I would like to ask for and discuss Spotify as an additional streaming service. Given my experience about the ongoing assault on music quality in any streaming service, orchestrated by the labels, content owners and services themselves, I see no reason to exclude Spotify from HQP due to any SQ reasons. The DNR remaster slaughter taking place in all streaming services without the streaming services protesting on our behalf, leave us in the position to look out for ourselves. If we cannot trust the contect owner ambition, why should be pay extra to labels using Qobuz or Tidal, when the they and the labels/content owner ruin our music remaster by remaster of the originally well produced music? Spotify 24/48 is now perfectly ok for me to play. The HQP transformation is so effective to correct artifacts, I would be perfectly happy with the Spotify service.
Therefor I would like HQP to include Spotify in the streaming services. What does it take? Is there anything we HQP users can do to make way? Talk to Spotify?
For anyone suggesting I can play Spotify as of today, I already know. That is how I know it is OK. But I want the implementation in HQP, so the service is available in HQP Client.
Finally, how can I or we as conscious music lovers reach out to Qobuz and Tidal to stop the destruction of music? I am blamed by the paying Qobuz members for campaigning. There is no other member that agree with me. I see a drive in those so called quality driven streaming services, that quality is no more, subscriber numbers are more interesting. The average hifi rig performance is dropping, Qobuz is pushing hard for the mobility use and off course fewer are interested in best SQ … It is very clear that the average Qobuz subscriber, does not understand that bit and sample speed is NOT a quality assurance. It is a possibilty if utilized, but rarely and by time even less so, used.
Spotify doesn’t allow third parties to access their library etc. So the only option would be Spotify Connect. Which I could technically implement. But last time I requested this from Spotify the response was just “your request was rejected”, without even possibility for discussion. This is similar to Tidal.
So best you can do is to talk to Spotify (if you can even find a way to do so). But I’m afraid there’s not high enough number of people for them to give it even a slightest thought.
I don’t think they can do much about that, they just get the same content delivered from record labels as everybody else.
For comparison, Apple Music has pretty well written quality rules for music submissions to them. But still they also deliver same kind of content as others on their lossless hires streaming service.
Thank you, Jussi. I will try to reach out to Spotify. They will probably not listen to me alone. But I am not that kind of guy who will become discouraged by overwhelming resistance, call me an idiot …
To any other of my brothers and sisters here, keep banging the streaming services for non-destructive remasters, it is better to leave them at 16/44.1, compared to destroy them in 24/192.
It is my and few others concern about how content owner and labels re-issue albums with contemporary mastering - re-masters. This resulting in dynamic range is often reduced (substantially even), since mix time with old recording is expensive, todays techs use plug-ins, sloppy mix and “save” the sound by adding multiband compressors and limiters at 0 dBfs. The result is a file in a technically superior container of 24/192, but with reduced dynamic range even compared to original 16/44.1 master. It is a waste of space, band width and a compromise for the less fortunate listeners inferior rigs. Streaming platforms launch often connect and remote features for listening on the bus, rather than sonic improvments. It is often referred to as loudness war. Even if that latter expression also often included modern production steps e.g. extensive multitracking, among other techniques to further make a dense wall of sound with almost none dynamic variation. There are some threads about this in Qobuz community, I have written a couple. Qobuz hide instantly now when I ask them about why … The do not like criticism when challanging their truth about highres studio master. I prefer my old ripped CD’s on my NAS for any of my albums. There are some improvements to make with re-masters, but requires techs that understand how to use the superior technical size of high res files rather than using it as a non-existent make believe customer benefit.
I know it is a long time issue. I do not mind that the modern music mixes and masters as such, it is their artistic freedom, I suppose. But I find it very bothersome that content owners ruins the productions from the past. Especially the old hard rock genre. That originally was produced according to the older philosophies. But what bothers me more is that Qobuz tag along, not acknowledging who is paying their wages. They team up with their suppliers rather than customers, giving evidense that the industry have not learned anything from the history of consumers stealing their property. I feel almost the same, if the content owner does not care about the goods, why should I care to pay? Hence my question about spotify. They are cheap, they have a substantial catalogue and as far as I see it, same sh*t as everyone else. If Spotify capitalize more themselves instead better support to artists, who is really to blame? It does not natter at the end of the day if the content is 24/48 or 24/192, the difference is with a contemporary mix/master none, the DNR simply is not there.
That was a long essay, sorry. But I think I am perfectly happy with Spotify, as Qobuz is not that conscious about the content as they pretend to be. It the end the uploaded master come from the content owner. 24/48 or 24/192 is not an issue in my book, Reference Recordings know how to master also the former Spotify formats sounding very good also with Spotify. It is not the Streaming Service as such, it is the ambition of the content owner.
It would be nice with some sort of short cut software that could transform any streaming service desktop app/remote/connect of choice to an input in HQP software, the best HQP way. I know from experience that not even Roon can match the onboard HQPlayer as I use from HQP Client. I think it would be better to let HQP do all the playback and transformations necessary to make this a reality, given my experience with HQP software from many years now. IMHO
mjw
(Here I am with a brain the size of a planet and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper. Call that job satisfaction? I don't.)
10
Are we talking about two different things? It was discovered that HDTracks was upsampling Red Book or similar titles and marketing them as high-resolution. But this is distinct from the Loudness War, which, I believe, is less prevalent today because of the normalization implemented by streaming services. However, careful selection is needed when purchasing back catalogue CDs / hybrid SACDs etc.
You can find upsampled content also from Qobuz and Tidal, etc. Not their fault, but record companies sometimes ship such to the streaming services…
I personally would prefer to receive content in the original recording format, what ever it is. Not up- or down-sampled by the record company or service.
An example where things have got worse are Pink Floyd remasters. They have become gradually more and more compressed and processed. Many times the best digital version is the earliest CD release… Luckily I have quite a few of those.
I think it is not two different things, but rather one is inside the other. There are ways to remaster/upsample. We do it with our software. My remark is when the industry is getting so sloppy, lacy or do not want to ge the extra mile when re-issuing a highres version of an existing album. The container of 24/192 allow you to make technically very nice releases. Depending on the density of the music, you can even allow an increase of the dynamic range, to move closer to the live-(life-?) like sound. It is challenging to the rig, but is possible. But due to the trends of music consumption the production is going the other way, trying to compensate for inferior playback. So, irrespective the technical possibilities, the trend as I see it, is going to inferior releases, even if the technical possibilities for the opposite is all there.
The latest Wish You Were Here 50 release has a few sneaky tracks. On the Blu-Ray bonus material, I found a few cheats at 24/96, clearly they were probably 16/44. Tidal looks similar, but in 24/192!
Oh, no. If you purchase anything you do not like/think is wrong, do you contact the retail business or the manufacturer? The retail shop is the brand rep and is authorized to handle the customer dissatisfaction. He is the place to claim warranty. He should feed back to the manufacturer that the product is un-wanted and therefore impossible to market. That is common practice in all other areas, and should also be here. IMO
In your example the retailer will just pass it back to the manufacturer to do the fix under warranty.
So the label has to fix the problem?
My dads Denon amp had a problem, purchased from a retailer. He took it direct to Denon’s distribution centre who also handles all national warranty fixes. He skipped returning it to the retailer because they would waste time sending it to Denon anyway. So Denon fixed it direct and he collected from Denon when repaired.
In another part of the country you would return to the retailer yes, who would then ship it to this same Denon location for the fix. My dad was just lucky he lived close to it and could drive there
Interestingly many mainstream lossy Atmos releases have the high dynamic range we crave… but the stereo lossless version on same streaming platform is compressed. I’ve done a lot of anaylsis
I think the label should up their product they supply to the retail businesses and if the retail business do their job, instead of protecting the content owner publicly, acknowledging the persons who are actually paying their wages, they should feed back if customers are not satisfied. This industry have historically been lousy to understand the market demand and playing the victim while Napster, Pirate Bay file sharing and even during cassette deck copying of LP’s. Do the home work, keep customer happy in pricing, production quality and distribution, and the industry will not likely experience creative ways of robbing them. I do not hesitate to “embrace” or “offer” good CD rips and I know about large hubs (>100 TB/each) of music available where completely uncompressed CD rips, copy protection removed, are available for “free”. The ways around will always be smarter than the limitations. But perhaps the work to keep the conscious music lover happy is too much and the lost business opportunities a cheap way out, to just focus on the average customer? #iduno
Since Spotify has introduced their hires version (meaning 44.1/16) in my geography I must admit I started to stream from them directly to HQP increasingly more active, like really active, like almost everytime. Navigation in the native app requires some learning curve and was not so obviuos for me, but old dog learned some new tricks, and is quite happy with the result. Direct integration in HQP may certainly solve some of tech complexities of playing Spoty via HQP, but is it really really needed? Plus it certainly not gonna safe the industry from fake hires…
No it is not safe at all, but it is the cheapest service, largest catalogue and good enough. Why pay for something that really does not add value like 24-192, when the masters uploaded by the content owner is not better than 16-44.1 or the 24-48 available in Sweden. I have seen through the marketing nonsense and do not favor larger files, higher bandwidth demand, yet does not add SQ value as is?
mjw
(Here I am with a brain the size of a planet and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper. Call that job satisfaction? I don't.)
20
For lossless, it is not the cheapest (in the UK.)
Spotify Premium ÂŁ11.99 pcm
TIDAL ÂŁ10.99 pcm
Qobuz ÂŁ12.99 pcm (ÂŁ10.83 with annual subscription)
Amazon Music Unlimited ÂŁ11.99 pcm (ÂŁ10.99 for Prime members)
Deezer Premium ÂŁ10.99 pcm
Apple Music ÂŁ10.99 pcm
I have little interest in Hi-Res, but lossless is essential.
