News:

Willkommen im Notebookcheck.com Forum! Hier können sie über alle unsere Artikel und allgemein über Notebook relevante Dinge disuktieren. Viel Spass!

Main Menu

Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Don
 - February 25, 2025, 17:18:06
well, whatever some people are saying, on KEF LS60 witha couple of KF92 system you absolutely can hear the difference between Tidal CD quality and especially 24/192 tracks when compared to Spotify's crappy 320kbps(I won't even talk about anything below that). so no it's not about superior hearing and if you do not have the equipment to make use of it, you are in no position to comment on this
Posted by Hi-five
 - February 25, 2025, 07:25:55
Quote from: Millstone99 on February 25, 2025, 03:33:12
Quote from: DanielRuben on February 24, 2025, 10:37:47Spotify is already hifi quality. Remember hifi means high fidelity. It's high quality sound as compared to clearly lower quality sound eg cassettes or AM radio or 78RPM vinyl. Yes, seriously. Or a 96 kbps & lower MP3. There is no perceptual difference between Spotify's highest bitrate streams and a CD quality lossless stream. That's the whole point of psychoacoustic lossy audio, to make sure you cannot notice any difference ever. Double-blind listening tests have proven this over and over and over again. It's incredibly annoying to see hifi media stubbornly insisting on this fake distinction between high quality lossy audio and lossless. If it's going to cost extra you're just wasting your money. Even if free you're just wasting a lot of bandwidth.
that's a lot of words for being so wrong. Why are you defending shitty lossy audio formats from 25 years ago? Wasting what bandwidth dude? Are you still on dialup?
Quote from: Millstone99 on February 25, 2025, 03:33:12
Quote from: DanielRuben on February 24, 2025, 10:37:47Spotify is already hifi quality. Remember hifi means high fidelity. It's high quality sound as compared to clearly lower quality sound eg cassettes or AM radio or 78RPM vinyl. Yes, seriously. Or a 96 kbps & lower MP3. There is no perceptual difference between Spotify's highest bitrate streams and a CD quality lossless stream. That's the whole point of psychoacoustic lossy audio, to make sure you cannot notice any difference ever. Double-blind listening tests have proven this over and over and over again. It's incredibly annoying to see hifi media stubbornly insisting on this fake distinction between high quality lossy audio and lossless. If it's going to cost extra you're just wasting your money. Even if free you're just wasting a lot of bandwidth.
that's a lot of words for being so wrong. Why are you defending shitty lossy audio formats from 25 years ago? Wasting what bandwidth dude? Are you still on dialup?

He's right though. AxB testing shows this. People already know this but the audiophile community insists that they have superior hearing that the rest of us mortals don't. Anything to justify your expensive equipment eh?
Posted by Millstone99
 - February 25, 2025, 03:34:19
Quote from: Hw on February 21, 2025, 02:37:50What's the point? With wireless Bluetooth headsets most people are using they won't get any benefits from it. As phones phase out the headphone jack this becomes less viable
for people using high quality codecs on Bluetooth headphones, and every other use case you're not representing
Posted by Millstone99
 - February 25, 2025, 03:33:12
Quote from: DanielRuben on February 24, 2025, 10:37:47Spotify is already hifi quality. Remember hifi means high fidelity. It's high quality sound as compared to clearly lower quality sound eg cassettes or AM radio or 78RPM vinyl. Yes, seriously. Or a 96 kbps & lower MP3. There is no perceptual difference between Spotify's highest bitrate streams and a CD quality lossless stream. That's the whole point of psychoacoustic lossy audio, to make sure you cannot notice any difference ever. Double-blind listening tests have proven this over and over and over again. It's incredibly annoying to see hifi media stubbornly insisting on this fake distinction between high quality lossy audio and lossless. If it's going to cost extra you're just wasting your money. Even if free you're just wasting a lot of bandwidth.
that's a lot of words for being so wrong. Why are you defending shitty lossy audio formats from 25 years ago? Wasting what bandwidth dude? Are you still on dialup?
Posted by erk
 - February 24, 2025, 19:17:51
Why Spotify needs to charge (and create) higher tier for something that other service gives on their premium tier since way back then?
Posted by DanielRuben
 - February 24, 2025, 10:37:47
Spotify is already hifi quality. Remember hifi means high fidelity. It's high quality sound as compared to clearly lower quality sound eg cassettes or AM radio or 78RPM vinyl. Yes, seriously. Or a 96 kbps & lower MP3. There is no perceptual difference between Spotify's highest bitrate streams and a CD quality lossless stream. That's the whole point of psychoacoustic lossy audio, to make sure you cannot notice any difference ever. Double-blind listening tests have proven this over and over and over again. It's incredibly annoying to see hifi media stubbornly insisting on this fake distinction between high quality lossy audio and lossless. If it's going to cost extra you're just wasting your money. Even if free you're just wasting a lot of bandwidth.
Posted by JackRev221
 - February 22, 2025, 19:25:51
Quote from: Hw on February 21, 2025, 02:37:50What's the point? With wireless Bluetooth headsets most people are using they won't get any benefits from it. As phones phase out the headphone jack this becomes less viable

Wrong.

Playing a Bluetooth compressed version of a lossless track is going to be much better quality than a Bluetooth compressed version of an already compressed source file.
Posted by Hw
 - February 21, 2025, 02:37:50
What's the point? With wireless Bluetooth headsets most people are using they won't get any benefits from it. As phones phase out the headphone jack this becomes less viable
Posted by Jay Got Juice
 - February 19, 2025, 20:07:19
Quote from: SomeRandoWhoHasAppleMusic on February 19, 2025, 14:42:47"At $11.99 per month, the regular Spotify subscription is just $1 cheaper than the Apple Music subscription."

Huh? Apple music is 10.99, I think you got this backwards.
. They got it right.
Posted by SomeRandoWhoHasAppleMusic
 - February 19, 2025, 14:42:47
"At $11.99 per month, the regular Spotify subscription is just $1 cheaper than the Apple Music subscription."

Huh? Apple music is 10.99, I think you got this backwards.
Posted by Siva
 - February 19, 2025, 07:23:43
Spotify or Amazon dont have Dolby Atmos Content played in Smart TV apps in India, where my Atmos Home sound bar is connected. However Apple TV gives so much Atmos contents.
They never reveal when or how Atmos will be experienced. Some que?
Posted by Dan6
 - February 18, 2025, 13:11:20
We'll see how it works, but most likely this tickets option is not going to work for all concerts and in all regions, so it's just an excuse for higher subscription price, to grow stocks because max user base is reached now.. Don't know, I'll probably stay with current subscription.
Posted by Redaktion
 - February 18, 2025, 00:57:24
Spotify HiFi was announced almost exactly four years ago, and to this day there is no trace of hi-fi music on the world's largest audio streaming service. With Spotify Pro, the streaming service is reportedly planning a subscription with better sound and other benefits, albeit at an additional cost.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Spotify-Music-Pro-to-offer-exclusive-benefits-and-better-sound-for-a-50-surcharge.962804.0.html