this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2025
126 points (89.4% liked)

Technology

74980 readers
2873 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 28 minutes ago (1 children)

The only reason I'm still on Spotify is that I can pay like £2.20 to be in someone's family.

But the incessant push towards podcasts bugs me. When I'm driving, I shouldn't have to scroll through 5+ pages to finally get to the music section. That shit is dangerous.

As soon as Spotify inevitably enforces that families have to be the same household, as so many other streaming services have done before it, I'm gone.

[–] lemmyknow@lemmy.today 1 points 23 minutes ago

When I'm driving, I shouldn't have to scroll through 5+ pages to finally get to the music section

Į've recently discovered a feature I remember never really using, Car Mode, is no longer

[–] ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I was the biggest fan of Spotify as soon as they started up. I was one of the first people to get early access and was a huge supporter for years.

Buy your music, own your files, never subscribe for something you can buy instead. You're not listening to 12 new albums a year, if you can subscribe, you can pay for the files that will be yours forever. The fact that Spotify has higher quality streaming doesn't change anything.

[–] lemmyknow@lemmy.today 1 points 21 minutes ago

You're not listening to 12 new albums a year

Uhm…

[–] yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca 5 points 9 hours ago

with flacs on soulseek, who needs music subscriptions?

[–] ComradeRachel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 13 hours ago

Lossless music doesn’t matter when it’s all AI generated crap.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 38 points 18 hours ago

Too late. Spotify sucks

[–] FireWire400@lemmy.world 91 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (2 children)
[–] Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Drink up me hearties yo ho!

[–] FireWire400@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago

Orinoco Flow by Enya starts playing

[–] Quazatron@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago

Exactly what I thought. I'll keep my Tidal account, thank you very much.

[–] ToiletFlushShowerScream@lemmy.world 69 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Previously Spotify couldn't develop hifi because they gave hundreds of millions ofl their customers money to that anti vax joe Rogan dick instead. Get bent and die Spotify.

[–] Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Canceled my sub when that happened and won’t be back.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 22 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

he’s more than anti vax. he’s an anti-science conspiracy monger, one step short of alex jones.

[–] desmosthenes@lemmy.world 20 points 19 hours ago (5 children)

spotify essentially killed grooveshark no thanks i’m still sour (I worked there)

[–] corvalanlara@eviltoast.org 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I loved Grooveshark! Why the service stopped? I always thought it was a license issue.

[–] desmosthenes@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

sued into oblivion and they didn’t want to sell out the business; more like being forced into marriage with your rapist

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 31 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

This is going to affect my monthly fee, isn’t it?

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 39 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Incoming Spotify premium plus subscription tier. With lossless audio. And then shortly after some previously premium tier features to go plus. Then ads appear on the premium, I mean basic tier (priced at the old premium price).

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 7 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Incoming Spotify premium plus subscription tier

That was what they were planning to do, a new premium tier that would have lots of extras but then Apple released lossless audio as part of the standard base tier so Spotify gave up on it

To me I don't really get it, I've had flac audio files in the past and I haven't really found much difference in audio quality above 192k

Just to confirm there is no new tier for this

From today (September 10), Spotify Lossless will be rolling out to Premium users across over 50 regions including the US, UK and Australia. Spotify says the rollout is starting now and will continue though October. You’ll receive a notification alerting you when Lossless is available, but that’s not all.

Surprisingly, Spotify Lossless is free for Premium subscribers – a huge sigh of relief given that previous rumors suggested that lossless audio would come in the form of a paid add-on called ‘Music Pro’.

https://www.techradar.com/audio/spotify/audiophiles-rejoice-spotify-lossless-is-finally-here-and-its-a-huge-step-for-the-streaming-service

[–] msage@programming.dev 3 points 18 hours ago

You have to listen to loud music on good headphones to hear any difference.

Also usually mid range is compressed OK, it's the very highs that get distorted.

[–] modular950@lemmy.zip 8 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Black Mirror's Common People episode would like a word

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Well, they were quite literally compiling all the worst behaviours of modern subscription services and applying it to the medical field. I guess the sad thing is that it could really happen one day.

I would say each of the things that they applied has happened on a service somewhere before (just perhaps not all on a single one). It's fiction uncomfortably close to reality.

[–] modular950@lemmy.zip 3 points 19 hours ago

I absolutely agree. it was a sort of slap in the face, personally. I've been aware of the increasingly awful subscription model take-over of course, but seeing it presented that way and realizing how not-so-far-off that reality may be, finally put some fire behind it for me.

[–] qwestjest78@lemmy.ca 23 points 20 hours ago

Fuck you Spotify

[–] Codpiece@feddit.uk 21 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Is this just music, or will conspiracy theorists podcasts and other right wingers be in high res too?

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 14 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Listen to Bro Jogan's heavy breathing in lossless audio.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 6 points 20 hours ago
[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

Only the ads (now compulsory on the 19.99€/month subscription).

[–] Substance_P@lemmy.world 18 points 21 hours ago

Well that's one thing Apple did right, aside from a terrible algorithm. Spotify will be jacking up the prices in 3,2,1...

[–] independantiste@sh.itjust.works 8 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (8 children)

why all this fuss about lossless audio? Spotify premium is literally indistinguishable from lossless audio for 99.9% of the population and songs (because not all songs will be lossless or are even mastered in a way that makes a difference). granted if...

  • you have the right hardware
  • you have the ear trained to hear compression
  • you picked a song that has audible compression artifacts however small they may be
  • you are in a quiet room
  • you are actively looking for compression artifacts

you may hear a difference. if you think otherwise, then do a lossy vs lossless blind test and be impressed that you actually cannot hear the difference most of the time (especially without actively looking for the artifacts)

[–] glorkon@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Lossy audio compression algorithms work based on psychoacoustic effects. The average human ear will not detect all the "parts" in a lossless signal - there are things you can drop from the signal because:

  • Human ears are most sensitive around the frequency of human speech, but less at others
  • If there is a loud signal, a much more silent one very close will be masked if it occurs within a couple of milliseconds around the loud one
  • There are other more subtle aspects of the human ear you can use to detect signals we just won't notice.

So in order to determine exactly which parts of an audio signal could be dropped because we don't hear them anyway, they measured a couple of thousand people's listening profiles.

And they used that "average human profile" to create their algorithm.

This, of course, has a consequence which most people, including you apparently, do not understand:

The better your personal "ear" matches the average psychoacoustic model used by lossy algorithms, the better the signal will sound to you.

In other words, older people, or people with certain deficiencies in their hearing capabilities, will need higher bitrates not to notice the difference. In the 90s, I used to be happy with 192 kbps CBR MP3. But now, being an old fuck, boy, can I hear the difference.

Ironically, I can detect the difference not because my ears are "trained" or "better", I can detect it because my ears are worse than yours!

So the whole bottom line is this: While it may be true that you, personally, do not require lossless to enjoy music to the fullest, other people do. Claiming that lossless isn't needed by 99.9% of the population is horseshit and only demonstrates that you have no clue about how lossy compression works in the first place.

[–] sefra1@lemmy.zip 11 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

The fuss is that every time you transcode to a new format you accumulatively lose quality.

So for example if you have an 320kbps mp3, but then that takes too much space so you transcode it to 192 mp3, but then you discover the opus codec is more efficient so you transcode it again, but then you want to make a fan video of the same song, so your video player transcoded it again into video friendly aac.

The quality on your final video is going contain the faults of all the files upstream.

Meanwhile if you edit the video from a lossless source, it will only get encoded once.

So it doesn't matter for streaming, but it matters if you want to download and convert to other formats.

[–] Substance_P@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

This is a great point, currently I have tens of thousands of mp3's that I wish I could somehow, impossibly upscale to a better codec, but those rare tracks I have in the low VBR mp3 range will never be revived.

[–] Zdvarko@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago

Are you a musician? You can hear whats missing if you know what to listen for.

[–] zrst@lemmy.cif.su 7 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

You don't need a trained ear for lossless audio to be different for lossy audio.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] blattrules@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago

I agree that the vast majority of people will not be able to distinguish one from another, but the company is the biggest streaming service and they’re behind their competitors in this aspect. They also have been promising this for years and not delivering.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sirico@feddit.uk 9 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Prob should get on with sorting out the AI stealing people's music and profiles

[–] ComradeRachel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 13 hours ago

Pretty sure Spotify approves of it. They don’t care about artists they are there for profit.

load more comments
view more: next ›