Spotify "Supremium"

D1N0 said:
For those who wish to listen to great recordings it doesn't matter how much crap is out there and what people who couldn't care less about their sound quality but just about convenience can and cannot hear a difference think is enough. Spotify is for those people.
Click to expand...
But is there a difference? Who says there is not? What products they are using? Is it a placebo effect..says who?
I think there is a difference but for what i am hearing Spotify isnt making money at the time so i don,t see them invest in losless ?
 
But when you compare a H265 codec on video..you can make the file much smaller. Lets say for a movie like Casino. And the codecs get better and better. But can you say its the same as the original Blu ray( 98 GB)? I think you cant. Can you see the difference even more on a high end screen? I think you can.
But how about music then. Everytime you will hear people say you cant hear the difference between high quality and spotify. Says who?..can you trust them. ? Even with high end systems you can,t hear any difference? So much information today but what is the truth...
It all has to do with money too..spofify has to invest more and from what i,m hearing the aren,t making any profits again. So they won,t invest in it i think.

The same as all the movies streaming services..they will never supply files like 98 GB ( casino) with a VBR which can go to 100 Mbps..or more. It will never happen. Same on television broadcast..UHD costs money..more bitrate more data..more..more money.
 
wiimamp user said:
But is there a difference? Who says there is not? What products they are using? Is it a placebo effect..says who?
I think there is a difference but for what i am hearing Spotify isnt making money at the time so i don,t see them invest in losless ?
Click to expand...
There is a difference and it is quite large. I don't care whether Spotify will invest in lossless or not. I left after they obviously started dragging their feet about Spotify HiFi over two years ago now and never looked back. Qobuz will do for me.
 
D1N0 said:
There is a difference and it is quite large. I don't care whether Spotify will invest in lossless or not. I left after they obviously started dragging their feet about Spotify HiFi over two years ago now and never looked back. Qobuz will do for me.
Click to expand...
I agree but lets take for instance Tidal..Here in the Netherlands i cant pay with ideal. I can with spotify. I dont have a credit card. From what im hearing you have to using Tidal. For most people having only the option with Tidal for the credit card they wont go for it. Convenience also how you can pay for the service is a factor i think.
I dont know how it works with Amazon HD i dont even know its available in the Netherlands. Then its important how the AI helps you finding new music and what they have to offer ..comparing it to the library of Spotify. The AI factor is important too i think..
 
wiimamp user said:
But when you compare a H265 codec on video..you can make the file much smaller. Lets say for a movie like Casino. And the codecs get better and better. But can you say its the same as the original Blu ray( 98 GB)? I think you cant. Can you see the difference even more on a high end screen? I think you can.
But how about music then. Everytime you will hear people say you cant hear the difference between high quality and spotify. Says who?..can you trust them. ? Even with high end systems you can,t hear any difference? So much information today but what is the truth...
It all has to do with money too..spofify has to invest more and from what i,m hearing the aren,t making any profits again. So they won,t invest in it i think.

The same as all the movies streaming services..they will never supply files like 98 GB ( casino) with a VBR which can go to 100 Mbps..or more. It will never happen. Same on television broadcast..UHD costs money..more bitrate more data..more..more money.
Click to expand...
I think the file size of streaming is correlated with the speed of the internet and the performance of the device. In other words, as these speeds and performance improve in the future, streaming is likely to become higher quality.😉
 
Wiimer said:
I think the file size of streaming is correlated with the speed of the internet and the performance of the device. In other words, as these speeds and performance improve in the future, streaming is likely to become higher quality.😉
Click to expand...
Hope so..but read this:

The music streaming fight isn’t like the streaming wars, where Max, Netflix, Hulu, and others can each lure in subscribers with a combination of classic and original movies and shows. If Spotify were to charge more for music (it already increased monthly prices from $9.99 to 10.99 in the US this summer), it would risk losing people to comparable services, where people can find the same songs. But unless it can convince people to pay more for music, it might continue to struggle.

https://www.wired.com/story/spotify-layoffs-music-streaming-future/

Yes Neflix has UHD ..but it also costs more. And when spotify ads high quality it has to cost more. How do they make profit..?
 
wiimamp user said:
I agree but lets take for instance Tidal..Here in the Netherlands i cant pay with ideal. I can with spotify. I dont have a credit card. From what im hearing you have to using Tidal. For most people having only the option with Tidal for the credit card they wont go for it. Convenience also how you can pay for the service is a factor i think.
I dont know how it works with Amazon HD i dont even know its available in the Netherlands. Then its important how the AI helps you finding new music and what they have to offer ..comparing it to the library of Spotify. The AI factor is important too i think..
Click to expand...
Ideal is listed as a payment method for Tidal and so is Paypal
 
The problem is ..most people have a decent UHD television. Scaling gets better..though a high end tv makes a difference.
But now on Audio..the costs in investing in good gear doesn,t have to be very very expensive..BUT..they wont take the time for choosing good quality product for decent money. The must people are on "decent" bleutooth headphones. They havent any clue how a better headphone can sound when you ad a better DAC of choose for wired headphones. I dont say bleutooth is bad but there are differences there to in what headphone youre using and the codecs available.
Thanks to Dali of Moondrop headphones my love for music came back..the details, intstruments separation. I did invest more and more in good dacs and everytime i was surprised. Have a Fioo and a Shanling dac..excellent thats how you want to hear more and more ..the love of listening for long times on audio came back in an instant.

I think moondrop is doing a good job here to make good headphones for little money. But the mayority havent ever heard from moondrop. They choose the well known brands.
Headphones is the one thing..a hifi set yet another. WIIM is doing a very good job here. A very good price and the convenience factor in combination with good working software is very important.
Headphones are a very personal thing when you have a family you cant enjoy the music with others..so different when wathing tv of video,s.

But what im saying must people arent aware what good hardware can make a huge difference in the audio experience. Installing a decent tv is simple..choosing a good hifi set is different. Again what WIIM are doing here is a very good thing ...that what can make the gap for most people to add some good speakers and you are ready to go. Thats the future of HIFI..good hardware, good working software..that combination is very important in my opinion.
Go on like this WIIM..support to you. And the support of WIIM is also a very good thing thats important to people.
 
Last edited:
wiimamp user said:
Hope so..but read this:

The music streaming fight isn’t like the streaming wars, where Max, Netflix, Hulu, and others can each lure in subscribers with a combination of classic and original movies and shows. If Spotify were to charge more for music (it already increased monthly prices from $9.99 to 10.99 in the US this summer), it would risk losing people to comparable services, where people can find the same songs. But unless it can convince people to pay more for music, it might continue to struggle.

https://www.wired.com/story/spotify-layoffs-music-streaming-future/

Yes Neflix has UHD ..but it also costs more. And when spotify ads high quality it has to cost more. How do they make profit..?
Click to expand...

Since they've never actually been profitable with previous pricing plans and despite conquering the mass market, offering lossless would not be likely to make a profit either, but it would perhaps entice/attract some of the niche high-end subscribers currently using TIDAL or Qobuz, if not Amazon or Apple Music.

Spotify has 236 million subscribers, Qobuz has 200,000. Does Spotify care about that kind of market share? I suspect they do if they've twice in seven years announced lossless as coming soon, they even briefly beta tested it in spring 2017. But they also probably thought they could easily charge more for it, and that plan has been torpedoed by the heavies in the room. Why they would continue to say publicly that lossless will be offered when there doesn't appear to be any way to actually monetize it is a mystery. They would gain more respect if they announced those plans have been withdrawn.
 
Spotify doesn't fear Qobuz or Tidal or Deezer but Amazon and Apple have very deep pockets and if they offer it at the same price Spotify will have to at some point.
 
D1N0 said:
Spotify doesn't fear Qobuz or Tidal or Deezer but Amazon and Apple have very deep pockets and if they offer it at the same price Spotify will have to at some point.
Click to expand...
Or just the other way around:
Spotify got away with not offering lossless (at whatever price) so far, even after Apple and Amazon made their move. The vast majority of their customers don't care at all.
 
Mike in NY said:
Since they've never actually been profitable with previous pricing plans and despite conquering the mass market, offering lossless would not be likely to make a profit either, but it would perhaps entice/attract some of the niche high-end subscribers currently using TIDAL or Qobuz, if not Amazon or Apple Music.

Spotify has 236 million subscribers, Qobuz has 200,000. Does Spotify care about that kind of market share? I suspect they do if they've twice in seven years announced lossless as coming soon, they even briefly beta tested it in spring 2017. But they also probably thought they could easily charge more for it, and that plan has been torpedoed by the heavies in the room. Why they would continue to say publicly that lossless will be offered when there doesn't appear to be any way to actually monetize it is a mystery. They would gain more respect if they announced those plans have been withdrawn.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what it'd cost them to develop but I would have thought it'd be a large 'ish one off cost which in terms of their overall revenue I would have thought was fairly miniscule and costs can be offset against profit.

A company with as few subscribers as Qobuz has managed to do it .... so why can't they.

Whilst everybody seems to love their app and algo for suggested music .... when the other companies develop their app / algo to the same level the playing field may change and in today's market, it'll happen so quickly they'll be behind the curve and unable to keep up.

If you don't move with the times you become the dinosaur, they could of been the market leaders on high res / pricing but have chosen not.

Probably find the current directors bonuses are tied into cost vs income and like the goverment in the UK don't give a shit about the long term future.
 
I think spotify is as large as it is for the same reason cola or mcdonalds is, they make fine, but not perfect products, however everyone knows exactly what they get with them.
 
I think their AI capabilities are very good. They have al lot to offer.
But is Tidal making profits then?
Isnt i also dependent on who wants to pay not only for high res but are the willing to pay for 320Kbps even?
I dont want ads and i do want to pay for quality..thats why i have youtube premium also for listening to music but here i want to watch video without ads.
Spotify has to do with youtube too according how to make a profit for them.
With ads is freely available.
Why cant they use their influence for making more profit and offering supremium( with audiobooks) for a decent price.
The difference between free and paying becomes bigger and if the price is right..why not. Let say it costs 13.99 it would be a good price i think. I would pay for it.
Or offer a subscription for a year with a discount?? Now its per month..every month you can cancel but why not thinking about al subription for a year with a discount for subpremium? Enough audiobooks is also a selling point i think.
 
Last edited:
I have been wrestling with this over last couple of days since getting the WiiM Amp and pairing with some second-hand Q Acoustics 2050i'speakers...

I am a long time Spotify subscriber and have a family plan, so I have to keep it for the family whether I choose to use it or not... Yesterday I took out the one-month free trial for Amazon HD and was keen to test it to see the difference in streaming quality. Truth is, I struggled to hear any difference between the Spotify feed and the Amazon HD feed. In addition, I have a good look at both apps and concluded that the Spotify app on iOS, is far superior to the Amazon app and as a premium subscriber, I also get access to a loads of fee audio books on Spotify which I value...

So, my conclusion is that I really want one app for my music, podcasts and audiobooks and as Spotify ticks more boxes than other services, I'll probably stick with it and accept the downside of lower quality streaming through the WiiM Amp. However, i would love it if they introduced a higher quality service - which I'd pay more to subscribe to...
 
UKNick said:
I have been wrestling with this over last couple of days since getting the WiiM Amp and pairing with some second-hand Q Acoustics 2050i'speakers...

I am a long time Spotify subscriber and have a family plan, so I have to keep it for the family whether I choose to use it or not... Yesterday I took out the one-month free trial for Amazon HD and was keen to test it to see the difference in streaming quality. Truth is, I struggled to hear any difference between the Spotify feed and the Amazon HD feed. In addition, I have a good look at both apps and concluded that the Spotify app on iOS, is far superior to the Amazon app and as a premium subscriber, I also get access to a loads of fee audio books on Spotify which I value...

So, my conclusion is that I really want one app for my music, podcasts and audiobooks and as Spotify ticks more boxes than other services, I'll probably stick with it and accept the downside of lower quality streaming through the WiiM Amp. However, i would love it if they introduced a higher quality service - which I'd pay more to subscribe to...
Click to expand...
Totally agree with you. Spotify does a very good job. The app, the AI features..often much more better then others. If they add more audiobooks and quality i think they can introduce supremium for lets say 13,99. Maybe also al yearly subscription with a discount would be great.
Im willing to pay and the gap between free listening( with ads,lower quality) becomes bigger also with the audiobooks.

Again i agree with you..compare it to WIIM itself. A great device..good hardware but even important the software and the support they are giving. Its the combination thats very important the same with spotify..the app and then the music library..with wiim the hardware,software,support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top