This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
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.
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
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.
Aye. Bandcamp. Buy, download FLAC, put in mediamonkey, listen in cars or anywhere else. If need be, the app is also there for streaming I guess.
You're not listening to 12 new albums a year
Uhm…
Even if. Still pretty cheap compared to streaming where you pay and never own and it's always a second away from never accessible anymore for whatever reason.
with flacs on soulseek, who needs music subscriptions?
Lossless music doesn’t matter when it’s all AI generated crap.
Dunno what weird music you listen too but I have no ai slop in my library.
Too late. Spotify sucks
Too little, too late.
Drink up me hearties yo ho!
Orinoco Flow by Enya starts playing
Exactly what I thought. I'll keep my Tidal account, thank you very much.
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.
Canceled my sub when that happened and won’t be back.
Fist bump
he’s more than anti vax. he’s an anti-science conspiracy monger, one step short of alex jones.
spotify essentially killed grooveshark no thanks i’m still sour (I worked there)
I loved Grooveshark! Why the service stopped? I always thought it was a license issue.
sued into oblivion and they didn’t want to sell out the business; more like being forced into marriage with your rapist
This is going to affect my monthly fee, isn’t it?
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).
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’.
Fuck you Spotify
Is this just music, or will conspiracy theorists podcasts and other right wingers be in high res too?
Only the ads (now compulsory on the 19.99€/month subscription).
Well that's one thing Apple did right, aside from a terrible algorithm. Spotify will be jacking up the prices in 3,2,1...
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 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)
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:
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.
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.
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.
Are you a musician? You can hear whats missing if you know what to listen for.
You don't need a trained ear for lossless audio to be different for lossy audio.
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.
Prob should get on with sorting out the AI stealing people's music and profiles
Pretty sure Spotify approves of it. They don’t care about artists they are there for profit.
