Spotify Music Pro to offer exclusive benefits and better sound for a 50% surcharge

[Redaktion]

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

[Dan6]

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.

[Siva]

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?

[SomeRandoWhoHasAppleMusic]

"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.

[Jay Got Juice]

"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.

[Hw]

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

[JackRev221]

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

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.

[DanielRuben]

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.

[erk]

Why Spotify needs to charge (and create) higher tier for something that other service gives on their premium tier since way back then?

[Millstone99]

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.

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?

[Millstone99]

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

for people using high quality codecs on Bluetooth headphones, and every other use case you're not representing

[Hi-five]

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.

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?

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.

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?

[Don]

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