But if, as my gut feeling suspects, it’s watermarking it’ll apply more broadly.
Click to expand...

Slightly off topic but how did the flac/mp3 files sound compared to Qobuz?
 
Neil P said:
Slightly off topic but how did the flac/mp3 files sound compared to Qobuz?
Click to expand...

I couldn’t easily differentiate on the limited listening I did. The big takeaway was that Spotify do seem to be doing something that’s not nice to my, and my friend’s, ears. If anyone has the ability to compare the digital Spotify steam to a ripped MP3 of a modern recording it would be very interesting. That said, I believe (though only from perceived wisdom) that it’s clear they do watermark - it’s just that the watermarking is meant to be inaudible.
 
Sounds pretty damn good to me, certainly for general / background / car / garden / holiday / new stuff listening. My OH has it included in her phone package so good value IMHO.
 
Recently did some switching between Spotify and Qobuz on a 30 day trial and I don't know, *maybe* I heard a slight difference, not enough to make up for poorer usability. I'm using Airplay though, maybe that gets in the way.
 
It gives me endless joy to see the 'resolution lights' change on my Chord DAC with Quobuz/Tidal ;)
 
monkfish said:
When I was 12 years old and couldn't afford anything for real, spotify would have been a dream come true.
Click to expand...
Yes, any streaming service would have been a dream come true... I remember using a dual tape recorder!*
That being said, why settle for a lossy service to play at home if better is available?

*Edit: BTW, I think it still is a dream come true.
 
I use Spotify via my laptop on and off during the day while I'm working and have yet to try any of the others. In that context Spotify sounds plenty good enough to me and the only thing that bothers me is that they pay the artists so little (but I do buy some new releases on cd from time to time).

I might try one of the alternatives one day, but from the various discussions on here it seems that they may all have their compromises - cost, catalogue, UI etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top