Blind listening tests are not really a fair conclusion. In that you can't listen to 2 samples at the same time and compare directly, like you can with an image for instance. There are many inbuilt bias (like thinking louder is better) that can affect hearing/perception too. Listening on tiny computer speakers would really invalidate any test.I have read a few tests - and participated in one online- and iirc the conclusions were that no participant could tell the difference between mp3 320kbps or better content, and even much lower quality was indistinguishable in many simple sections of music, depending on the track.
Yeah I agree, this for me shows they're a bit behind, even now. I would either stick with Tidal or Amazon HD (Tidal also offers discrete Atmos music).If it’s taken this long for Spotify to catch up with CD quality, how long will it be (if ever) for them to catch up with hi-res?
And the other biggie is price. This one could potentially hit Amazon Music, which undercuts its competitors for CD quality streaming.
Well why bother going higher than 1411kbps on digital - there's no audible difference to the human ear if you go higher, only snake oil & unproven elitist claims. CD quality is where it's at on digital.Only CD quality?! Good to see Spotify fully embracing 1980s technology!
I get what you're saying, but bluetooth is a lot,lot worse than high res mp3 in my experience. I think if we can't tell the difference in a blind test then what is the point? After all you can't eat two things at the same time either, yet I bet you could tell the fifference between my cooking and Gordon Ramsay's.Blind listening tests are not really a fair conclusion. In that you can't listen to 2 samples at the same time and compare directly, like you can with an image for instance. There are many inbuilt bias (like thinking louder is better) that can affect hearing/perception too. Listening on tiny computer speakers would really invalidate any test.
In my own personal experience the difference between a well mastered Hi Res or CD source compared to a 256/320kbps stream over bluetooth is light years... I could never go back to compressed lossy audio.
And there really is absolutely no need to compromise, the only reason for compression was to save on memory size, which isn't needed today...
That's EXACTLY the reason I didn't continue with Tidal after a 3 month trial. Even after all that time it still thought my favourite act was Drake, even though I'd never played a single track of his.Spotify still edges it though for genuinely adapting to your tastes rather than saying, “yeah but are you really really sure you don’t wanna listen to some rap or hip-hop?” on your home page even though your musical choices have NEVER included those genres. That’s still a little grating.
After having just finished a promotional 3 month Tidal subscription as an existing Spotify subscriber, I've convinced myself of the benefits of high-res audio.
The problem I've found is Tidal's recommendations aren't a patch on Spotify's in discovering new music that fits in with my tastes, even after three months plugging away.
Even though I'm on old git I find Tidal's suggestions pretty dull and mainstream, I enjoy finding new stuff to listen to and got to see a lot of new emerging artists live as a result of suggestions served up by Spotify.
I wonder how long it will be before Apple decide to add a hi-res option?
I've currently got a couple of HD/Hi-Fi trials running with Amazon and Tidal respectively and have been impressed. So it's no surprise that Spotify want in on the action.
I love the premise of Spotify - music and podcasts all in one app. The playlists are definitely better than AM. The fact that like Netflix, it's on every device going makes it a much easier cross platform option for most. It even has a Kids music app which is great.
But what always keeps me with Apple Music is that I have all my own music stored in my iCloud storage, which is then linked to my Music app and it's all there on all my devices. Everyone else just seems to struggle with this apart from Apple for some reason.
And what keeps me with the default Apple Podcasts app is that it allows custom RSS/Patreon feeds with no issue.
If Spotify allowed the ability to upload your own content into the cloud as opposed to it being from a local drive and also allowed the custom podcast feeds then I'd probably drop AM, but I know they won't unfortunately.
I'll definitely give Spotify's HiFi option a go however if they offer a free trial.
Interestingly I cancelled my Qobuz subscription as I found myself using Spotify more often and I have a family subscription shared with other family members.Been waiting for this. I currently have spotify and qobuz. 95% of my listening on qobuz is cd quality and I can definitely tell the difference between that and spotify. However the user interface on qobuz is awful especially the search function so I'll be dropping that as soon as this launches
Spotify has been using lossless FLAC files for months, not sure how accurate/relevent your blog post is.After accidentally discovering how poor Spotify is compared to another service. I set out testing streaming services and wrote some articles for my blog. Its shocking just how poor Spotify soundquality is and that people either put up with it, or (like me) just don't realise better services are available. Pocking up CD quality sound now seems like the horse has bolted. Tidal mqa , Qoubuz, Deezer offer better than cd quality sound already. So unless Spotify offer MQA I'm not moving