Spotify Spotify Lossless is here, it's official!

It's questionable if WIIM actually is playing the lossless audio. When playing the lossless option is still greyed out. And when trying to switch it on the message says "this device is not suited for lossless playback, try an othe device..."spotify.jpg
 
It's questionable if WIIM actually is playing the lossless audio. When playing the lossless option is still greyed out. And when trying to switch it on the message says "this device is not suited for lossless playback, try an othe device..."View attachment 26781

Which WiiM device are you trying to connect to?
 
I’m in the USA and have been a Spotify Premium sub for years. Love the interface. I also have Amazon Music HD for the lossless. I hate the interface and it’s always unstable on my WiiM products so I hardly use it. To be honest, the Spotify usually sounded better to me anyway. I assume it’s in the mastering. Can’t wait to drop Amazon and simplify things. Let’s go Spotify. Waiting for my update. Oh, an the bonus is no additional cost to me. I thought I was going to have to pay more.
 
Seems like you connect trough chromecast? You should be able to use Spotify Connect. And are you on the same Wifichannel?.. is your Wiim updated?
With me instant succesful connection.
If nothing helps reboot device and your phone. It should work.
SW, FW and phone are up-to-date. Restrating my phone did the trick! Thanks Eddiefreddie.
 
I’m in the USA and have been a Spotify Premium sub for years. Love the interface. I also have Amazon Music HD for the lossless. I hate the interface and it’s always unstable on my WiiM products so I hardly use it. To be honest, the Spotify usually sounded better to me anyway. I assume it’s in the mastering. Can’t wait to drop Amazon and simplify things. Let’s go Spotify. Waiting for my update. Oh, a the bonus is no additional cost to me. I thought I was going to have to pay more.
It’s said it’s available on USA but I haven’t got the update. Usually USA get it first.
 
Just my opinion. Spotify has introduced lossless playback, too late. After years of empty promises, I got rid of it and switched to Qobuz and Tidal, and I don't intend to go back.
Why? Simple. I don't see why I should pay more to those who offer less. Their maximum quality is 24/44.

I can't hear the difference with 24/192? Maybe, but others offer it at a lower price.

Conclusion? They can keep their lossless. They missed the boat, and I'm happy even without Spotify.
Cheaper if you can stay with one single provider. If you need two because family wants Spotify and it runs in wearable for running, and you want at least Loseless, it's always doubling the cost.
Qobuz nor Tidal can be my single provider, as of today.
 
Seemingly with 24/44.1 they’re catering for everyone apart from bats, owls and Greater Wax Moths ;)

When 24/192khz was released on many song on tidal, I thought it would give me a wow factor like the same feeling going from vhs to blu ray. In fact, it did not blow my socks at all. Because the native resolution when music was recorded on 16/44 and going to 24/192 was just upsampling that causing aliasing and glare. It may be different if was originally recorded natively on that resolution.
 
When 24/192khz was released on many song on tidal, I thought it would give me a wow factor like the same feeling going from vhs to blu ray. In fact, it did not blow my socks at all. Because the native resolution when music was recorded on 16/44 and going to 24/192 was just upsampling that causing aliasing and glare. It may be different if was originally recorded natively on that resolution.
The use of high bit rates (24/96 or higher) already started in the late 1990s and early 2000s. So most music recorded after that have this resolution available natively. Also remastering of old analog tape recordings will have the high bit rate.

So the CD quality recordings are mostly from the 80's and early 90's. If you see a 192 kHz version of a track from that time it's probably upsampled.

If it matters is hard to say. I can sometimes hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 but never between 96 kHz and 192 kHz.
 
The use of high bit rates (24/96 or higher) already started in the late 1990s and early 2000s. So most music recorded after that have this resolution available natively. Also remastering of old analog tape recordings will have the high bit rate.

So the CD quality recordings are mostly from the 80's and early 90's. If you see a 192 kHz version of a track from that time it's probably upsampled.

If it matters is hard to say. I can sometimes hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 but never between 96 kHz and 192 kHz.
Simon and Garfunkel “sound of silence” is one of them that did not improved on its original version.
 
Simon and Garfunkel “sound of silence” is one of them that did not improved on its original version.
That is recorded on analog, so not sure what you mean :unsure:

The digital remastering was done for CD in the start of the 80's and a high resolution 24/192 remastering from the analog tapes was done in 2014.

1000005248.jpg
So that the closest you can get to the original.
 
Seemingly with 24/44.1 they’re catering for everyone apart from bats, owls and Greater Wax Moths ;)

I „think“ I hear the difference between 320kbit and 24bit/96kHz in form of more realistic and deeper room acoustic! I am 100% certain I will not hear the difference between 24bit/44kHz and 24bit/96kHz, not even mentioning higher resolution!
 
still waiting for a human being which is able to identify a difference between cd and everything above. on my equipment. what is not too bad at all. maybe heaven send me one in nearer future. so i have reasons to upgrade in the 'digital domain'. 😉
 
Back
Top