View Full Version : Spotify sued over music streaming technology
This doesn't sound good for Spotify fans :(
Spotify sued over music streaming technology (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14338710)
serendipitydawg
03-08-2011, 18:44
An end to compulsory MP3's?
Hurrah!
An end to compulsory MP3's?
Nope, Spotify doesn't stream in MP3! ;)
Beechwoods
03-08-2011, 21:40
Wonder why they didn't go after Pandora and the like when they launched... smacks of opportunism.
Not really enough info to go on in the news report, but Spotify say "PacketVideo is claiming that by distributing music over the internet, Spotify (and by inference any other similar digital music service) has infringed one of the patents that has previously been acquired by PacketVideo" - I'd be very surprised if you could patent "distributing music over the internet" - so it must be something to do with the underlying technology, I guess.
Will be interesting to see how it pans out but as Nick says - opportunism. This company appears to buy and act on patents - I'm sure they were waiting for the US launch of Spotify for a bigger slice of the pie...
serendipitydawg
04-08-2011, 11:32
Nope, Spotify doesn't stream in MP3! ;)
Pardon my ignorance.
What does Spotify stream?
Surely not lossless?
Pardon my ignorance.
What does Spotify stream?
Surely not lossless?
Hi Matthew - sorry for my glib response! ;) - it uses the open-source format Ogg Vorbis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg_Vorbis) - generally thought to be one of (if not) the best compressed format. My personal opinion is that it is very difficult to tell the difference between 320kbps OV stream that you get with Spotify Premium and CD - though I know others will disagree with me on that - but my ears aren't golden enough! ;)
I'd be very surprised if you could patent "distributing music over the internet" - so it must be something to do with the underlying technology, I guess.
If you take a look at some of the current US patent lawsutes you would find yourself very suprised. I think there is a bit more to the patent in question but not much.
serendipitydawg
04-08-2011, 18:19
Hi Matthew - sorry for my glib response! ;) - it uses the open-source format Ogg Vorbis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg_Vorbis) - generally thought to be one of (if not) the best compressed format. My personal opinion is that it is very difficult to tell the difference between 320kbps OV stream that you get with Spotify Premium and CD - though I know others will disagree with me on that - but my ears aren't golden enough! ;)
No need to apologise Alex. I should apologise for my snooty attitude. I sneer at the very mention of Spotify. At least now I can sneer accurately.
I sneer at the very mention of Spotify.
Why would you sneer at a resource that can help expand your musical knowledge :scratch:
Reid Malenfant
04-08-2011, 18:54
Hi Matthew - sorry for my glib response! ;) - it uses the open-source format Ogg Vorbis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg_Vorbis) - generally thought to be one of (if not) the best compressed format. My personal opinion is that it is very difficult to tell the difference between 320kbps OV stream that you get with Spotify Premium and CD - though I know others will disagree with me on that - but my ears aren't golden enough! ;)
Hi Alex, i'm not anywhere near up to date on this but isn't OV just a different codec (along with loads of others) that is still banded under the MP3 banner?
For instance MP3 can be all sorts of bitrates & as far as i know all sorts of codecs. It's not lossless which is why it's still classed as an MP3 codec (as far as i know) because it's compressing the information to make it smaller unlike say FLAC :)
I think if you look up about MP4 video you'll also also find different codecs used such as AVC, MPEG4 etc...
Perhaps i need a few more tinnies though :eyebrows:
:cool:
Hi Alex, i'm not anywhere near up to date on this but isn't OV just a different codec (along with loads of others) that is still banded under the MP3 banner?
Depends on what you take MP3 to mean. If you mean a generic lossy encoding scheme then yes, its the same. But if you mean the lossy perceptual encoding designed by the moving pictures experts group as MPEG-2 Audio Layer three, then no, its not the same. Vorbis is a license free lossy compression format.
It's not lossless which is why it's still classed as an MP3 codec (as far as i know) because it's compressing the information to make it smaller unlike say FLAC
Both the MPEG and Vorbis codecs are lossy in that they compress and also loose information unlike FLAC that compresses without loosing information.
Reid Malenfant
04-08-2011, 19:12
Ah, cheers for clearing up my misconceptions Nick :) Just shows how much i'm interested in it i guess :lolsign:
Beechwoods
04-08-2011, 19:18
I have a £10 subscription to Spotify and I listen to it quite a bit on my iPhone when I'm at work, but I really don't think it comes anywhere near CD in terms of quality. To me the tracks sound dynamically compressed, and there's something missing from the sound that I just don't get with CD and analogue formats, on my gear at least. Spotify is great as a musical discovery tool, but I really don't consider it as a primary source, for those reasons. And the fact it doesn't do gapless is criminal! I wish they supported streaming FLAC. There are internet radio stations that do.
I am not sure you get the 300k data rate on a phone. It sounds very good with something like the squeezebox plugin.
I agree the gaps are a pain though.
I agree with Nick Beechwood. Spotify is excellent quality for a free listen but it falls short of streamed Flac format.
In fact, I think I prefer AAC+ at 128kbps, but then I have moments where I wonder if apev2 doesn’t sound just that bit better than ALAC :scratch:
As a guide, if I’m having problems differentiating between fixed bit rate 320 and Flac, all's good.
If I’m having problems differentiating between 128 and below and Flac, I’ve either ingested a dodgy chemical mix, I need some ear care, or somats broke :eyebrows:
I've not tried on a 'phone either - but for the record, when I said it was hard to tell between Spotify and CD I am referring to the 320kbps "higher quality" you get with Premium, fed from my PC into the Caiman DAC via USB. I've tried A/B ing a few times, and to be honest it was just guesswork which was which - but of course I am renowned for having cloth ears! :)
serendipitydawg
04-08-2011, 19:45
Why would you sneer at a resource that can help expand your musical knowledge :scratch:
Sorry but I am still in snooty mode.
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.
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.
The snooty perspective of age, alas.
Beechwoods
04-08-2011, 19:48
I am not sure you get the 300k data rate on a phone. It sounds very good with something like the squeezebox plugin.
I agree the gaps are a pain though.
You're right as far as my 3G connection is concerned - though there's no reason why it couldn't be rate adaptive. FLAC would make it an absolute winner on the desktop though.
Reid Malenfant
04-08-2011, 19:52
I only use Spotify to have a listen to new prospective purchases in the CD department anyway, just the same as Youtube.
There are so many CDs on fleabay & elsewhere that tag other band names on (to what they are advertising) due to the possible close relations in genres that it's worth having a listen...
Try before you buy :eyebrows:
In that respect Youtube wins hands down i'm afraid, i might find about less than 5% of what i'm looking to have a listen to on Spotify (maybe less :eek:) but in general i probably find 70%+ on Youtube...
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 :scratch: 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.
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! ;)
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.
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
05-08-2011, 07:34
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'!
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.
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
05-08-2011, 17:53
You should stick to one genre Alex, it works out a lot cheaper :eyebrows:
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 :lolsign:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.