higher bitrate audio service

320kbps is OK, but then I remember when it was 128kbps :(

Probably the only reason I still buy CDs (so I can rip them lossless).
 
It will never make it big, as 99.9% of people do not have the equipment to notice the difference anyway.

I get up to 320kbps on Deezer Premium+ and I cannot really tell the difference between that and a CD. I would need to spend a fair amount of money on audio equipment to notice the difference.
 
320kbps is great. Anything more is just a bad idea for portable use anyway given the data usage, speeds and the quality of the portable device.

Also: In before "can/can't hear the difference" arguments.
 
There is little worse than pricing models that use the same £/$ figure. That really grinds my gears. £19.99/$19.99, why are we paying so much more than the Yanks? $12 more!

Sounds like a very good idea and I would definitely be interested in using it. But the first game stopper for me is that £20 is WAY too expensive (should be £12), and also because of my point above regards UK/US pricing suicide. I'm not giving my money to a company who does that.
 
My arguement always remains with music streaming, when you stop paying, you stop listening, after spending £120 a year, you own no music, why not just buy the songs you're after, they're plenty places to get albums for £1-2 and songs at 9p-11p a track?

Maybe I'm doing it wrong?
 
ThaReaperGuy said:
My arguement always remains with music streaming, when you stop paying, you stop listening, after spending £120 a year, you own no music, why not just buy the songs you're after, they're plenty places to get albums for £1-2 and songs at 9p-11p a track?

Maybe I'm doing it wrong?
Click to expand...

Whilst i agree with what you've said there's reasons why i have Spotify:

  • Found albums and entire artists that i forgot even existed
  • Bands/artists discovered by the "you might also like"
  • Playlists others have created to my music tastes
  • Great for building playlists for parties and chilling with friends
  • Sharing music to friends and a click of a button "Hey, you should listen to this". Ping goes their phone, and they listen to it.
  • Has some content that can be hard to find
  • Takes up next to no space

I often go and buy albums that i find on Spotify anyway, but i am more than happy to pay £10 (or whatever it is) a month for Spotify purely for convenience.
 
There is some argument to the fact that at 320kbps the human ear can not really distinguish much more detail, but a lot of that is down to the portable device and the sound replication (ie, what speakers / headphones are used).

I'd much rather see some governance as to what EQ levels are used in ripped music. ie, some trackes sound utter garbage because someone in the EQ factory thought it would be good to push the bass up way to high and forget to add any mid EQ.
 
even though i have many tracks in wav/flac and a few 320's to have above 320 in portable devices is pointless if being played out from earphones/phone loudspeaker.
 
Seems it would hit a very niche market of audiophiles etc, unless it was cheaper ofc.
For bluetooth in the car though like I use it, yeah spotify is more than sufficient. Think i'd need a damn good soundsystem even if bluetooth could handle it :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom