wasabijim Posted March 5, 2021 Posted March 5, 2021 On 28/02/2021 at 4:12 PM, DrSK said: It is a bit of fun but can lead to a noticeable quality drop. I think things all get reseampled to 48kHz to go through standard AV formats. I've the benefit of the ChromeCast going into the amp first then do that HDMI arc wizardry thingo to pass the visual content onto the TV - best of both worlds On 01/03/2021 at 10:33 PM, Chigurh said: If Spotify Hifi comes to fruition in Australia for as little (or even zero) extra as they're saying for Spotify Premium subscribers, I can't see myself bothering with my collection of CD rips. I won't discard them but I can't see myself accessing them very often. is that the plan? hard to argue with that
Guest DrSK Posted March 5, 2021 Posted March 5, 2021 (edited) 25 minutes ago, wasabijim said: I've the benefit of the ChromeCast going into the amp first then do that HDMI arc wizardry thingo to pass the visual content onto the TV - best of both worlds I could be wrong but had similar and thought that was where the issue was. Fairly certain Chromecast outputs to the Amp at 48kHz in standard HDMI formats. My Chromecast was the HDMI type plug in type. In any instance USB to the DAC was much better than Chromecast for Spotify and the DAC reads 44.1 instead of 48kHz. Chromecast was plugged into my Oppo 205, tried analogue out to the pre and digital out to the DAC and then to the pre. Edited March 5, 2021 by DrSK
Topman_Chief Posted March 5, 2021 Posted March 5, 2021 25 minutes ago, wasabijim said: On 01/03/2021 at 11:33 PM, Chigurh said: If Spotify Hifi comes to fruition in Australia for as little (or even zero) extra as they're saying for Spotify Premium subscribers, I can't see myself bothering with my collection of CD rips. I won't discard them but I can't see myself accessing them very often. is that the plan? hard to argue with that John Darko suggested it may be no extra cost above Spotify Premium. I hope he's right, and they may do this as a differentiator against Apple and others. I suspect they'll charge more for it though, but hopefully it's only 25-50% more, not 100% more like Tidal.
wasabijim Posted March 5, 2021 Posted March 5, 2021 51 minutes ago, Topman_Chief said: John Darko suggested it may be no extra cost above Spotify Premium. I hope he's right, and they may do this as a differentiator against Apple and others. I suspect they'll charge more for it though, but hopefully it's only 25-50% more, not 100% more like Tidal. ahh... cheers, did not watch the vid (too many people watching now we're back in the office....) this is getting more exciting talking earlier about the jump in data download for mobile ph usage - I hope, just as it is now, its simple enough to switch between quality settings and that you can save the hi-res files for offline listening. Also, once upon a time Spotify on Android phones didn't play well with portable amp-DACs. Has that been sorted now?
wasabijim Posted March 5, 2021 Posted March 5, 2021 1 hour ago, DrSK said: I could be wrong but had similar and thought that was where the issue was. Fairly certain Chromecast outputs to the Amp at 48kHz in standard HDMI formats. My Chromecast was the HDMI type plug in type. In any instance USB to the DAC was much better than Chromecast for Spotify and the DAC reads 44.1 instead of 48kHz. Chromecast was plugged into my Oppo 205, tried analogue out to the pre and digital out to the DAC and then to the pre. so USB to the DAC is with Spotify running on a PC or a streamer with Connect? I'm not surprised that if the Chromecast with its HDMI does a lesser job, more so if it needs to pass thru several devises. On one system I can stream Spotify into the CC that feeds the TV that then has an optical connection to a Yamaha streamer/pre-amp. This itself has Spotify Connect which sounds much better than the CC-TV input (but obviously no track display on the TV). In a few weeks i might hook the yamaha up to the other bigger integrated amp system and compare this to the CC via HDMI straight into the amp
MattyW Posted March 5, 2021 Posted March 5, 2021 Until there's integration into Roon, this is purely academic for me. I may move from Tidal to Qobuz when it's launched here. 1
warweary Posted March 5, 2021 Posted March 5, 2021 Seems to me that if spotify hifi works well then in a few years the government will be fining spotify for creating a monolopy. Who could compete?
rantan Posted March 5, 2021 Posted March 5, 2021 1 hour ago, warweary said: Seems to me that if spotify hifi works well then in a few years the government will be fining spotify for creating a monolopy. Who could compete? Really? I very much doubt they could care less.
Guest DrSK Posted March 5, 2021 Posted March 5, 2021 3 hours ago, wasabijim said: so USB to the DAC is with Spotify running on a PC or a streamer with Connect? I'm not surprised that if the Chromecast with its HDMI does a lesser job, more so if it needs to pass thru several devises. Yep, massive improvement streaming off an MS Surface to USB. Then moved to a Microrendu. 3 hours ago, wasabijim said: On one system I can stream Spotify into the CC that feeds the TV that then has an optical connection to a Yamaha streamer/pre-amp. This itself has Spotify Connect which sounds much better than the CC-TV input (but obviously no track display on the TV). In a few weeks i might hook the yamaha up to the other bigger integrated amp system and compare this to the CC via HDMI straight into the amp Definitely worth play around with. My Chromecast path was either to TV HDMI, then optical to a DAC on the second system or on the main system an Oppo 205 HDMI input to coax output to a DAC. In both systems I dropped Chromecast for a streamer to each DAC for a solid improvement. And as a first step used the MS Surface as discussed. My main system is USB into the DAC, the second system is optical off the streamer into another DAC. The main DAC is a Gieseler Konverter, the second is a Gieseler Klein III.
Tone Malone Posted March 5, 2021 Posted March 5, 2021 I subscribed to Spotify first, then added Tidal about 2-3 years ago. I added Tidal because: 1. Our family was increasingly looking to stream music in two locations at once, 2. to get the extra playback quality, and 3. because Tidal pays the artists more. This last point has been important to me, but Spotify remains difficult to drop. It's easier for the family to use (including better integration with BluOS), and has more content from less well-known local artists and live concerts in particular. In terms of fair remuneration for the smaller artists who need it, I'm not sure whether Tidal has ended up making much of a difference. For a while it looked like artists might use Tidal as a way to regain a share of the pie, but I haven't seen that happen. I would be interested to get people's thoughts. I noticed Spotify added a new family deal a while back. The way things are going, I might end up dropping Tidal. The bands will no doubt get more benefit through attending concerts and the odd vinyl purchase.
davewantsmoore Posted March 7, 2021 Posted March 7, 2021 On 28/02/2021 at 6:02 PM, Eggcup the Dafter said: You managed to miss my point completely. Apple have been collecting 96/24 files from labels for years. If they were to make that catalogue available for streaming in that format Apple have repeated said they will never do this.... as they believe there is no SQ benefit (for a playback system) to frequencies above 20khz, and that lossy codecs are able to offer transparent encoding. For an archival system of course, it is best to recive/store the audio in its original quality (as conversions could degrade the information stored - so it is important to minimise their number), which is why Apple store the sources in their original format.
davewantsmoore Posted March 7, 2021 Posted March 7, 2021 On 01/03/2021 at 11:33 PM, Chigurh said: If Spotify Hifi comes to fruition in Australia for as little (or even zero) extra as they're saying for Spotify Premium subscribers, I can't see myself bothering with my collection of CD rips. I won't discard them but I can't see myself accessing them very often. I'm not aware of what has been announced or hinted at ... but if true that would be a major pill to swallow for Spotify. They would need to transmit at least 3x the data... without an increase in revenue.
Tony B Posted March 7, 2021 Posted March 7, 2021 3 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said: I'm not aware of what has been announced or hinted at ... but if true that would be a major pill to swallow for Spotify. They would need to transmit at least 3x the data... without an increase in revenue. True, but it wont happen overnight as most users don't even know or care what lossless is. I'd imaging the uptake will be slow.
Guest Eggcup the Dafter Posted March 7, 2021 Posted March 7, 2021 4 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said: Apple have repeated said they will never do this.... as they believe there is no SQ benefit (for a playback system) to frequencies above 20khz, and that lossy codecs are able to offer transparent encoding. For an archival system of course, it is best to recive/store the audio in its original quality (as conversions could degrade the information stored - so it is important to minimise their number), which is why Apple store the sources in their original format. You're right, of course. But it wouldn't be the first time that Apple have done something they previously said "never" to. (see, for example, the iPad mini). They've quietly set up their own hardware and underlying software to allow it to happen should they need to. And I don't believe they have built FLAC, lossless and high resolution capabliity into their mobile products just to allow the opposition to use those facilities. They develop their ecosystem with their own future use in mind. This is the point though... "need" to. The market would have to shift significantly to justify them actually streaming that much extra data. In fact, Apple are describing 256k AAC files made from 96/24 as "Apple Digital Masters". There's a marketing term for you. That word "Master" again. Outside of a subset of Tidal customers, though, does it really work? This is worth a read: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiUuJqyr53vAhU3zjgGHRVJCREQFjABegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apple.com%2Fitunes%2Fdocs%2Fapple-digital-masters.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1x0sUser-x8U6Tfa6yKmbQ Effectively they are allowing mastering engineers to test their master against the resulting file from Apple's encoding. In the war of the big boys, we get "Apple Digital Mastering" then "Spotify HiFi" - the marketing war there may be about to turn into a bitrate war. The mass market (i.e. not us) are caught up with something else at the moment. They are seeing differing picture quality from different 4K TV streaming services. I don't think higher resolution audio is going to work on them. The word they will understand right now, because of the 4K TV business, is "lossless". I'm getting the impression as well that smart TV is where some younger families are going for music - both voice assistant and at least the semblance of a decent speaker or speakers. I'm wondering whether things will re-converge around 48/24 because that is where they can claim "hi res", do lossless without too much of an increase over CD quality... and it's what TV optical outputs do.
Guest Eggcup the Dafter Posted March 7, 2021 Posted March 7, 2021 1 hour ago, davewantsmoore said: I'm not aware of what has been announced or hinted at ... but if true that would be a major pill to swallow for Spotify. They would need to transmit at least 3x the data... without an increase in revenue. True. It would be interesting to know why they are making this move now. They are number one at the moment, aren't they, and their product is the app and the freemium model, not sound quality. Either their subscription base is falling and they need something new, or they are reacting to a suspected market shift. The thing I can see that might scare them is AppleOne, converting all of Apple's other subscription service users to Apple Music subscribers. Then again, why fight that with lossless quality?
Guest Eggcup the Dafter Posted March 7, 2021 Posted March 7, 2021 1 hour ago, Tony B said: True, but it wont happen overnight as most users don't even know or care what lossless is. I'd imaging the uptake will be slow. Some of the opposition are part of larger companies that can absorb an increase in their music services. Indeed, this may be what the sale of a chunk of Tidal is about in part. Spotify aren't in that position. Forget what 3x does to them, what does a 20% increase do?
Tony B Posted March 7, 2021 Posted March 7, 2021 3 minutes ago, Eggcup the Dafter said: Some of the opposition are part of larger companies that can absorb an increase in their music services. Indeed, this may be what the sale of a chunk of Tidal is about in part. Spotify aren't in that position. Forget what 3x does to them, what does a 20% increase do? I'm sure they are already beefing up their bandwidth to accommodate the increase. It would be interesting to see what their peak demand is compared to say Netflix.
Hi-Fi Whipped Posted March 7, 2021 Posted March 7, 2021 25 minutes ago, Eggcup the Dafter said: True. It would be interesting to know why they are making this move now. They are number one at the moment, aren't they, and their product is the app and the freemium model, not sound quality. Either their subscription base is falling and they need something new, or they are reacting to a suspected market shift. The thing I can see that might scare them is AppleOne, converting all of Apple's other subscription service users to Apple Music subscribers. Then again, why fight that with lossless quality? I believe I read somewhere they are doing it with artists in mind, not all of us nutty audiofools. allowing artists to distribute their music in lossless so effectively increasing their cred as the top tier in streaming from both sides of the fence.
Guest Eggcup the Dafter Posted March 7, 2021 Posted March 7, 2021 44 minutes ago, Hi-Fi Whipped said: I believe I read somewhere they are doing it with artists in mind, not all of us nutty audiofools. allowing artists to distribute their music in lossless so effectively increasing their cred as the top tier in streaming from both sides of the fence. That would be ever so nice of them... but that same nice Spotify pays less to the artist than any of the other main streaming services. Underpaid in lossless doesn't look much better.
eltech Posted March 7, 2021 Posted March 7, 2021 15 hours ago, Eggcup the Dafter said: That would be ever so nice of them... but that same nice Spotify pays less to the artist than any of the other main streaming services. Underpaid in lossless doesn't look much better. Are the record labels themselves better in this regard? Who agreed to Spotify's rates? The copyright owner's who happen to be..... The record labels. Who do you think is accountable?
Rob Wright Posted March 7, 2021 Posted March 7, 2021 The 4g network in my man cave gets a bit weak and sketchy. I moved to Tidals top tier and found that when the 4g was playing up a bit, whichever song was playing on Tidal Premium would stop. Whereas Soptify would seem to be streaming ahead and I had no issues. I dropped the Tidal Premium until I sort out a wi-fi booster for out there. Can any one please explain to me why this would be happening? I'm just wondering if Spotify will do the same thing if they upgrade it?
Guest Eggcup the Dafter Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 2 hours ago, eltech said: Are the record labels themselves better in this regard? Who agreed to Spotify's rates? The copyright owner's who happen to be..... The record labels. Who do you think is accountable? That actually depends on whose version of history you believe. I'd say the major labels miscalculated on this one - at the time Spotify negotiated those rates, it held a couple of aces (the "login via Facebook" being a big one) and the majors didn't see streaming taking off the way it has. Now they are dependent on Spotify just like the news media promoted and built up Facebook as a place to get new readers and now find themselves dependent on it. With these negotiations, the majors will have negotiated the rate. Smaller labels and those set up in the last few years are in a "take it or leave it" position, can't blame them for the most part. If you look at what the labels get, you can then understand why they may have punted on MQA and shifting users to Tidal. That hasn't worked out well to date - but they would need to promote it separately to Tidal itself. What are they going to say? "Use MQA, it's the best"? When they are making their own money mainly from expensive vinyl sales? I don't feel the need to second guess history here. The point is that Spotify are trying to kid us if they claim that lossless streaming is about supporting artists, unless they are going to actually revise their payments as well.
Guest Eggcup the Dafter Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 36 minutes ago, Rob Wright said: The 4g network in my man cave gets a bit weak and sketchy. I moved to Tidals top tier and found that when the 4g was playing up a bit, whichever song was playing on Tidal Premium would stop. Whereas Soptify would seem to be streaming ahead and I had no issues. I dropped the Tidal Premium until I sort out a wi-fi booster for out there. Can any one please explain to me why this would be happening? I'm just wondering if Spotify will do the same thing if they upgrade it? Buffering will be the cause here. The answer to your last question depends on the relevant buffer sizes of the apps on your device. Depending on what you use, you may be able to download things you commonly play on those services (I don't know which app on which devices allows that, but it seems to be an iOS/Android thing - I'm sure others can confirm. This may be worth you starting a new thread.
davewantsmoore Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 5 hours ago, eltech said: Are the record labels themselves better in this regard? Yes, which is saying something. 5 hours ago, eltech said: Who do you think is accountable? The artist.
davewantsmoore Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 3 hours ago, Eggcup the Dafter said: at the time Spotify negotiated those rates, it held a couple of aces (the "login via Facebook" being a big one) and the majors didn't see streaming taking off the way it has. Now they are dependent on Spotify just like the news media promoted and built up Facebook as a place to get new readers and now find themselves dependent on it. I'm not sure I believe this version of history. Content owners simply never wanted streaming due to the race to the bottom $/volume that it was going to bring. They didn't get caught napping.... they actively chose to stay out (and begrudgingly let others play). 3 hours ago, Eggcup the Dafter said: I don't feel the need to second guess history here. The point is that Spotify are trying to kid us if they claim that lossless streaming is about supporting artists, unless they are going to actually revise their payments as well. Yep 22 hours ago, Eggcup the Dafter said: You're right, of course. But it wouldn't be the first time that Apple have done something they previously said "never" True dat.
Recommended Posts