Spotify sued over music streaming technology

[Tim]

I only use Spotify to have a listen to new prospective purchases in the CD department anyway, just the same as Youtube.

This is exactly what I use it for too Mark - purely for musical discovery and to help decide what to buy and what to avoid. In theory that should save me money, but in reality I discover more and buy more However, I virtually never listen to Spotify through my main system, as unlike Alex I can hear a clear difference between Spotify Premium and my FLAC rips. But I guess as my system is honed for file based audio anyway, it would have failed as a concept if it didn't reveal any difference.

[Alex_UK]

Thinking about it, I'm not sure if I have tried A/B ing Spotify Premium vs CD since changing to the Spendors - so perhaps a revisit is required, or else I really am a cloth ears!

[Welder]

Alex wrote;
“or else I really am a cloth ears! ”

Not at all Alex. I’ve caught some very serious audio enthusiasts out with the 320 fixed bit rate v uncompressed.
A lot is going to depend on which compressing algorithm was used and how well engineered the original recording was.

[Tim]

Thinking about it, I'm not sure if I have tried A/B ing Spotify Premium vs CD since changing to the Spendors - so perhaps a revisit is required, or else I really am a cloth ears!

My ears aren't brilliant Alex to be honest - maybe listening though some good headphones and you would hear the difference?

[The Grand Wazoo]

Listening to music is for me mostly a subjective pleasure. But if I KNOW that I am listening to data-reduced music, to me it simply can't sound as good as non data-reduced music.

I can see the educational benefits of Spotify. However nobody is able to give me the extra time to listen to many "new" discoveries. So much music, so little time, if you will.

For a risk-free chance to listen to new music that you might consider buying, the likes of Spotify are unbeatable. Let's face it, most folks discover new stuff through other low quality replay methods - most often, I suppose, the car radio. So what's the difference?
Always a rule with me: lo-fi is better than no-fi.

I'm nearly 57, and I could quite easily spend the rest of my life listening to the work of Frank Zappa.

It's cool that Spotify may make available Mr Zappa's inestimable works to those who have never heard them. It may even be possible to listen his entire life's work end to end via Spotify but IMHO nobody would reallistically achieve such a feat.

You have to live with the works of genius. In my case, for forty years.

There's no FZ on Spotify.
But think how useful it would be for a person wanting to dip a tentative toe into something like the Zappa catalogue - which, as you must know, contains some music that seems pretty unapproachable on first encounter. Most people would never buy another FZ album if the first one they got was 'Jazz From Hell'!

[MartinT]

I only use Spotify to have a listen to new prospective purchases in the CD department anyway, just the same as Youtube.

Yes, me too and for that purpose it's excellent. I would never use it as a primary source, though, and I think there stems the misunderstanding of Spotify's usefulness.

[Alex_UK]

Yes, me too and for that purpose it's excellent. I would never use it as a primary source, though, and I think there stems the misunderstanding of Spotify's usefulness.

I'm being more ruthless than I used to be - has to get at least 2 plays on Spotify before I decide if I buy or not. If (when?) Spotify goes lossless, I can well imagine I will be even more ruthless and only buy things I really like - I've got far too many CDs I've bought that I no longer play...

[Reid Malenfant]

You should stick to one genre Alex, it works out a lot cheaper

Having said that i need to cut down as well, not because stuff doesn't get played though, but simply because i need to find time to listen to it all