Hi-fi and music streaming live harmoniously, but two Big Tech brands hold the relationship back

Cambridge Audio EXN100 music streamer
(Image credit: What Hi-Fi?)

When streaming services came along and changed how we consumed music, hi-fi electronics brands had to adapt; they had to accommodate. And they have done spectacularly. It’s been a rather long road, as I penned not long ago in a music streamer retrospective, but in recent years we have reached a supreme moment where hi-fi and streaming go together like cops and doughnuts. Today, we have hi-fi music streamers, streaming amplifiers and streaming-savvy all-in-one systems, from the affordable to the aspirational, that sound good, look good and offer pleasingly intuitive user experiences consistent with other parts of our technological lives.

Hi-fi manufacturers of such components have created software teams to a) develop their own control apps – apps that meet the high standards we have become accustomed to in today’s app-driven world; b) grapple with audio transmission standards and protocols that can differ from one country they sell in to another; and c) facilitate the ‘Big Tech’ licensing agreements necessary for their products to implement, say, AirPlay – not easy, as I’ve been told (several times) and as you would likely imagine. Their challenges probably extend beyond that, too.

In addition to control apps, they have implemented modern displays, allowing users to enjoy streaming to the full. And their streaming components now commonly tick what has just about settled as an established set of streaming features – they support AirPlay, internet radio, Roon, Spotify Connect and other major music streaming services, with compatibility for Google Chromecast and Tidal Connect almost as ubiquitous too. Hi-fi components have welcomed and embraced the hi-res streaming quality now offered by the likes of Tidal and Apple Music, while their engineers have had to learn new skills and find ways to harness streaming chipsets and well implement the architecture surrounding it (power supplies etc) to deliver true high-fidelity sound quality.

Indeed, from where I’m standing, hi-fi and music streaming mostly live pretty harmoniously… save for one thing: the companies behind the two arguably most popular streaming methods – yep, two of those aforementioned established streaming features – are letting the side down.

The first is Spotify, arguably the most notable company in the music streaming stratosphere. Yep, several music streaming services now offer hi-res audio quality which pretty much every modern hi-fi streaming device can support, and yet the world’s most popular one, which spawned the best and easiest streaming method out there (Spotify Connect), is limited to what is essentially the lowest quality audio still around (320kbps).

Streaming components costing thousands – sometimes tens of thousands – around the world are undoubtedly having to do their damned best with low-quality streams as their Spotify-subscribing owners who have understandably always loved the service are, perhaps less understandably, not ready to give it up for the new superior-sounding competition that has recently arisen. (I sincerely hope this isn’t the demand of too many high-end streamers out there, but the numbers are probably higher than I want to imagine.) This is a bit like buying an 8K TV and only watching VHS tapes of Only Fools and Horses on it, or owning a Bugatti Veyron purely to do the school run. Spotify is, you may well have heard, very late in delivering on its Spotify Hi-Fi promise to up that catalogue and transmission standard to a much more respectable CD-quality level, but at the moment it remains one of two flies in the ointment when it comes to hi-fi and streaming’s relationship.

The second fly is AirPlay, by none other than Apple, although it’s certainly the less frustrating of the two – the fly circling the inside rim of the container rather than the one swimming around in the ointment. Like Spotify Connect, AirPlay is pretty much a must-have feature for streaming hi-fi components, but for a different reason. AirPlay support means that iPhone and iPad users can stream any music playing on their device to that streamer, whether it’s a file stored locally (on that device) or in the cloud (from a NAS drive) or rather a stream from Spotify or indeed Apple’s own Music service. Unlike Spotify Connect, AirPlay needs the origin device (the iPad or iPhone) in order to work, so the music won’t keep playing if you turn that off – but while an ‘Apple Connect’ solution would be preferable, in my opinion that quirk is not what is truly disappointing. What is again relates to audio quality limitations. They aren’t as severe as Spotify Connect’s, but they are arguably more bizarre.

Essentially, AirPlay is sometimes lossy (compressed) and sometimes lossless (not compressed), but even in the latter case that doesn’t extend beyond ‘CD-quality’. So there's no hi-res AirPlay transmission, despite Apple Music’s catalogue heralding hi-res streams.

Let me break it down real quick. You can use AirPlay to transmit Apple Music streams (or any other music) to AirPlay-compatible devices in lossless CD-quality (but not beyond that, to hi-res). That is only achievable by using either an AirPlay 1-based app and/or an AirPlay 1-based hi-fi component. When an AirPlay 2-based app (like Apple Music) streams to an AirPlay 2-based hi-fi component (which is most that have launched in recent years) via an AirPlay 2 device (recent iPhones, for eg), the audio is re-encoded and transmitted in a pretty lowly 256kbps. (This has all been usefully tested over at darko.audio.)

AirPlay’s finicky CD-quality transmission and plain lack of hi-res transmission is frustrating, and perhaps even more so if it is true that, as reported by Digital Trends, the AirPlay protocol is actually capable of hi-res (24-bit) passthrough.

Being able to play hi-res streams within native hi-res apps like Apple Music and Tidal is a great enabler of hi-res listening these days. And, Spotify Connect and AirPlay aside, other streaming methods like Tidal Connect and Chromecast are good where quality is concerned, too – they just aren’t used quite as universally considering the mass adoption of both Apple devices and Spotify. If Spotify and Apple can ever rise to meet the audio quality potential of their popular offerings, the relationship between hi-fi and streaming would be even more harmonious.

MORE:

Hi-res music streaming services compared: which should you subscribe to?

Tidal will reportedly make mass staff cuts (again) as it looks to operate 'like a startup'

There's a new music streaming service on the market – but you might not expect who created it

Becky Roberts

Becky is the managing editor of What Hi-Fi? and, since her recent move to Melbourne, also the editor of Australian Hi-Fi magazine. During her 10+ years in the hi-fi industry, she has reviewed all manner of audio gear, from budget amplifiers to high-end speakers, and particularly specialises in headphones and head-fi devices. In her spare time, Becky can often be found running, watching Liverpool FC and horror movies, and hunting for gluten-free cake.

  • fazalmajid
    Spotify is also immoral when even an A-list artist like Lily Allen makes more money selling feet pics on OnlyFans to about 1000 subscribers than to 8 million followers on Spotify.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/lily-allen-onlyfans-feet-spotify-b2635855.html
    Reply
  • manicm
    fazalmajid said:
    Spotify is also immoral when even an A-list artist like Lily Allen makes more money selling feet pics on OnlyFans to about 1000 subscribers than to 8 million followers on Spotify.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/lily-allen-onlyfans-feet-spotify-b2635855.html

    There's also streaming platform inconsistencies, and favouritism - read minor monopolies. It only recently came to my attention that Sonos does not do Tidal Connect! It does connect via the Sonos app though. But it's currently the only platform that does Apple Music 'connect' i.e. it connects directly to Apple's service bypassing Airplay.

    Everyone is pushing Atmos music - and for whatever reason Sonos will play Atmos in Prime and Apple Music, but not Tidal.

    So it's an all round mess on both hardware and the streaming services too. CD and vinyl will be around a longer while still.
    Reply
  • JR75
    As far as Apple, that is a lost cause. Apple has always had the attitude of "Our way or the highway, and if you don't like it, F-off." So I expect nothing from Apple. And Spotify still has the most users - who apparently don't care about hi-res audio. Spotify has been talking about hi-res streaming for a long time, but it is still no where to be seen. Like Apple, they have their market so they feel no pressure to do anything more. Spotify too is a lost cause. I use neither and never will. For now I am using Tidal although I am disappointed they are phasing out MQA.
    Reply
  • WhiteKnight2020
    What Hi-Fi? said:
    From where I’m standing, hi-fi and music streaming mostly live pretty harmoniously… save for one thing: two big companies are letting the side down.

    Hi-fi and music streaming live harmoniously, but two Big Tech brands hold the relationship back : Read more
    Well, airplay is, and always will be, both an irritatingly proprietary, 3rd rate solution and one for *the minority of users*, as, aside from the USA, *Android* is the predominant mobile OS. Not to mention that airplay is soundly outplayed by the latest Bluetooth codecs. Google's 'casting' is almost as shit, and deeply awkward to use.

    If only Roon were open source....
    Reply
  • Mrmason62
    How is this a surprise?
    If you want the best sound quality then rip your cds and vinyl. Don't use substandard streams.
    I use roon with my lumin network bridge with vinyl and cds upscaled to dsd256. They sound sublime
    Sadly, the majority today don't care about sound quality they want convenience. We live in the age where people think phones are hifi. They aren't.
    Why would people with high quality oled TV not want the best picture quality with 4k bluray. Because they don't care about such things.
    Streaming will always be inferior to the real thing.
    As if the majority of people actually care.
    Which is exactly how companies get away with it.
    Reply
  • Ian AV
    Don't mention Apple with a leading C to me. They did more damage to the demise of high quality sound than any other in history. It all started to go downhill with the introduction of the iPlod, (deliberate) and it's limitations, forcing the dumbing down of music quality.
    Keep buying CD's for digital music and rip to a NAS if you wish to stream. When out and about, I stream from home. Very satisfying.
    Reply
  • Mr.Butterfingers
    Ian AV said:
    Don't mention Apple with a leading C to me. They did more damage to the demise of high quality sound than any other in history. It all started to go downhill with the introduction of the iPlod, (deliberate) and it's limitations, forcing the dumbing down of music quality.
    Keep buying CD's for digital music and rip to a NAS if you wish to stream. When out and about, I stream from home. Very satisfying.
    I must have dreamed that era where everyone copied songs off the radio onto well worn cassettes and did high speed dubbing from used up tapes onto used up tapes to be copied onto other tapes. Only to be played onto whatever cheap radio, possibly stereo, or heard through the worst headphones, you know the ones, that weird foam that was scratchy and always fell off and held onto your head by super cheap spring steel. Playing at maybe 24kps. We all loved it, we were all fine with it, it was cool. The iPod with it's cheap way buds is far superior in every way. Even a $9.99 pair of skull candy is better than what we had.

    Sure, what we have now is better, what was available then was better. Only the people who care upgraded. No one would or should trade higher quality sound for the awesome memories the great music made. Low bit, 128, sounds perfectly fine for nearly everyone. It makes them happy, it makes them dance. Stop harshin the buzz man.
    Reply
  • Ian AV
    Mr.Butterfingers said:
    I must have dreamed that era where everyone copied songs off the radio onto well worn cassettes and did high speed dubbing from used up tapes onto used up tapes to be copied onto other tapes. Only to be played onto whatever cheap radio, possibly stereo, or heard through the worst headphones, you know the ones, that weird foam that was scratchy and always fell off and held onto your head by super cheap spring steel. Playing at maybe 24kps. We all loved it, we were all fine with it, it was cool. The iPod with it's cheap way buds is far superior in every way. Even a $9.99 pair of skull candy is better than what we had.

    Sure, what we have now is better, what was available then was better. Only the people who care upgraded. No one would or should trade higher quality sound for the awesome memories the great music made. Low bit, 128, sounds perfectly fine for nearly everyone. It makes them happy, it makes them dance. Stop harshin the buzz man.
    Thankfully I have no memories of that harshin buzz, the pure though makes my ears cringe with pain and horror. Working my way up from a mono radiogram recording the top 20 to cassette tape direct from the speaker terminals, to a low end Amstrad hifi system was a revolution.
    Reply
  • Mr.Butterfingers
    Ian AV said:
    Thankfully I have no memories of that harshin buzz, the pure though makes my ears cringe with pain and horror. Working my way up from a mono radiogram recording the top 20 to cassette tape direct from the speaker terminals, to a low end Amstrad hifi system was a revolution.
    Sounds boring. No mixed taped or CDs? No ghetto blasters cranking Bell Biv Devo?
    Reply
  • Jasonovich
    Mrmason62 said:
    How is this a surprise?
    If you want the best sound quality then rip your cds and vinyl. Don't use substandard streams.
    I use roon with my lumin network bridge with vinyl and cds upscaled to dsd256. They sound sublime
    Sadly, the majority today don't care about sound quality they want convenience. We live in the age where people think phones are hifi. They aren't.
    Why would people with high quality oled TV not want the best picture quality with 4k bluray. Because they don't care about such things.
    Streaming will always be inferior to the real thing.
    As if the majority of people actually care.
    Which is exactly how companies get away with it.
    I totally agree, I rip and purchase my music via download at the highest 1 bit DSD res possible, save it to local storage or NAS. Really happy with this arrangement.

    Somebody needs to grab Streaming industry by the horns but who? In the computer world, JEDEC defines memory dram standards, we need same kind of entity for music streaming. Will it ever happen? I'm not confident :)
    Reply