T O P
windleyyy

It would be cool when I’m listening to music through my audio interface but even then I would hardly tell a difference. I do usually mess with the audio settings when I’m using mobile to make the music sound a tad better, I wish they would include that with the PC version


oeihbg

You're not wrong, and I think it's the reason we got lyrics instead.


fsr1967

Yes, but do most people have the proper equipment to actually display lyrics? *Sorry. I'll show myself out*


BigAlTrading

i mEaN how manY PEople CAn reAlly rEaD?


spooky__alien

Okay but how many ages behind is Spotify if they can’t give us both?


StormyTheDragon

But I have the gear and I want Hi-Fi. I don't really care about others.


[deleted]

[удалено]


KeybordKat

Why make electric cars when only a small percentage of the population can afford them? This is a stupid argument to cut them slack on not delivering on their promise


IIALE34II

Doesn't apply here. Electricity is what drives the car. You can also use planar drivers to move air to create audio instead of dynamic drivers. If you want to make a car example, maybe fuel would be one. You can use racing fuel in every car, but only race car will go fast with it. When in regular car you won't even notice the change in fuel.


KeybordKat

You’re just arguing semantics at this point, i don’t have to go into some fool proof analogy when it’s pretty blatant how moronic OPs argument is.


chrisrazor

Well the main reason for having electric cars is to reduce pollution. When they're cheaper, a lot more people will. Adding hifi will *increase* pollution so they can't be compared.


BigAlTrading

>Adding hifi will increase pollution Opening your mouth increases pollution.


BigAlTrading

>aND SPOTIFy kNowS THis No they don't, because then they wouldn't have promised it. The incremental cost for hi-fi music is small. It's a little bandwidth and a little storage. The major costs to Spotify are not data related. It's apparently worth it to Apple and Amazon to offer HD music for no incremental increase in price. The major difference seems to be that it doesn't take Apple and Amazon *years* to roll out small upgrades in software and streaming architecture. Spotify is *incompetent.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


trophicmist0

Yeah I just did this and honestly could not tell a single difference. The fact is the majority just don't/shouldn't care, hence why Spotify drags their feet.


muntoo

On my Beyerdynamic DT 770's... nope. :)


speedle62

No. Nobody cares if they can *genuinely* tell the difference. Nothing but a circle jerk.


andromeda_7

I got 5 out of 5. I was using the 64audio A12t earphones with the ifi iDSD Signature


mercurysquad

This test keeps coming up. I did it twice. The first time it said "you probably can't tell a difference" -- but I was not familiar with those songs. I did the test again and had "you can almost certainly tell a difference" 0% chance of getting by luck. My "super hifi equipment": 350 € Sennheiser headphones plugged straight into a Mac. edit: [here are the screenshots](https://ibb.co/fMYdnHC) You can see my score improving in the 2nd try, but in the same proportion as the first result. These tests depend a lot on the source material.


BigAlTrading

The second track in that test is dogshit for testing audio quality. It's a slow, simple electronic bass beat and a synthed echoey voice that barely changes pitch. It's about halfway between Super Mario music and anything worth listening to in terms of complexity and the influence of compression. Choosing source content like that will artificially suppress the distinction of the results. May as well play a sine wave and claim nO one CAN tell the dIffeRENCe.


derpspace2d

same.


Blotto_80

Yep. There’s obviously enough people who care and have the gear to make a difference or Tidal and Qobuz wouldn’t have the subscriber base they have.


Smart-Time6212

Qobuz has 200k and Tidal has 2-4 million (no one knows for sure) compared to 172 million for Spotify. Spotify has shown only subscriber base gains during the time Apple and Amazon offered HiFi at no cost increase. Qobuz and Tidal both cut their monthly fee during this time. HiFi is still a niche market.


Exzodium

Yeah, no one cares what normies are up too. Give us the good good already.


Dominos-roadster

Time to explore the 7 seas. *Arrr*


Lawnmover_Man

But can you hear the difference? Ever tried, with an actual ABX test?


NotreallyCareless

So, Tidal then i guess?


StormyTheDragon

I bet 90% of what I listen to isn't on Tidal. Plus fuck MQA


[deleted]

It takes a closely listening ear and good equipment to discern the difference between 320k vorbis and FLAC. But that doesn't mean that Spotify shouldn't add a feature that their competition offers.


Death_Star

You are correct. One variable that people often overlook though is that the difference in FLAC vs 320kbit/s Vorbis changes a noticeable amount sometimes depending on the source recording quality. In other words, what type of instruments/vocals are in there and how well it is mastered. That means for quite a bit of music there is less of a difference, but not always. I only recently came to this conclusion having considered Spotify to be "good enough" for a long time. Now I am less sure. Since Tidal is the same price for HiFi FLAC (actually less with some discounts), I have nothing to lose by trying it and maybe eventually cancelling Spotify. We will see.


Camquarter

or if you have a good system in your car, you can feel the difference, no joke


Ninj4s

Yeah, low frequencies are the first to suffer with low bitrate


ZealousidealPin5125

Actually most codecs cut out highs first, since most adults can't hear anything over 15khz anyway.


Ninj4s

Yeah, but with a good sound system it's easier to tell the quality apart by the missing lows. For me, at least. Maybe I'm just old.


BigAlTrading

I did volume matched, quantified experiments with different amps and the same sources and headphones last year. My conclusion was the increased high freq distortion of worse quality equipment makes the music more fatiguing to listen to, so you turn it down, and then perceive that as "weaker bass."


BigAlTrading

Low freqs are the easiest to encode because they have a low amount of information per unit time and they are the least subject to harmonic distortion.


Camquarter

Exactly, I got a 12 in sub and it sounds noticeably worse on Bluetooth compared to usb when on lossless


SammyG_06

Bluetooth literally can’t stream lossless because the pipeline isn’t big enough. It’s obvious that Bluetooth won’t sound as good as wired because Bluetooth compresses the audio lmao.


Camquarter

Hence the reason I even commented in the first place


andysor

I would say it is next to impossible to hear the difference, and will have that opinion until someone passes a supervised ABX test. Psychoacoustic compression of Ogg Vorbis is really, really good. I have no chance in hearing the difference with Denon D2000 and separate DAC in my testing with ABX test on Foobar. I think a lot of HiFi people want to justify their expenditure, it's a hobby after all, but buying better/different headphones or speakers is the way, not "better" music files. Don't even get me started on DACs, amps and cables. [This](http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm) is probably my favourite anti-audiophile bit of reading material.


[deleted]

While it's not 320k Vorbis vs FLAC, this test does help you hear the differences. I can hear the difference in these tests with my equipment, but only with close listening. And while I can hear the difference, I am not 100% accurate in picking the right sample. https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality


andysor

I got 5/6 for not picking 128kbs, but had no preference between 320kbs and WAV. In my testing with my own encodes more than 10 years ago (before streaming) I found 256kbs Ogg Vorbis to be transparent to me, so expected result I guess. In any case there's no way anyone could call the difference between the 320kbs and WAV to be "extremely obvious" the way I hear some audiophiles talk. *Maybe* someone (young) with extensive training in identifying codec artifacts listening on very revealing headphones to hand picked songs could pick better than chance, but I doubt it.


[deleted]

I agree, the differences between 320k Vorbis and lossless are miniscule if they're audible at all. It's mostly a competitive feature at this point since most of Spotify's rivals offer lossless.


ZealousidealPin5125

This one lets you test Spotify's purported codec and bitrate. http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html


Tupo_Demon

The cost of normal PC equipment does not exceed $500 to hear the difference, and even with simple equipment you will at least hear a little more detail and a wider scene. Spotfy's sound is very flat and squeezed. The only time you won't hear the difference is if you don't have ears.


Death_Star

I think you are overestimating the average person. Yes FLAC is objectively better than Spotify's format though. I do hope consumer demand will lead to HiFi formats being the norm again (like the CD era) sooner than later.


Lawnmover_Man

Are you sure you deactivated any audio filter on Spotify and/or you operating system? For example, dynamic audio compression is active by default on Spotify.


Tupo_Demon

I'm sure I've tried every option in the three years I've been using the Spotify. It was enough to listen to the downloaded flac files via foobar2000 at the time to understand the difference in sound, then I got to know Qobuz and Tidal. Qobuz was founded in 2007, but I learned about it probably 4 years ago or more. Now Qobuz is my main service, and in parallel I use Pandora to search for similar, and sometimes Apple.


Wanderlustfull

Are there Spotify settings for this, or ones in Windows? I know I've done all the ones in Spotify itself, but would be curious if I missed any OS-level settings.


Opposite-Chemistry-0

Incorrect. I have a number of audio equipment: Apple ear thingies, sound bar, pcs, laptops, TV. I can easily hear difference tidal vs Spotify on each. We ever tried different combos blindfolded. Spotify is decent, but easily worse than Apple and tidal


MAXHEADR0OM

I think it may be time to hang this argument out to dry. It’s posted everyday in both the Spotify and Apple Music subreddits.


Gato-Ngro

I just compared Spotify to tidal and Apple Music using my HIFI and holy hell Spotify sucks so much I instantly paid for a tidal account, transferred my playlists and I’m never looking back. Spotify sound quality SUCKS! (That being said Spotify runs at 320 bits and Tidal runs at 1141, so it makes sense)


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gato-Ngro

I’m using my beyerdynamic DT 770 PRO (250 ohm). But I also tried it with my new AirPods (newest model) via Bluetooth and the difference was still very noticeable which surprised me. That being said, the quality difference is more noticeable on some songs than others. I hear a wider soundstage, richer fuller sound, and brighter highs. Just right off the bat I need to turn Spotify volume up about 20% to match the level I get from Tidal. With Tidal the volume is set lower but sound is louder and richer than Spotify.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gato-Ngro

You realize I said “also” right?


Gato-Ngro

Re-educate yourself on Bluetooth codecs. Then come back


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gato-Ngro

Love you


k4ever07

I did the same thing and Spotify's quality is terrible! Even music videos on YouTube sound better than Spotify. That's why the whole Joe Rogan fiasco pissed me off. They could have used that $100 million to improve the quality of their music. They have fallen so far behind!


SammyG_06

I used to use Amazon music HD, but testing it with Spotify, I literally did not hear any difference. I use a Schiit Modius connected to a Schiit Magnius through XLR and my Sennheiser HD 6XX headphones balanced.


Gato-Ngro

It sounds like you did it right. I honestly haven’t compared Amazon tho so I can’t speak to it. I notice the quality difference more with some songs than others. But it shocked me because I did not expect to notice a difference… I’ve been with Spotify for like 6 years now. All that being said I realize the sound quality difference won’t matter to most people. I notice it because I do a lot of sound engineering and production and it’s just a hyper focus and interest I have.


Whiskeyisneeded

I agree. Even with wired headphones i cannot tell a difference an i've had amazon, tidal and spotify head to head with the same song. In all honesty i think spot.till sounded best imo. A lot of that has to do with android resampling unless you can bypass that with usb output and software but i don't have time for that. In the end i am sticking with spotify for its much better settings such as explicit filter, gapless and cross fade etc.


Homer_JG

I've tried most of the alternatives and maybe it's because i'm so used to it already, but I simply prefer the Spotify UI. And the seamless switching between devices is something I use all the time.


Whiskeyisneeded

Totally agree. Love to seamlessly go from phone to laptop. I also prefer the UI as well


crowlm

The majority of peoples time spent listening to music happens on their phone and those phones don't have a headphone jack. Similar to the people spamming reddit in outrage over Apple Music's lack of a desktop app, its a vocal minority that also decries the lack of lossless. The head of Apple Music on the launch of lossless said that there is no perceivable difference between 256 AAC and lossless. The head of Spotifys competition doesn't believe the feature adds any value. That being said, people don't like paying the same for less. Spotify is charging the same amount as Apple Music while Apple delivers losssles, high resolution music and spatial audio at the same price. I guess it then becomes a question in your mind, why am I paying the same for less? That infurariates some people. To me there are reasons to look at other services; if you really don't like podcast spam, spatial audio, library management, meta data editing, human curation, better artist compensation, interface differences or niche integrations (Roon). Lossless is not one.


crazycalvin22

Lack of Apple Music desktop app is just Apple being lazy and not willing to work with any Microsoft's product. Making a quality app would cost them literally nothing. Even independent groups of developers can create one, so it wouldn't be a problem for Apple. Lossless is way more time and money consuming as you have to pay labels to provide you with lossless songs, and then you have to manage this library. It's nothing compared to creating a desktop app.


Tupo_Demon

Now there's Cider for Apple Music, and the developers are about to add lossless audio support for Windows. A great app from independent developers. You can find their reddit and discord.


crowlm

No one is saying it’s a lot of effort for a company like apple to develop a proper desktop app, they just don’t care because their customers don’t. Almost all of their subscribers listen through their phone via Bluetooth, they never touch the desktop. Apple are prioritising features based on benefits to their customers. When they’ve hit higher impact items on their internal roadmap, they will tackle the low impact requests.


crazycalvin22

[https://i.imgur.com/C1VALtb.png](https://i.imgur.com/C1VALtb.png) No one has data from Apple Music usage statistics. The general stats show that yes, mobiles are more popular than desktops, but the difference is not so big as you say.


crowlm

That’s worldwide data (not reflective of markets that Apple is specifically operating in with AppleMusic), nor is that reflective of users preferences for ecosystem and doesn’t show if they are paying for a streaming service (YouTube the video platform is counted as music listening). Also any graph that shows radio being the dominant music platform must of been created by lunatics or a troll.


crazycalvin22

This is real data from a reputable source. Till now, you didn't show any proof for your claims. Anecdotal evidence is not a right way to prove that something is valid.


crowlm

Real data is not the same as supporting evidence for a claim. The source you have shown suggests radio is the number 1 way people listen to music, that is observably false via the radio industry. It is obviously not difficult to find supporting evidence for this. I'm not offering any source as I'm not trying to prove anything, just adding some comment on why Apple treats the desktop app as a low priority. That being said here is one source: https://amt-lab.org/blog/2019/10/future-trends-of-music-streaming-services This shows only 29% of listening is done on computers. This isn't split by paid vs free subscribers and it isn't showing ecosystems. If those were factored in, computer use would be considerably smaller. A lot of the actual hard numbers on this are either locked to corporates, Apple keeps this to themselves or are locked behind paywalls. The best way to determine the usage is by how a company treats the platform and given Apple has left out the desktop to last, that would suggest their users don't care.


Tupo_Demon

Now there's Cider for Apple Music, and the developers are about to add lossless audio support for Windows. A great app from independent developers. You can find their reddit and discord.


crazycalvin22

Yes, that's what I am writing about. They do a great job, but an official app would be nice. Maybe even Apple could hire them to develop the official app for them.


Tupo_Demon

It would be great to finally get an official app, fast with good functionality.


crazycalvin22

Yeah, it kind of misses that snappiness, but other than it's quite decent and recently got lossless support. Things are getting better


BigAlTrading

>Maybe even Apple could hire them to develop the official app for them. I wonder if they're trying to get bought out, but I don't know how that works with it being open source. Who would get paid?


rssarma

Apple/Spotify don’t pay labels to get their music, they’re only paid royalty when their music is streamed on the platform. Also, streaming platforms only accept files that are in a prescribed lossless format, they don’t accept lossy files from labels or indie artists.


BigAlTrading

>The head of Apple Music on the launch of lossless said that there is no perceivable difference between 256 AAC and lossless. The head of Spotifys competition doesn't believe the feature adds any value. That is bullshit, because the head of Apple Music *would not believe it adds no value* while selling the feature hard all year. Link to quotes otherwise.


crowlm

>That is bullshit, because the head of Apple Music would not believe it adds no value while selling the feature hard all year. When you have a advantage over a competitor, regardless of how you feel, you exploit that. Apple believes compression is so good that it is imperceptible. A rare example of an executive actually being honest: "The Head of Apple Music, Eddy Cue, has said he “can’t tell” the difference between lossless and compressed audio in blind tests with the Apple Music team. In an interview with Billboard, the Apple Music boss said: “The reality of lossless is: if you take 100 people and you take a stereo song in lossless and you take a song that’s been in Apple Music that’s compressed, I don’t know if it’s 99 or 98 can’t tell the difference.” He continued: “I can’t tell personally – I do the blind tests all the time with the team – I can’t tell. That’s a problem. That’s not going to work because that’s a marketing play, not a true customer play. “The problem with lossless is you can tell somebody, ‘Oh, you’re listening to a lossless [song],’ and they tell you, ‘Oh, wow. That sounds incredible.’ They’re just saying it because you told them it’s lossless and it sounds like the right thing to say, but you just can’t tell.”  Hilariously he also calls out something that has been observed all over reddit. The mere knowledge that its a lossless stream causes people to fawn over the quality, only to detail their setup; Airpods Max, Bluetooth headphones etc (doesn't support lossless). People can't tell the difference and he knows it adds no real value.  https://djmag.com/news/apple-music-head-says-he-can-t-tell-difference-lossless-audio


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lawnmover_Man

> for the placebo effect And this effect is as big as people want it to be, and there's big money in it. Look at homeopathy. It's literally placebo in bottle, and people spend billions on it.


BigAlTrading

I want to buy homeopathic solutions with money that I've diluted 100x several times. I get a bottle of water, you get a penny.


dav3n

I've done a couple of tests, I've been able to tell the difference if I concentrate and really listen. Would I be able to tell if I just just casually listening to music like I usually do? It's highly unlikely.


benjamin_noah

Two things: 1. Might be true of most people, but not all. I usually score 70-80% on those A-B tests. So I’m disappointed that Spotify still hasn’t added the feature (which they promised last year and is offered for free now by the competition). 2. Even if most people score lower, that doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t tell the difference. I wouldn’t be surprised if many hear a difference, but aren’t able to reliably tell which is technically better.


racoonXjesus

I can definitely tell the difference on tidal but only with some songs not all, I’m guessing it depends how the album was mixed/mastered.


k4ever07

If your hearing is bad or you use crappy equipment, then you can't tell a difference. However, if you have even half-way decent equipment you can tell that there is a large difference. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0nyob21QKY&t=946s&ab\_channel=AudioAdvice](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0nyob21QKY&t=946s&ab_channel=AudioAdvice)


sameoldknicks

Different people listen for different reasons. If hi-fi is your main thing, that's cool. But put that aside one time, and just focus on the *music.* Good music should transcend any sonic limitations and pull you in, like a great movie does even when viewed on a small screen. I want Spotify to debut lossless formats, too. But in the meantime (in the words of the poet), "If you get confused, just listen to the music play."


bustysman

I have the gear, and I have also switched to Apple music since they refuse. Spotify needs to pick its priorities rather than messing around with podcasts no one wants.


keungy

The people that complain about the lack of Hifi likely have good enough equipment to be able to tell the difference. However, the majority of the population probably do not have the equipment. Most versions of Bluetooth are lossy but Bluetooth 5.0 supports lossless. Bluetooth aptxHD supports high resolution


k4ever07

Thank you! The majority of the population actually think Apple Airbuds are produce high quality sound. People who have good enough equipment can tell the difference!


Lawnmover_Man

A lot of people say they can tell the difference, however most of them never did an ABX test to know if that claim is true.


alttabbins

Im surprised at the amount of people defending Spotify for not offering it. At this point It's become an industry standard to offer lossless quality. I understand that a lot of people don't have the hardware to support it, but a lot of people do. Isn't it nice to have the option if you wanted to see why people make a big deal out of it? It doesn't change your experience at all if you don't, but it opens up the door to for people who enjoy it.


TheShepardOfficial

I don’t think that this the only reason people complain. Though you have a good point the lack of news regarding new/better features for music enthusiasts is what people are not happy about. Meanwhile Apple and others give this feature for free in an update. Not saying that Spotify must do that as well (though the competition is forcing them) but they don’t seem to listen to any feedback as well. They are putting more effort in podcasts as it seems. And that is not something I and many other subscribed for in the first place.


tng29

It’s just nice to have the options.


madmagical

I just wish they would match Apple Music master quality and switch to AAC - the difference is noticeable even with AirPods.


west0ne

As an Android user I definitely don't want AAC, it is poorly implemented on Android.


spooky__alien

I think people are feeling they are not getting enough from the streaming service as others are providing all that at the same price.


hamknuckle

I'm switching because discover weekly is trash, I'm tired of ads, it doesn't play nice with my Google home and their lack of political backbone. Hifi when I'm home and plugged in is a bonus.


pheriwinkle123

I'm Gen X, so I probably have a different perspective. But my stereo is capable, I have wired headphones and DACs that are capable. So I'm definitely looking forward to it. Because all the other services don't have the great and easier usability that Spotify does, once Spotify goes HiFi, I can dump my other HiFi capable service.


spencerthayer

I am in the same boat. Except that Tidal streams to Serato and it doesn't look like Spotify ever will.


Opposite-Chemistry-0

Most? How do you know that? Pls tell your source.


west0ne

It would only ever be anecdotal but think about it. There are something like 172m Spotify subscribers. High-end audio is still quite niche. Audiophiles are less likely to subscribe to Spotify so when you bring all of those things together it doesn't seem too unreasonable to think that a good proportion of Spotify subscribers aren't listening on high-end audio equipment. It also depends on what your definition of high-end is.


spencerthayer

CD's were never really niche.


west0ne

The original comment was in relation to equipment and not formats so whilst CD's may not be niche high-end CD players were and still are.


L1ckMyNukes

I just want Spotify to sound as good as Apple Music. There's a noticeable difference when listening to music in my car with CarPlay.


Tupo_Demon

Spotify's sound is very mediocre, even if you don't take high-fidelity into account. Spotify promised at the official event to launch the hi-fi sound by the end of the year and it doesn't matter if the users have the equipment or not. A specific promise was made which was then not fulfilled. This is called deceiving the users. Instead of highfi spotfi raising the subscription price that year. It is a repeated deception to raise subscriptions and give nothing in return. I don't trust companies that brazenly lie to their users, I'm glad musicians will remove music from this greedy service. Maybe when Spotify loses 50% of their subscribers they will finally come to their senses and not act like assholes.


dav3n

Am I the only one who reads all the "But Spotify promised!" whinges like it's being said by your typical spoiled bratty kids who aren't being given everything they want?


Draedark

No, you are not alone in this. But to be fair, at the very least they should release some statements and explain why it wasn't done though. My guess is they were too busy with podcasts and pushing that. A feature which actually made them more money, vs. play cold war with the competition.


dav3n

I'm fairly sure I'm not. This whole thing where a major company announces something, and when it doesn't eventuate on schedule or to expectation it's deemed some form of promise that was personally made to the butthurt parties that has now been broken is a little sad. This then results in the outraged children lying on the floor of these types of subreddits kicking and screaming, or threatening to run away from home and never ever come back, until the "promise" is fulfilled.


Tupo_Demon

No one pulled the spotify's tongue, they made their own promises)


reconminicon

Hot take - you don't know what you are taking about


Blotto_80

Some of us do though. I say that while sitting in my car while my kid is in gymnastics listening to tidal on my high-end IEM setup. I’ve given up on Spotify and aside from discovery weekly don’t miss it much at all.


Astromen_Games

When Spotify last year announced they would be having Hifi come out, I was curious if I would be fine with the current Spotify premium in the meanwhile vs my amazon prime subscription, as I was having significant issues with amazon's app. Testing songs in 10 seconds long segments jumping between the apps, there absolutely was a difference in quality between the two and it was not favorable at all to Spotify. Spotify always sounded like it was being washed out or muted. To be clear, I went in wanting to switch away from Amazon, but stuck with it because Spotify was noticeably worse in my vehicle.


I_Am_Kloaked

You don’t need super expensive gear to be able to playback high bitrate audio. Bluetooth devices that use Qualcomm’s aptX can transmit lossless audio, or just slightly better audio depending on which version it is and what your source is. In my opinion, these streaming services need to offer the original lossless format audio to actually purchase and keep. Simply adding a lossless option as a streaming tier is a waste of money in my opinion, especially when people “want to support the artists”. Artists will get paid more if you just outright buy their music. Streaming that large of a file all the time doesn’t make sense - downloading it to your local storage would make better sense but weirdly there are people who don’t do that. Edit: downvote me all you want lol. Y’all know I’m right.


trophicmist0

Do the test [here](http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html)


MKMK123456

Free trumps Hifi. I can run Spotify on a browser for free with unlimited skips.


Lawnmover_Man

> I honestly don't know if I could even really hear the difference between a song on spotify versus the same song with higher quality on Tidal or Amazon music You could hear a difference if different streaming services would apply different filters to the songs before streaming them. Now guess what Tidal and others are doing? Exactly that. And almost everyone is falling for it.


PandosII

Who are you to judge the heat of your own take? Not exactly modest, is it?


myasssmellslikefeets

I will say that I also don't have or even want the equipment to for HIFI. I am not going back to wired connections. However, I can definitely tell that Apple has the best sound quality. Even without having the HIFI gadgets. I assume this is because of higher quality original recordings.


trophicmist0

Chances are you are using airpods soundstage mode without realising. Gives fake 'depth' to the audio.


Dosalod

Do you have a wireless tinfoil hat aswell?


Boston_Jason

I’m not a poor and have gear that can easily show off lossless. Don’t put people like me in your box of phone earbuds users. Lossless isn’t for people like you and likely never will be.


Death_Star

I will say that some Bluetooth headphones now are pretty good, to the level that CD/FLAC quality streams can sound somewhat improved vs Spotify on a phone . I have Sony headphones that support LDAC Bluetooth, which also have a wired option via headphone jack. On Android (Note 9) they are almost as good on Bluetooth vs wired. With the software settings I have set, LDAC should maintain wireless 990kbit/s. Like you said though, yes Bluetooth is often a larger a bottleneck for CD/FLAC quality being delivered to phones. Many hardware and software combos don't achieve the performance of LDAC. Personally I have not tried wireless Aptx-HD or AAC on Apple hardware (where AAC works significantly better than android). Those 3 CODECS are supposed to be comparable in regard to getting close to CD/FLAC dynamic range and frequency response at the top end. Also yes, even with sufficient headphones or speaker system, the difference between 320kbps Spotify and CD/FLAC quality is often small enough that the average person would not always notice.


Avainsana

this is not about whether or not the majority of people have the equipment to take advantage of Hi-Fi. Spotify planned to charge extra for lossless, competition beat them to it for no additional cost, and they now have to figure it out. it might not have taken so long if the company was completely music-centric like in the days of yore, but with a growing focus on podcasts and other media it is understandable that a niche feature like Hi-Fi has taken a back seat. (that's not to say I don't believe Hi-Fi is coming to Spotify, it will, .......... eventually.)


mourningwitch

I went out of my way to buy HiFI-capable headphones as a splurge purchase sometime last year, and I even gave Tidal a free trial. I really wanted to give higher quality audio a shot because I've read posts ad nauseam about how much better it is. Literally could not tell the difference *at all*. Certainly not enough to warrant transferring my 7-8 years worth of saved songs + playlists to another service. So I really don't care all that much if Spotify ever gets HiFi audio. That said, I think it would be a nice-to-have feature considering just about every other music streaming platform has it at this point, and I have the equipment to handle it if it does get it in the future. I see no reason to switch platforms at this point though, but that's just me.


spencerthayer

Out of curiosity what DAC did you plug your headphones into?


OutaTime76

It's not a new take, though. A lot of us have said that over the last year.


chrisrazor

On reflection, I am 100% against it. Lots of people would likely start using it just because it's "better", even if they can't hear the difference, and what the world really doesn't need right now is a streaming service increasing the amount of power it consumes and heat it pumps into the atmosphere.


MarbleMan100

Or it might just be a placebo effect and companies just profit off people imagining they hear better quality but actually is the same


spencerthayer

>Bluetooth is not capable of transmitting ultra high-quality audio. That's correct. Bluetooth is a terrible audio delivery system. It's a curse. ​ **HiFi is just a marketing gimmick to upsell the streaming of a CD-quality file.** Regardless of the speakers, it is best to deliver the maximal quality audio to the speaker because it will result in a better sound when converted by the speakers. *Even with Bluetooth headphone speakers.*


SammyG_06

[And it’s hard to tell the difference](http://abx.digitalfeed.net/)


mmontag

Sure, if by gear you mean ears... http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html


arfanvlk

I notice a difference. In some songs small instruments are missing


BigAlTrading

I don't know about "most people," but I have THX rated speakers hooked up to a home theater amplifier over HDMI from my computer, an amp/dac for open back headphones, and good speakers with a 16 bit 48 khz USB interface in my car. Good audio quality really isn't that expensive/rare/difficult to achieve. The car, for example, is something a lot of people driving luxury vehicles or upgraded packages have whether they realize it or not. I can hear the difference. Spotify sounds like wearing a hoodie while listening to music. There are some songs like Love Me by Kloud that are heavily synthed with a lot of high freq effects and the compression algos make it sound muddy and averaged out like a tape that's been recorded over too many times. I cancelled Spotify because of this lazy BS. I took a 3 month promo again for 2.99 or whatever and cancelled the auto-renewal on that immediately too. That's what Spotify sound quality is worth to me, about a dollar a month.


drewthetrickguy

Yeah, and I like many others have a DAC, good pair of headphones, and a good audio system just waiting to be used for it…


Negaran

no.


k4ever07

The short answer is no, it's not being worked up over basically nothing. There is a large difference in quality between the same two songs played on Spotify and in HD or ultra-HD on a service like Amazon Music. If you are playing music over crappy (Bluetooth) headphones or on a low fidelity system, you won't be able to tell the difference. However, if you have a car with a decent sound system, a proper Dolby 5.2, 7.2 or Atmos theater system, or even some good computer desktop speakers with a subwoofer the HD service song will sound a whole lot better than the Spotify song, even over Bluetooth. The Spotify song will actually sound a little louder than the same song on a HD service because it seems like Spotify messes with the mid-range. However, the HD service song will sound better over the entire range (low, mid, and high). You will actually hear instruments and sounds on the HD service song that get dropped or muffled on the Spotify song. I've loved listening to music since I was 2 years old. One of the first purchases I made when I started my career was a hi-fidelity sound system. I don't buy or don't like to buy crappy sound equipment. I also don't like low quality music. I like the song to sound like the artist intended. I started using Spotify for the convenience, even though I could tell the loss in quality with Spotify as compared to my CDs. The whole Joe Rogan fiasco made me reevaluate Spotify. The other services have passed them on sound quality. Since I care about music more than podcasts, I see no reason to pay the same price for lower quality music and a diminished catalog. Edit: I forgot. If you really want to hear a difference for free, pull up the same song in 1080p on YouTube and compare the quality to Spotify. Even YouTube sounds better!


ananonymousbear

How do you turn on hifi


superfugazi

That may be true, but some people just want to *know* they're playing music at the highest quality possible. Whether or not they can tell the difference doesn't matter as much.