Loading Profile...
EMPLOYEE
Bumping up the bitrate
Today we're launching higher bit rate streaming for premium users. Premium subscribers can now listen to music at 320 kb/s.
For details please visit our blog:
https://www.spotify.com/blog/archives...
For details please visit our blog:
https://www.spotify.com/blog/archives...
I’m excited
Follow this update to get notifications on your dashboard.
Create a customer community for your own organization
Plans starting at $19/month
-
Inappropriate?Great! Let's hope lossless is somewhere down the road and not too far.
Could you please point us to some 320 kbs/s tracks to play around?1 Comment
Add a comment
-
We've started with the most popular tracks, so any of the top tracks of the Top Lists should be encoded higher. -
Inappropriate?You know, does anybody stop and think just how amazing Spotify actually is! It sounds great, most of everything is on it and it's free!! I so rarely listen to my own music library that when my Airport Express broke and I had to listen to my Squeezebox I found it very limiting!!! The only thing I did notice is the increase in sound quality of the Apple Lossless tracks I ripped myself compared with the streamed version - well now that obstacle is on the way to being removed with 320kb/s - a real reason to go Premium!! Well done and congratulations on a great service that I am sure will grow and grow :-)
Tim.
I’m happy
7 Comments Add a comment
-
sorry, but free is just not the same as great. And consider that some people do *pay* for the service. A service that still doesn't let you modify your play queue, still doesn't let you choose when to update to the latest version, still doesn't let you combine tags as you please to make a radio station, and thinks "sabu palo congo" is a reasonable part of a 50's punk radio station.
If you ignore all that, you just have a streaming catalog. Not so interesting. Absolutely not in the category of Amazing! or Great! (unless you are an american, in which case you would also describe your toilet paper with such terms). In that case I stand corrected. -
Hi Chris - sounds like you are getting a little confused here :-) You are confusing my elated comments concerning the Spotify concept itself and your concerns regarding the software client and it's functionality. I find it utterly amazing that I can play this music at all, on demand, at the best quality you will find for any internet streaming service (and soon better quality still). I can find stuff I had long forgotten about, relive tracks from obscure albums that have long since got left behind in some attic when I moved - oh, and then I can listen to U2's latest album before it gets to the shops - and it goes on!!
Obviously the war we have been fighting over the last few years to get streaming media available to all has passed you by? Or maybe you have forgotten the battle (still not completely won!) to keep Internet radio stations like Radio Paradise and the like from being shut down by short sighted record company executives, media moguls and massive corporations like Sony/BMG trying so hard to protect a dying revenue stream.
The fact you describe "you just have a streaming catalog. Not so interesting. Absolutely not in the category of Amazing! or Great" shows you have either a very, very short memory - or? Well let me just say guy - Spotify is just the beginning and if you are so short sighted as to be whinging about the interface when what it delivers is the most revolutionary sea change in music delivery we have seen since the this whole 'computer music' idea kicked off - well, maybe you should just leave the party for a while and come back when the API has been played with a bit by those who will take up the challenge and make it sing... see you then :-) -
...hey! And British toilet paper is pretty cool too :-)
-
Chris, you totally forgot about the speed of the program. That's what most people are raving about. I haven't had any playback trouble for months and Spotify is faster than playing mp3s locally! Since you failed to mention this I assume you haven't really tried out the program.
-
Heck, I love British toilet paper :)
-
@Tim Perhaps the last few years have passed you by? Rhapsody has been streaming music for a very long time. Yahoo Music Unlimited. Some would say last.fm streams a catalog. Then there was also MusicStrands (now dead). And Pandora. And there have been plenty of mash ups that scavenged the net for available mp3s that could be streamed. Streaming a catalog is indeed not a new idea. Not a revolution. Not even well done. With so much to copy, they should have done better from the start.
-
@JB I've not had a problem with playback speed. But perhaps that is due to my hardware and network. Yes I have used the program.
-
Inappropriate?Great! As I understand it, the encoding will take *some* time.. :p
When do you expect to have a full 320kbps library?
I’m thankful
2 Comments Add a comment
-
Not totally sure when it will be done, we've got to add some more storage and then it should go quite fast. We'll try and update people once and awhile when we hit 50% and fully done.
-
Great, thanks. Will probably subscribe when that happens!
-
Inappropriate?I just bought premium as the new q9 quality needs to be rewarded. How about a possibility to search for bitrate or a column to show which tracks are q9?
I’m happy
4 Comments Add a comment
-
"How about a possibility to search for bitrate or a column to show which tracks are q9?"
Yes, PLEASE!!! -
I dont think thats needed, cuz all tracks will be available in q9. Its only a mater of time.
And why is it so important to know that. If you can hear the difference you know whats q9 already, if you cant hear difference it wont be better if u can read it. -
Well put, p0krfce!
-
Whilst that is true P0krfce, I for one would like to be able to check on the conversion progress - I know how long it take iTunes to convert tracks, I don't see 'the library' at Spotify progressing to 320kb in a few weeks let alone months!? Unless they are 'pointing' to tracks held elsewhere (say at the label's servers) then of course it might be sooner. Also, if there are to be two versions of a track it would be nice to compare - people obviously listen on many different systems to Spotify - you will be unlikely to hear the difference on a portable device or computer speakers - but running the signal through a decent hi-fi will be very interesting :-)
-
Inappropriate?Add a litte HQ icon next to the song to show its available in higher bitrate.
-
Inappropriate?...and will both sample rates be available to Premium users after a track is upgraded to 320kb Andre? Would be great to compare (although I suppose you would then need a filter we could switch on to say "show all sample rates" or similar. I gather Premium users would get only higher rates shown when both rates are available? Otherwise you could end up with a very cluttered screen :-)
PS. Actually that would be a good marketing technique - when we tick the "Show all sample rates" and we aren't Premium users then the higher bitrate tracks could be greyed out like tracks that are not available in your area - the more greyed out tracks you see the more you want Premium!!! :-)
I’m confident
6 Comments Add a comment
-
Tim, since "Enable High Bitrate" is optional it's possible to compare.
-
You could toggle between high bit rate and normal bit rate but you have to dump your cache in between because when downgrading we'll keep the higher one still rather than re-download the lower quality.
I'm not sure we'd want to show both types of tracks, we're always looking to keep things simple and that may be too much. -
True - didn't think of that! But of course will only work if you only see high bitrate tracks when you select the option. I presume until all tracks are re-encoded and all new ones are originally encoded at high bitrate, premium users will see both and won't know which is HQ and which isn't.
-
Goes back to several users request to have a little HQ flag - if only until you guys are all up and running at 320kb?
Or maybe it's only a streaming issue and you already source the uncompressed file - but then you couldn't transcode on the fly - could you??!! Actually I would love a 'geeks guide' to just how Spotify does work behind the scenes - I am really into this and being a bit of a computer audiophile (I know - sorry!!) it would be great to know how it all works!
PS. I can safely say that unless I do a comparison with tracks I have on iTunes, Spotify at 160kb fed from my Macbook digital out, through my active AVI ADM 9.1's (twin 24bit/192k Wolfson DAC's) sounds very, very good indeed - can't wait for HQ (seems we have dubbed it that!) and maybe a little more robustness to stuttering if I am to be really picky :-) -
The major thing with the HQ flag is that we'd be adding a feature that will be obsolete in a little while which isn't a great use of our resources. I will be sure to try and keep everyone updated on the progress as we add more.
Also, we don't transcode on the fly. That would be an impressive technical feat! -
> The major thing with the HQ flag is that we'd be adding a feature that will be obsolete in a little while which isn't a great use of our resources.
Aw, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on :-) Sorry Father Ted fans will understand!) What about a filter search then on the bitrate, is it a tag in the file - you must need something to be able to identify HQ files so you can exclude them from non-premium member and likewise include them for premium members?
>Also, we don't transcode on the fly. That would be an impressive technical feat!
The entire Spotify concept and it's implementation is an impressive feat!! I suppose I thought a little transcoding would hardly work up a sweat :-) -
-
Inappropriate?great! :P I'll get premium... - as soon as spotify comes to mobiles!!! ;)
I’m thankful
-
Inappropriate?this is great when the trance and techno music is in high bitrate! :D i will soon get new speakers so wiiie!
I’m excited
-
Inappropriate?Hey, get the High bitrate future to the non paying costumers aswell.
The artists get paid from as aswell by the ads so why not give us the HQ aswell..1 Comment Add a comment
-
Ah come on. You can try one month.
(Seriosly, though, bad idea.) -
-
Inappropriate?I upgraded to premium because of this but it's not working!
-
Inappropriate?I just subscribed after 2 months of intensive trial of your service.
Spotify is just great.
I’m deleting all my mp3
-
Inappropriate?I'll surely get premium when/if the client hits iPhone app store. If that doesn't happen, shame on you Apple, I'll subscribe to the service anyway! :P
I’m excited
-
Inappropriate?Just recently joined the premium feature (12months) and as a first time user i must say sound quality is to bad. Tried several tunes now and cant find anything that sounds better or worse, everything is the same so far and it is a dissapointement. if there is 320kb/s the sound should really be better. Also amazed that there aren ́t any settings to adjust the sound, at least an equalizer?
Hopefully so haven ́t i discovered everything yet...2 Comments Add a comment
-
Hi Stefan,
Not sure why this should be, even at 160kbs I find Spotify sound quality through my hi-fi system highly listenable - and I am a fully signed up lunatic audiophile! :-)
Obviously any form of lossy compression will take away some of the 'air' and subtlety of the sound when compared directly to say iTunes ALAC or uncompressed WAV/AIF direct to your DAC from a MAC digital out - but not so noticeable when not making comparisons that you would find it objectionable.
What were you listening to before? Are you Mac or PC? What's your audio chain?
And PS. forget the equaliser route, that the quickest way to completely ruin the sound - in fact most complaints aimed at iTunes sound quality are solved by making sure the equaliser is switched off! :-) -
PPS. I am really looking forward to comparing ALAC from iTunes and 320kbps from Spotify - when there is a way of telling you are listening to 320kbps that is... hint... hint... :-)
-
Inappropriate?You'll have to change the settings.
when spotify's open; press ctrl+p. than "sound>enable high bitrate" and then press "apply"
think that should do it :) (y) -
Inappropriate?Im a pc user and have itunes, mediamonkey, winamp and Quintessential where i prefer mediamonkey which i have tuned in for best result.
I have pretty good sound from my computer either im at home or at work but i tested one thing yesterday that was interesting. Had a friend with spotify on his laptop and we tuned in the same song and moved the loudspeaker connection between our laptops and he had much better sound. Without checking it up perfect this says his laptop has better sound card than mine. Anyway thats strange since my laptop sounded much better when we tested the same song but now from harddisk (320kb/sec) and used the same mediaplayer (itunes). This is getting me a bit confused, what is right and wrong now?
About "enable hig bitrate" so do i ahve the correct settings. -
Inappropriate?Hi Stefan - So if Spotify sounds better on your friends laptop than yours, yet an MP3 at 320kbps sounds better on yours - that could be your copy of iTunes is configured differently to your friend's (make sure you both have equaliser off, sound enhancer off and sound check is off - all these tools are in software and require re-sampling the waveform which will alter the sound) - plus of course the same goes for Windows sound enhancements - even with Vista your Windows volume should be set to max. 100% and use speaker amp to control sound level (digital volume controls affect sound quality by stealing digits, it's bugger all unless yo have a really good system or headphones but just to be sure!). Check that Spotify is also configured the same on both - check sound normalisation is off and if you have it make sure High Bitrate is on (but like I say I don't have this yet and anyway you can't tell which tracks are at high bitrate and which aren't yet). Have you tried other streaming comparisons? Have a listen to Radio Paradise at 192kbps on both PC's - in my opinion that doesn't sound as good as Spotify at 160kbps.
Getting the most accurate sound from a PC can be a big pain! Most people who listen seriously will bypass the internal sound card with a USB external version - this not only gets you a better DAC and avoids Windows OS mixing but also stops the internal sound card up and down sampling as it sees fit to suit it's internal processing which seriously messes up the sound (most external sound cards can be set for sample rates to avoid this). I used to be right into this stuff, but since I went Mac I have literally forgot all about it - Macs have an optical digital out so I get unadulterated digits without any OS processing (unless I ask for it that is!). I would spend some time over at www.computeraudiophile.com and check out the forum as well, it is worth spending a bit of time getting it right as once yo have nailed it you can sit back and plug any speakers/DAC/system into your PC and know you are getting unadulterated audio out :-)
Tim1 Comment Add a comment
-
Might as well post this link here as well. This audio expert argues that volume normalization should be on for best sound. http://productionadvice.co.uk/wrong-a...
Very interesting read! -
Inappropriate?Thx a lot for the info Tim, i will try those things mentioned above as soon i get hold of my friends laptop again:)
