# Tidal vs Spotify



## krismusic

Is it logical that I reckon that I hear a difference in SQ between Spotify and Tidal? 
Spotify Premium claims to be 320 Kbps. 
I cannot appreciate the difference between 320 and lossless. 
It seems to me that it is possible that Spotify is streaming at a lower bitrate than they claim. 
Anyone else found the same?


----------



## sonitus mirus

I don't know anything about how Spotify obtains their Ogg Vorbis Q9 (320 kbps) and Q5 (160 kbps) files.  Maybe Spotify "cheated" with some of their high quality streaming songs by upconverting? If you can record a song and look at the wave form, it cold be that some tracks have been upconverted from 160 kbps to 320 kbps.  Any song with frequencies above ~17kHz would show an abrupt cutoff if the file was originally encoded at 160 kbps before being upconverted to 320 kbps.  
  
 It would be very difficult to objectively test the two streaming services in a fair method without any bias.  
  
 Edit: I wanted to mention that the possible cutoff frequency of a 160 kbps lossy file is not the only problem.  Many of us cannot hear anything close to 17kHz, but oftentimes transcoding from lossy to lossy can introduce artifacts at frequencies that could be heard by nearly anyone.


----------



## Shembot

I can easily hear the difference between Spotify Premium (320kbps) and Tidal. Spotify sounds more bloomy and less defined to me. This leads me to believe that they might be re-encoding an already compressed source, since 320 kbps MP3 should be indistinguishable from 16bit/44.1kHz.
  
 I can't, however, tell the difference between Tidal and Apple Music, which is as it should be -- 256 kbps AAC and 16bit/44.1kHz should also be sonically indistinguishable. I've heard that Apple Music encodes on the fly from lossless source files, but I'm not sure that Apple has explicitly said they do that. Either way, I find Apple Music and Tidal to both have audibly better quality than Spotify Premium.


----------



## castleofargh

apple makes sure to leave a little something to limit clipping on decoding, at least I remember reading something like that. maybe spotify doesn't and stuff real close to 0db signal end up clipped on your gear?
  
  
 would be cool to have sample recording of all sources, probably not enough to be sure of anything because of many variables, but might as suggested give us a hint about what's different, and make sure things are different in the process, with volume matching and away from the risk of the device messing up some decoding more than others.


----------



## sonitus mirus

castleofargh said:


> apple makes sure to leave a little something to limit clipping on decoding, at least I remember reading something like that. maybe spotify doesn't and stuff real close to 0db signal end up clipped on your gear?
> 
> 
> would be cool to have sample recording of all sources, probably not enough to be sure of anything because of many variables, but might as suggested give us a hint about what's different, and make sure things are different in the process, with volume matching and away from the risk of the device messing up some decoding more than others.


 
  
 Apple does a great job maintaining the highest quality audio with their AAC versions.
  
 http://www.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/
  
  I love the Google music service with their 30+ million streaming songs and the ability to upload up to 50,000 of my own songs that are seamlessly incorporated into the Google library shuffle system along with genre, artist, album, and song radios.  And while the Google Lame MP3 320 CBR files sound audibly transparent with the equivalent CD to my ears, I can see that the AAC format is technically superior to MP3, and I would prefer to use this format if I could find a streaming service that worked as well as Google's does for me.  
  
 Unfortunately, Google transcodes any uploaded AAC file to an equivalent bitrate MP3 file (up to 320 kbps).  I have the Beatles stereo box-set from iTunes and the CDs.  I allowed Google to upload the iTunes AAC 256 versions of the songs, and then I downloaded these converted songs back to my PC.  I was able to successfully pass an ABX between one of these Google converted MP3 256 files and the CD-ripped FLAC version 12/15 and 13/15 times in 2 consecutive tests with the song "In My Life" from _Rubber Soul_, focusing on Ringo's bell strikes on the ride cymbal.  I deleted all of the Beatles iTunes tracks from Google and ripped Lame vbr -0 MP3 files from my CDs.  These were left untouched by Google when I uploaded them, and I cannot hear a difference with these versions in an ABX test.


----------



## krismusic

It would be very interesting if someone were able to ascertain exactly what Spotify outputs. 
Tidal HiFi is audibly superior to me but I don't like its UI. Maybe that's just me being dense.


----------



## frodeni

krismusic said:


> Is it logical that I reckon that I hear a difference in SQ between Spotify and Tidal?
> ...


 
  
 On the right gear, the difference is clearly audible. So if you usually hear differences between gear, you should hear this one as well. If you know what to listen for, that is.
  
 As for PC, Spotify do not support ASIO, while Tidal does. If you go Tidal Hi-Fi on top of that, you do not need much gear to hear the difference.
  
 Or put in a broader perspective: The difference is just as great as changing from mid range gear, to higher end gear. The difference is greater than going from a low end cable to the highest end cable. In short, if you do not hear this difference, hi-fi is not for you.
  
 Typically, the church of denial, is all over people hearing the difference. But the difference is documented quite well.
  
 Also, the Spotify lossy compression, loses parts of the music that is less characteristic for voices and instruments. A perceived increased in clarity and separation, is a common experience, going from lossless to lossy. Mp3 is designed to do just that, and OggVorbis obviously has much the same effect.  This effect is not that easy to pinpoint on lower end gear, and easy to get wrong.
  
 For the fruity gear, I simply do not know. I am all about candy and Android. The difference is like night and day, with the Note3 and the MM400. The headset did cost me about the same as the mobile phone. I did try plenty of headsets for that mobile phone, but only the MM400 exposed Spotify for real.
  
 I would also like to point out the obvious: Spotify is ten times greater as to point you to potential new music to listen to. For ordinary people, with ordinary gear, I would point them to Spotify for that reason alone. Compared to Spotify, the Tidal App is lacking on all fronts but SQ. I actually used Spotify to find new music, then added that to my Tidal playlist, just prior to writing this.


----------



## sonitus mirus

frodeni said:


> On the right gear, the difference is clearly audible. So if you usually hear differences between gear, you should hear this one as well. If you know what to listen for, that is.
> 
> As for PC, Spotify do not support ASIO, while Tidal does. If you go Tidal Hi-Fi on top of that, you do not need much gear to hear the difference.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I don't want to come across as being contentious, but can you provide any documentation that demonstrates that anyone is hearing a difference?


----------



## sonitus mirus

krismusic said:


> It would be very interesting if someone were able to ascertain exactly what Spotify outputs.
> Tidal HiFi is audibly superior to me but I don't like its UI. Maybe that's just me being dense.


 
  
 You could record the 2 streams using Audacity and save these as FLAC files to ABX with Foobar2000.  Simple editing to make sure the start and end times are identical would be necessary, but the ABX plugin will be able to volume match the files.  Also, in Audacity you could check to see if the Spotify files are just Q5 (160 kbps) files that have been reencoded to Q9 (320 kbps) by looking at the frequency response graph.


----------



## frodeni

sonitus mirus said:


> I don't want to come across as being contentious, but can you provide any documentation that demonstrates that anyone is hearing a difference?


 
  
 That did not take long.
  
 Well, you see, lossy compression, well, no nice way of putting this, it is lossy you know? Like by definition? I simply hear some that is documented to exist. Is that so hard to believe?


----------



## sonitus mirus

frodeni said:


> That did not take long.
> 
> Well, you see, lossy compression, well, no nice way of putting this, it is lossy you know? Like by definition? I simply hear some that is documented to exist. Is that so hard to believe?


 
  
 Maybe, but night and day?  And what of your claims about differences with mid-range and high-end gear?  How do you define the two?   How are these audible differences measured?  Same goes with your claims about different cables.   Your recent posts seem to be nonsensical to me.   I will simply bow out and ignore your comments going forward, as I have no confidence that any further dialogue will be beneficial to either of us.


----------



## frodeni

sonitus mirus said:


> Maybe, but night and day?  And what of your claims about differences with mid-range and high-end gear?  How do you define the two?   How are these audible differences measured?  Same goes with your claims about different cables.   Your recent posts seem to be nonsensical to me.   I will simply bow out and ignore your comments going forward, as I have no confidence that any further dialogue will be beneficial to either of us.


 
  
 Well, I will try hard to respect your opinion. And to listen to your reasoning. If you only could serve me a single point I was not aware of already.
  
 And no, there is no point in great cables for Spotify, but for Tidal there sure is.
  
 Peace,
  
 Frode


----------



## castleofargh

frodeni said:


> krismusic said:
> 
> 
> > Is it logical that I reckon that I hear a difference in SQ between Spotify and Tidal?
> ...


 

 what the hell is that post supposed to mean?


----------



## frodeni

castleofargh said:


> what the hell is that post supposed to mean?


 
 Likewise, what do you mean by yours? Probably just a few statements that are unfamiliar to you in my post. Given your response, I am not that surprised such statements are not typically shared in here. Give it some thought, and rephrase your question.


----------



## Walderstorn

I'll copy/paste my opinion (and girlfriend) about tidal premium vs spotify premium, maybe it can help:
  


> This is very weird but i listened to these songs:
> 
> 1)Sia: Chandelier
> 2)Scorpions: Still loving you
> ...


 
  
  
  


> I wouldnt be surprised, i never tried to compare the same quality between spotify and tidal, but tbh i just dont feel like the difference is big enough for most of us, so im just going with the free spotify free i have, if i didnt have it i would prefer to pay 14 to tidal than 10 to spotify, thats for sure.


 
  
  
 There.


----------



## frodeni

walderstorn said:


> I'll copy/paste my opinion (and girlfriend) about tidal premium vs spotify premium, maybe it can help:
> ....
> There.


 
  
 Thanks for sharing. It pretty much seems to fall in line with what I would expect.
  
 If listening listening in particular for room accustics and the reproduction of lesser pronounced instruments, the difference is typically more pronounced. Bright perk on Spotify, like cymbals, might also sound completely off, as they often loose a lot of articulation. For some reason, this is often more easily revealed on cheaper gear.
  
 Also, adding EQ effects to the sound, often reveals defects. I do not use any EQ, but it is a known trait.


----------



## Walderstorn

Yeap the difference is there, its noticeable even for a lightly trained ear like mine, even my girl that uses cheap iems and sources noticed, so thats telling a lot.
  
 Btw the gear i used was a Musical Fidelity v90 dac and Gustard H10, so no mid-high or top-end gear, but also not cheap either.


----------



## castleofargh

frodeni said:


> Also, adding EQ effects to the sound, often reveals defects. I do not use any EQ, but it is a known trait.


 
  
 as it's sound science, it would be cool if you could substantiate your claims with more than "it's a known trait". even more so when you make such a caricature statement about something you don't even use.


----------



## frodeni

castleofargh said:


> as it's sound science, it would be cool if you could substantiate your claims with more than "it's a known trait". even more so when you make such a caricature statement about something you don't even use.


 
  
 This is what I have been told, as experienced by others. And it makes utterly sense. Compression adds compression artifacts, and you loose detail. Those artifacts will be enhanched by any further work on the sound, and any alteration will result in further loss of details. Things quickly gets more noticeable.
  
 This is well known from any signal processing, like photography and film industry. You will be taught this, if you study multimedia.
  
 I feel no strong urge to prove this point, as it is an established and well proven fact. If you want to learn on signal processing, there are classes for that. This is what you will learn taking them. It simply is not my field of study anymore.
  
 So. How about you answering me for once? Like the this strange posts of yours previously in this thread. Accountabililty goes both ways you know. It is not like you can go on an on ridiculing anyone for all their claims you disapprove, demanding proof. Then flat out denying to stand by your own claims. I have asked you to rephrase your question, and expect you to do so. Otherwise, you come of flat out insulting you know.


----------



## cjl

frodeni said:


> This is what I have been told, as experienced by others. And it makes utterly sense. Compression adds compression artifacts, and you loose detail. Those artifacts will be enhanched by any further work on the sound, and any alteration will result in further loss of details. Things quickly gets more noticeable.
> 
> This is well known from any signal processing, like photography and film industry. You will be taught this, if you study multimedia.
> 
> ...


 
 The thing is, the compression artifacts are 50-60+dB down from the main signal on 320 LAME or 256 AAC, and that's at a level where it would not be expected to be audible. You can't just say "Artifacts exist, therefore they are audible". To support your claim, you both need to show that artifacts exist (which I don't think anyone here will argue with you on), and that they are audible (which is the part you haven't even tried to show).


----------



## castleofargh

frodeni said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > as it's sound science, it would be cool if you could substantiate your claims with more than "it's a known trait". even more so when you make such a caricature statement about something you don't even use.
> ...


 
  
 about the last post, distortions from whatever processing can have very different impacts, I agree with the destructive nature of it for data but certainly not with the audibility of it. and when it becomes audible at some point, then I disagree that it has to sound like an artifact. it will sound different, but if it was so easy to say when something has superior signal fidelity by ear, nobody wouldn't prefer some rolled off distorted tube amp to a clean SS amp, nobody would keep saying that vinyl sounds more like the real thing...
 depending on the order of distortion resulting from processing, it could sound harsh and feel like it's an artifact, but it could just as well sound nicer, more textured, or more detailed from the added sound that wasn't in the original.
 and of course because using an EQ will boost or mask particular frequencies, using an EQ can reveal just as much as it can hide. it's only a matter of how it's used.
   to me you just jump to conclusion.  deciding that all manipulation done to the signal has to be bad, and to sound audible as bad.
  
 even if you're trying to amalgam all distortions and digital processing into one, you're still off topic, because Kris was clear in his first post that the sound difference he perceives, isn't simply the file being in mp3 320. that he, like myself, fails to hear as different from lossless.
  
 so the real question of the topic was to know if they were actually using lower mp3 compression that can indeed be more noticeable, or if spotify (or tidal) was doing something to the sound? that's why I didn't see what your first post was all about. most of it was unsubstantiated claims used as an argument to reinforce your previous unsubstantiated claims while going off topic. it looked more like you had to let out some frustration about different topics and picked here randomly to vent it all out.
  
  
 edit: nobody wouldn't ^_^


----------



## frodeni

castleofargh said:


> ... Kris was clear in his first post that the sound difference he perceives, isn't simply the file being in mp3 320. that he, like myself, fails to hear as different from lossless. ...


 
  
 That explains a lot.
  
  


castleofargh said:


> ...and when it becomes audible at some point, then I disagree that it has to sound like an artifact. it will sound different,  ...


 
  
 That explains even more. Have you ever studied science? How could you, not even knowing what an artifact is?


----------



## castleofargh

you post something almost entirely off topic and don't notice it or understand why I find your post super weird.
  
 after another of your free statement posts,I ask you to explain and try to demonstrate your claims, because you made a lot in just 2 posts and this is the sound science section of the forum. instead of trying, you answer by asking me to explain myself.
  
 so I play and explain how I disagree with your claim about EQ and audibility of 320mp3, with what I hope to be good easy examples of when some people actually prefer the lesser sound. you don't care to explain anything, don't care to agree or argue about anything I wrote, or what cjl said. instead now you want my CV.
  
 I'm starting to see a very annoying pattern, so instead let's go back to the original topic. why does spotify sound worst than 320mp3 to Kris?
  
  
  
  
  
  
 ps: of course I know what an artifact is, I watched all seasons of stargate SG1 when I was younger!


----------



## krismusic

I do think, in general, analogies with other media or cars are not particularly useful. 
You end up comparing apples and oranges. 
I have used EQ to ameliorate problems with headphones with very good results. 
I would certainly far rather listen to a flawed product with EQ rather than without. 
Happily with my current headphones I do not need to use EQ. 
I've been very happy listening to Spotify but having heard Tidal realise that I am missing out on SQ. 
Unfortunately I find the UI of Tidal cumbersome and for that reason alone will probably end up not using it.


----------



## pervysage

krismusic said:


> I do think, in general, analogies with other media or cars are not particularly useful.
> You end up comparing apples and oranges.
> I have used EQ to ameliorate problems with headphones with very good results.
> I would certainly far rather listen to a flawed product with EQ rather than without.
> ...




I have the exact same feelings about the Tidal/Spotify SQ difference. Actually quite shocked at how many people are saying they don't hear a difference. To me the difference is very clear with Tidal coming out on top.. And yet I don't have a Tidal subscription, heh. One reason being that just like you I find the UI of Tidal a pain to use. Spotify is much easier to use and find what I am looking for. Tidal is also overpriced IMO. 

But yeah, Tidal most certainly sounds better than Spotify, much as I would love to deny it


----------



## sonitus mirus

pervysage said:


> I have the exact same feelings about the Tidal/Spotify SQ difference. Actually quite shocked at how many people are saying they don't hear a difference. To me the difference is very clear with Tidal coming out on top.. And yet I don't have a Tidal subscription, heh. One reason being that just like you I find the UI of Tidal a pain to use. Spotify is much easier to use and find what I am looking for. Tidal is also overpriced IMO.
> 
> But yeah, Tidal most certainly sounds better than Spotify, much as I would love to deny it


 
  
 Nobody seems to be claiming that no difference can be heard, but we simply don't know, as I have not seen anyone show any evidence that an attempt to remove bias was done.  Normally, I am unable to hear a difference with the Ogg Vorbis Q9 file type that Spotify claims to use with their high quality service and a FLAC file that Tidal claims to be using with their high quality service.  I have no way to directly test Spotify vs Tidal in a manner where the two streaming files can be properly volume matched and tested with an ABX tool.  The type of differences claimed to be heard are similar to how many people, including myself, seem to describe audible differences without a properly controlled test that removes bias.


----------



## pervysage

sonitus mirus said:


> pervysage said:
> 
> 
> > I have the exact same feelings about the Tidal/Spotify SQ difference. Actually quite shocked at how many people are saying they don't hear a difference. To me the difference is very clear with Tidal coming out on top.. And yet I don't have a Tidal subscription, heh. One reason being that just like you I find the UI of Tidal a pain to use. Spotify is much easier to use and find what I am looking for. Tidal is also overpriced IMO.
> ...




Oh okay, I get where you're coming from. When I first heard Tidal, I thought it was just a volume difference that was making Tidal sound better (I had to turn up volume quite a bit when listening to Spotify in order to match what Tidal was putting out). Still, I felt that Tidal was more clear sounding and detailed.


----------



## frodeni

castleofargh said:


> ...why does spotify sound worst than 320mp3 to Kris? ...


 
  
 That is impossible by science. Kris has only offered statements like "better" and "no difference". He has not describe his methodology, nor what the accuracy of this test is. As for "better", no description is given, nothing quantifieable at all. No nothing. Nothing we can repeat, and compare notes with.
  
 My subjective qualitative data, contradict him. There is just nothing to analyse.
  
 You see, you are not a scientists in here. You do not speak the language of science. Not even close. It is just utterly clear by now, that a you do not know what the language of science is. Stop making nonsense claims. This is not a board of scientific discussion, in at scientific manner. Not even close.
   
 Quote:


castleofargh said:


> ...ps: of course I know what an artifact is, I watched all seasons of stargate SG1 when I was younger!


 
  
 Well, making that mistake, getting caught for it, and replying like this in a scientific setting, is simply unheard of. The mistake is bloody obvious. The answer exposes you like nuts.
  
 We cannot go on this way, as if I treat you like you ask me to, as a scientist, I will just end up ridiculing you like nuts, and you will simply not get it. But others will. So you will have to excuse me, as to ignoring you a bit from here on, as I simply cannot go on like this.
  
  


pervysage said:


> ... But yeah, Tidal most certainly sounds better than Spotify, much as I would love to deny it


 
  
 That makes two of us.
  


sonitus mirus said:


> Nobody seems to be claiming that no difference can be heard, but we simply don't know, as I have not seen anyone show any evidence that an attempt to remove bias was done.  Normally, I am unable to hear a difference with the Ogg Vorbis Q9 file type that Spotify claims to use with their high quality service and a FLAC file that Tidal claims to be using with their high quality service.  I have no way to directly test Spotify vs Tidal in a manner where the two streaming files can be properly volume matched and tested with an ABX tool.  The type of differences claimed to be heard are similar to how many people, including myself, seem to describe audible differences without a properly controlled test that removes bias.


 
  
 Yeah. Now, this ABX argument is not even closely understood. Seems like hardly anyone gets it in this forum.
  
 First of all, the test subject needs to be able to positively differentiate specific sonic traits. Bias or not. Only then, is there any point in running any ABX. If not, how do you know that your test subject is able to differentiate anything? That is like testing for inaccuracy with no accuracy. Wonder what the outcome will be? Pointless.
  
 In particular funny it is, that people get the information that one sample is Mp3 and the other one is lossless. Now how can anyone in their right mind, claim that such a test would be rid of any bias? What if you do not believe in any difference? Then what?
  
 Then there is the typical bashing before tests:"There is no difference, now, just take the test. Just remember, there is no difference, no one hears any difference, and those who claim to, are crazy. You are not crazy are you? Now, take the test." or "if there is no difference at all, it will be really small". Hopefully, people are smart enough to see the huge blunder in this.
  
 Bias is not the problem, but the ability to accurately differentiate sonic traits. I am able in one case to hear environmental sounds, and in the other there are no such sounds. Bias makes no sense in my case. Unless you are paranoid beyond belief, which still changes nothing as to my ability to differentiate the sounds on distinct sonic traits.
  
 With accuracy, the ABX outcome is a given. And, again, pointless.
  
 Also, all this talk about volume in the forums, makes no sense to me. Most sonic traits remain the same, regardless of even major volume changes. If an ABX test is sensitive to volume, something is seriously wrong. In that case, there is a huge gaping hole in the methodology.


----------



## castleofargh

wow. I wouldn't have dreamed of somebody taking my PS: at face value. \o/ made my day.


----------



## RRod

frodeni said:


> Yeah. Now, this ABX argument is not even closely understood. Seems like hardly anyone gets it in this forum.
> 
> First of all, the test subject needs to be able to positively differentiate specific sonic traits. Bias or not. Only then, is there any point in running any ABX. If not, how do you know that your test subject is able to differentiate anything? That is like testing for inaccuracy with no accuracy. Wonder what the outcome will be? Pointless.
> 
> ...


 
  
 The "people can fail if they want" argument. Of course they can. The point is to make sure that a positive is not a false positive, hence why one should choose a p-value that they can live with if someone should pass the ABX. Increasing p while keeping trials constant will necessarily increase the false negative rate. Since the max number of trials one can do without fatigue isn't huge, the experimenter must really decide what he is trying to test before selecting ABX as the methodology. But the claim "I can easily hear a difference between A and B" should be prime fare for the protocol.
  
 The ABX outcome is not a given; anyone who's tried to gradually decrease sample specs until they could pass the test would know this isn't true. And volume matching is essential, as it is ridiculously easy to ABX two files made from the same base file, the only difference being 1dB of gain. It's not that ABX is sensitive to volume, it's that *we* are.
  
 The main problem I have with ABX is that the statistical setup assumes a coin-flip situation, but that's rarely how it seems to work out. What seems to happen is that either the listener latches on to a difference and then scores well into significance, or the fail miserably. But this is becoming its own thread now.


----------



## krismusic

sonitus mirus said:


> Nobody seems to be claiming that no difference can be heard, but we simply don't know, as I have not seen anyone show any evidence that an attempt to remove bias was done.  Normally, I am unable to hear a difference with the Ogg Vorbis Q9 file type that Spotify claims to use with their high quality service and a FLAC file that Tidal claims to be using with their high quality service.  I have no way to directly test Spotify vs Tidal in a manner where the two streaming files can be properly volume matched and tested with an ABX tool.  The type of differences claimed to be heard are similar to how many people, including myself, seem to describe audible differences without a properly controlled test that removes bias.



An excellent point IMHO. It's largely why I asked the question. 
I sometimes think that everything I think I know about audio is placebo!
The differences I hear are more weight and impact I the bass and more air and sparkle in the highs. 
As you say classic bias perceptions. 
So I figured Sound Science was the place to get some straight answers.


----------



## RRod

If you can verify that the two services use the same master for a song, then you can pipe the output from your sound card from each service then compare using various methods. I dunno how to do this on Windows; on Linux you can either define a file pipe or capture output from a PCM monitor stream.


----------



## Cathcart

I personally prefer Spotify because it's cheaper here in the Philippines: only around $2 monthly. Can't say anything about quality against Tidal, because I haven't tried Tidal extensively, but Spotify's 320kbps is alright for my daily use. I honestly can't make out any huge differences between FLAC/ALAC and 320kbps unless I try really hard, so that's that for me.


----------



## krismusic

Hmmm. My hunch is that Spotify are not giving a true 320 kbps. 
Im not tech savvy enough to test. It would be great if someone who is could have a look.


----------



## frodeni

krismusic said:


> Hmmm. My hunch is that Spotify are not giving a true 320 kbps.
> Im not tech savvy enough to test. It would be great if someone who is could have a look.


 
  
 What is exactly missing? Do you have a tune, and may you please explain what we may listen for in that tune, that will give us a hint as to what you speak of?
  
 I used Spotify, as usual, yesterday to fine new tunes. I came across "Rain From Heaven" by Eric Paslay. I actually played that beauty close to 20 times, both on Spotty and Tidal. For every single instrument there is differences. I used both on max SQ.
  
 The guitar at the begging loose a lot of its higher pitched overtones, the string one to the right. Also, the base play for that guitar is almost lost for Spotty, rather, I needed to listen very carefully as to if it was there at all. It is, just not how it should be. That guitar rendering is wrong and out of tune. Much of the guitar rendering is simply not there with Spotify.
  
 As usual, the finer after effects, like echo, or subtle effects as to the imaging width, applies to all instruments. There is a electric guitar used for this, on the far left, and a piano sound. On Spoty, the rendering is lacking in articulation, there is more black silence surrounding these. The imaging is more pinpoint.
  
 There is also a clear lack of attack. Accross the entire frequency range. It is clearly heard on the cymbals and the guitar. Tidal reproduction is harsher for instruments that needs it.
  
 Tonality is different. Due to lack of finer details and the lack of articulation, different instruments gets focus through the tune. The subtle lack of environmental effects, results in more silence between the instruments and vocals. Also, the lack of attack, alters the perception of beat, and what makes the beat.
  
 I could go on like this for quite some time. In the end, a pattern of less articulation, seems to describe the difference the best. It seems to be the root for the differences. And no, volume has nothing to do with it, simply because the relation and emphasis between instruments and voices is changed. The tonality is off. Adjusting the volume for the main voice, make other parts in the rendering off by volume.
  
 And how do I volume adjust base or the drums, when it by Spotify lacks articulation and thus sound differently?
  
 The listening was done using my PC as a source. Listening on the Oppo HA-1, connected by AQ Coffee USB, Heimdal2, and HD800. This of course should make people jump at me, but I choose to leave it as it is, as this is about the perceived difference, not if there is one, because that is a given. (hint:ASIO and Windows)
  
 So, it would be nice to get a sample tune, and a description of what the difference is.
  
 I can listen to the same tune, replicating your settings, and then compare notes.  
  
 Also, Spotify might simply add an enhancement filter to their output. Just comparing output, is simply not proof of much. The encoding algorithm might also differ, and the source of the transcoding. If there is a difference, it needs to be understood, to make any meaningful claim. Objective data has the annoying trait, that it needs to be given meaning, to have one.


----------



## krismusic

frodeni said:


> What is exactly missing? Do you have a tune, and may you please explain what we may listen for in that tune, that will give us a hint as to what you speak of?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi frodeni, thank you very much for your detailed post. 
I'm busy with work but ASAP will get some ear time and try to make the evaluations you ask for. 
A track I am using is Saving Grace on the album Highway Companion by Tom Petty. 
Highly recommended if you like high quality rock music. 
I'll post back as soon as I can. Kris


----------



## frodeni

Great! 
  
 Also, thanks for the tune tip! I liked that one.
  
 Spotify on high, Tidal on AAC 320, and Tidal on FLAC 1411 all sound different to me, on my setup. Tidal also support direct output to my Oppo HA-1 by ASIO, which further improves the result. This tune is also so great, that I will be happy listening to it over and over, which really helps doing this kind of analytic work.
  
 Tell me what to listen for, and I will try to report back as accurately as I can.


----------



## krismusic

frodeni said:


> Great!
> 
> Also, thanks for the tune tip! I liked that one.
> 
> ...


 

 Hi Frode, Well. Work slowed down and I have been able to have a listen over a period of a few days. It has been interesting listening over a period of time. Initially switching from Spotify to Tidal HiFi seemed like a huge leap in SQ. Over time I came to the conclusion that a lot of that is placebo. As Sonitus Mirus pointed out, being told that you are listening to a superior format introduces a major bias. It is also annoying that Tidal is slightly louder than Spotify. It makes sense to me that volume matching is important as playing music louder automatically sounds more dynamic.
 I would say that the real difference is actually quite subtle but worthwhile. If I had never heard Tidal I think that I would have continued to enjoy Spotify. However, there is no turning back!
 To be specific and referring to Saving Grace. At the begining Tom Petty's vocals sound more forward. the handclaps ( I always find handclaps a good tell) sound more realistic. When the band kicks in at around 1.05 there is more separation betyween instruments. Spotify sounds more congested.
 I also found a Joe Bonamassa track, Different Shades of Blue on the album of the same name, useful. Specifically cymbal sounds.
 On A Fiona Apple track, Daredevil, from her album The Idler Wheel... it sounded as if Fiona was singing inside my head!
 However. Just as I was convinced, I came across the Tdal Test, between 320 and HiFi. I didn't do great on that!
 I am 59 and have moderate Tinnitus. It is an irony that when I can afford nice gear, my ears are too shot to appreciate it properly.
 I took the Phillips Golden Ears Challenge, that's very interesting if you have not come across it, I did terribly with that! I think they need a new category. Tin perhaps?!
 So it seems that I do not have audiophile quality hearing.
 I do however love my K10 CIEM's and having spent a considerable amount to own them it does seem mean not to feed them the best possible signal. Even though logically I would probably be fine with the lower tier Tidal.
 I also applaud Tidal's aim of making the business model work for musicians. Kudos to Spotify for taking streaming out of the hands of pirates but they really need to do better in that regard.
 For those totally emotional reasons plus the improvements in sound that I can appreciate I shall keep my Tidal subscription. I will keep Spotify Premium as well for a time. I have a huge library of music on there.
 I hope some of that is of interest. I could have put it in a PM but I thought I would reply here in part to reassure anyone who is on a limited budget that they are not missing out on eargasms by sticking with a 320kbps service. Just subtle incremental improvement.


----------



## sonitus mirus

krismusic said:


> However. Just as I was convinced, I came across the Tdal Test, between 320 and HiFi. I didn't do great on that!


 
  
 The interesting thing about this is that there actually is a difference that apparently is created using the Fraunhofer FDK AAC encoder, as similar results were found when converting other FLAC files to AAC with this encoder.  The Apple iTunes AAC encoder does not have the same issue with the files that I tested.
  
 Here is the listening test I performed between the Tidal FLAC and AAC versions.  At the time, I thought the differences were completely intentional by Tidal, as it was simply too much of a coincidence that the exact same differences were being coached for the test subject to listen for in the instructions.  That probably is just a coincidence, and I no longer believe it was intentional, but the differences do exist where none should when using the same encoder that Apple uses for their AAC files.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/770352/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality#post_11662420
  
 I cannot hear any difference performing a similar test with either a purchased or created iTunes AAC 256 file (using the iTunes encoder) and Tidal FLAC, nor can I hear any differences with a Google Music 320 kbps MP3 and the Tidal FLAC.  Only the Tidal AAC is different from all of the others, and I can reproduce these differences using dBPoweramp with the available downloadable AAC codec plugin (FDK).   I do not know if this is typical for the entire Tidal library or only with these 3 test files.


----------



## krismusic

sonitus mirus said:


> I thought the differences were completely intentional by Tidal, as it was simply too much of a coincidence that the exact same differences were being coached for the test subject to listen for in the instructions.  That probably is just a coincidence, and I no longer believe it was intentional, but the differences do exist where none should when using the same encoder that Apple uses for their AAC



I guess it would not be surprising if the Tidal test was tweaked. 
Sadly I think Spotify are not being entirely truthful about the quality of Premium.


----------



## ExistentialEAR

Don't mean to be off topic this was converted via itunes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekpRdH9PrZI&feature=youtu.be


----------



## frodeni

krismusic said:


> Hi Frode, Well. Work slowed down and I have been able to have a listen over a period of a few days. It has been interesting listening over a period of time. Initially switching from Spotify to Tidal HiFi seemed like a huge leap in SQ. Over time I came to the conclusion that a lot of that is placebo. As Sonitus Mirus pointed out, being told that you are listening to a superior format introduces a major bias. It is also annoying that Tidal is slightly louder than Spotify. It makes sense to me that volume matching is important as playing music louder automatically sounds more dynamic.
> I would say that the real difference is actually quite subtle but worthwhile. If I had never heard Tidal I think that I would have continued to enjoy Spotify. However, there is no turning back!
> To be specific and referring to Saving Grace. At the begining Tom Petty's vocals sound more forward. the handclaps ( I always find handclaps a good tell) sound more realistic. When the band kicks in at around 1.05 there is more separation betyween instruments. Spotify sounds more congested.
> I also found a Joe Bonamassa track, Different Shades of Blue on the album of the same name, useful. Specifically cymbal sounds.
> ...


 
  
 Thanks Kris.
  
 I find it more a question of what makes people enjoy the music, and for most, these sonic differences play a lesser role in that.
  
 As for the changes you still hear, even at your age, they are all there. They will just manifest differently depending on a lot of factors, and for some gear, I simply do not hear them at all.
  
 As for the Tidal online test, I cannot tell the web samples apart, but they sure do not sound like Tidal playback on my PC. Some instruments are not even rendered at all, on this web test. So if you did not hear any difference Kris, good on you. That web test difference is pointless.
  
 I will be a bit busy going forward, so please send me a PM, if anyone want a response from me on this topic. It may take a while for me to reply.


----------



## dcmtr

The problem with Spotify's sound quality is largely down to the app, not the source files.
  
 You can avoid this problem by using Fidelify instead, a third party Windows interface for Spotify (which only works with Spotify Premium accounts). It makes the sound quality very noticeably better, although the interface is quite clunky and only for Windows.
  
 Fidelify also confirms the bitrate of the tune you are playing.


----------



## krismusic

dcmtr said:


> The problem with Spotify's sound quality is largely down to the app, not the source files.
> 
> You can avoid this problem by using Fidelify instead, a third party Windows interface for Spotify (which only works with Spotify Premium accounts). It makes the sound quality very noticeably better, although the interface is quite clunky and only for Windows.
> 
> Fidelify also confirms the bitrate of the tune you are playing.



A shame it doesn't work on a phone.


----------



## reginalb

dcmtr said:


> The problem with Spotify's sound quality is largely down to the app, not the source files.
> 
> You can avoid this problem by using Fidelify instead, a third party Windows interface for Spotify (which only works with Spotify Premium accounts). It makes the sound quality very noticeably better, although the interface is quite clunky and only for Windows.
> 
> Fidelify also confirms the bitrate of the tune you are playing.


 
  
 This is the thing with streaming services: There are SO many more variables introduced that it's no longer a 320k MP3 vs FLAC question. I decided to give Tidal a try in my HT system against Google Play Music All Access (I'm subscribed to All Access at the trial $7.99/month rate, and I like the UI a lot more than Spotify). I feel like there might be some difference, maybe. But definitely not $144/year difference. And the lack of Google casting support from Tidal seals the deal. I don't want to have to use Airplay to stream it, since Android is my mobile OS of choice.


----------



## krismusic

I'm beginning to think that the small differences between the services do not really affect enjoyable listening.


----------



## reginalb

krismusic said:


> I'm beginning to think that the small differences between the services do not really affect enjoyable listening.


 
  
 Of course they don't. I decided to test drive Tidal because of the concept and the fact that "Hey, you get a free month, why not?" But don't let it hamper the actual listening to the music. That's what matters more than anything.


----------



## krismusic

reginalb said:


> Of course they don't. I decided to test drive Tidal because of the concept and the fact that "Hey, you get a free month, why not?" But don't let it hamper the actual listening to the music. That's what matters more than anything.



Actually, I retract my suggestion that the difference between Tidal and Spotify is irrelevant to listening enjoyment. 
Much as I would like it to be the case! 
Tidal is patently better with more depth and detail.


----------



## disastermouse

pervysage said:


> I have the exact same feelings about the Tidal/Spotify SQ difference. Actually quite shocked at how many people are saying they don't hear a difference. To me the difference is very clear with Tidal coming out on top.. And yet I don't have a Tidal subscription, heh. One reason being that just like you I find the UI of Tidal a pain to use. Spotify is much easier to use and find what I am looking for. Tidal is also overpriced IMO.
> 
> But yeah, Tidal most certainly sounds better than Spotify, much as I would love to deny it


 

 The sound quality is revelatory for me. Just...my jaw is on the floor. I don't know if there's voodoo or animal sacrifice involved, but I feel like I got a better DAC or something. It's a bummer, too, because there's some stuff I listen to on Spotify that isn't on Tidal - but most of it is there and it's just making my brain so happy.


----------



## krismusic

disastermouse said:


> The sound quality is revelatory for me. Just...my jaw is on the floor. I don't know if there's voodoo or animal sacrifice involved, but I feel like I got a better DAC or something. It's a bummer, too, because there's some stuff I listen to on Spotify that isn't on Tidal - but most of it is there and it's just making my brain so happy.



I hesitate to post this as I would not want to deny you a happy brain. A fine thing to have! 
In the interest of truth however. 
I was as excited as you when I first tried Tidal. 
It was only after a couple of days switching between the two that I started to get what I think is a realistic view. 
I have proved to myself in the past that I cannot hear the difference between 320kpbs and lossless. 
This made me suspicious of the phenomenonal difference I was hearing between Spotify, which I had been using happily for many years, and Tidal. 
I now think that there must be something else going on with Tidal. Maybe the codec?
Tidal plays louder than Spotify which makes comparing the two difficult. 
I came to the conclusion that there is a difference between the two services. It is small but significant. 
I also like the artist remuneration policy and am happy to pay my subscription.
Sadly any vast improvement comes down to my old friend placebo. IMHO. 
Don't give up your happy brain though. Whatever service we use it is a miracle of our time to have a world of wonderful music in our pockets. Even though Tidal is more expensive, it is still worth every penny.
I am also not at all sure that I can tell the difference between the two qualities of Tidal...


----------



## SmokeyThePanda

Hi. Little late here. Don't feel like reading all the posts. I have a PS4,and I use Spotify pretty much all day and I was wondering if I should upgrade to Premium or if there's any difference between the sound quality. I find the normal SQ to be OK,but just okay. It's listenable but not ideal for me


----------



## AladdinSane

smokeythepanda said:


> Hi. Little late here. Don't feel like reading all the posts. I have a PS4,and I use Spotify pretty much all day and I was wondering if I should upgrade to Premium or if there's any difference between the sound quality. I find the normal SQ to be OK,but just okay. It's listenable but not ideal for me


 
 Seriously can't read four pages of posts?


----------



## SmokeyThePanda

aladdinsane said:


> Seriously can't read four pages of posts?



Not with that attitude


----------



## castleofargh

now now. let's be lazy an cool about it.


----------



## krismusic

aladdinsane said:


> Seriously can't read four pages of posts?



I thought the same




castleofargh said:


> now now. let's be lazy an cool about it.



But yeah. If you care about SQ and can afford it.Yes. You should upgrade to Premium.


----------



## disastermouse

Personally, I can't see going back to Spotify after using Tidal for the last couple weeks.


----------



## krismusic

disastermouse said:


> Personally, I can't see going back to Spotify after using Tidal for the last couple weeks.



+1. Twice the price though (for lossless) Premium is a good step up on Spotify free streaming.


----------



## SmokeyThePanda

Would you say Apple Music is worth the upgrade over the standard radio quality?


----------



## Vero Golf Champ

Switched from Spotify Premium to Tidal HiFi for 3 months and thought it was an improvement with regard to SQ. Have now gone back to Spotify, and I'm no longer so sure. I do know that Spotify's UI is better and functionality is seamless. Occasional hiccups were annoying with Tidal. Might switch back once we get fibre hooked up, they're plumbing it into our neighbourhood at the mo.


----------



## jungli

I had Spotify for couple months then switched to GPlay which I found more titles for me, but know I have to say will stop searching with Tidal.
 Best audio quality especially when using right headphones (I have custom orthodynamic monsters).
 When you have random headphones or usual speakers dont bother just enjoy the music, otherwise Tidal HiFi is the right choice.
  
 regards


----------



## OneTallGuy

I have had Spotify premium for over a year.  I have enjoyed almost everything about the service: audio quality, selection, suggestions for me, etc.  I tried Tidal for awhile.  I tried hard to prefer Tidal audio quality.  I thought I could sometimes hear a difference, but I never was really sure.  I tried to blind test and I failed way more than I was correct as to which service sounded the better.  I finally gave up,.  They are so close on sound quality and Spotify is so much better in all other aspects that I dropped Tidal and am happy with Spotify now.


----------



## disastermouse

onetallguy said:


> I have had Spotify premium for over a year.  I have enjoyed almost everything about the service: audio quality, selection, suggestions for me, etc.  I tried Tidal for awhile.  I tried hard to prefer Tidal audio quality.  I thought I could sometimes hear a difference, but I never was really sure.  I tried to blind test and I failed way more than I was correct as to which service sounded the better.  I finally gave up,.  They are so close on sound quality and Spotify is so much better in all other aspects that I dropped Tidal and am happy with Spotify now.


 

 DAC? Amp? Headphones?


----------



## SmokeyThePanda

I enjoy Spotify too. The selection of music is just so huge and they even get new music early sometimes.


----------



## jungli

Simply I dont believe it.
I have custom Diy ortho 2 different pairs and for me there is huge difference Tidal hifi has great depth and soundspace spotify and gplay sounds flat. Tested on telarc aufioquest and other good labels.
Did some meets with friends and blindtests everyone clearly knew which service was on.


----------



## krismusic

jungli said:


> Simply I dont believe it.
> I have custom Diy ortho 2 different pairs and for me there is huge difference Tidal hifi has great depth and soundspace spotify and gplay sounds flat. Tested on telarc aufioquest and other good labels.
> Did some meets with friends and blindtests everyone clearly knew which service was on.



Did you volume match the two services? To my ears Tidal plays louder. Which makes true evaluation a PITA.


----------



## OneTallGuy

disastermouse said:


> onetallguy said:
> 
> 
> > I have had Spotify premium for over a year.  I have enjoyed almost everything about the service: audio quality, selection, suggestions for me, etc.  I tried Tidal for awhile.  I tried hard to prefer Tidal audio quality.  I thought I could sometimes hear a difference, but I never was really sure.  I tried to blind test and I failed way more than I was correct as to which service sounded the better.  I finally gave up,.  They are so close on sound quality and Spotify is so much better in all other aspects that I dropped Tidal and am happy with Spotify now.
> ...


 


   Audeze LCD X
 Audeze LCD 2 ver 2
 HiFiman HE 500
 Sennheiser HD 280 pro
 Vmoda crossfade lp
  
 Musical Fidelity M1 Dac
 Modi 2
  
 Musical Fidelity M1 HPA
 Magni 2


----------



## OneTallGuy

jungli said:


> Simply I dont believe it.
> I have custom Diy ortho 2 different pairs and for me there is huge difference Tidal hifi has great depth and soundspace spotify and gplay sounds flat. Tested on telarc aufioquest and other good labels.
> Did some meets with friends and blindtests everyone clearly knew which service was on.


 
 Comment like yours really piss me off.  You don’t believe it?  Everyone has to have the same ears, system, bias, history, knowledge, or lack of it, as you?  
  
 I like chocolate ice cream but you like vanilla?  So you do not believe that I like chocolate because all mighty you must be right as to which is the best tasting ice cream? Or I must not be able to taste that my chocolate ice cream is even different?
  
 I can not tell the difference between a photo taken by my Nikon 35 mm camera and your Canon 35 mm camera but you say you can?  Therefore, you do not believe me when I say I do not see the difference?  BS
  
 Accept the fact that opinions honestly differ without actually calling someone a liar, either intentionally or unintentionally.  You do not have the moral right or the papal authority.  None of us spend the time  enjoying our hobby so we can falsely report on our own results and opinions.
  
 Grow up and respect the opinion of others.  To differ and report your different opinion is great.  It helps us all learn and may show us how to see and hear things in a different manner.   Believe it.


----------



## jungli

"I dont believie it." Is it offence?
 I don't think so.
 Of course you are right.
 As I said before, there is a difference with quality of sound between this streaming services it is clear for me. For anyone else? Depending on point of view.
 My wife said that music sounds good from her telephone app Tidal or GPlay? She doesn't care which, for her it is all the same and all good.
  
 Musical database - Spotify or probably GPlay.
 Sound quality - Tidal.
  
 They will soon support *or now?* MQA for HIRES audio... For me? cool, for other I dont care maybe they dont too...
  
 Have a nice day!


----------



## frodeni

smokeythepanda said:


> Hi. Little late here. Don't feel like reading all the posts. I have a PS4,and I use Spotify pretty much all day and I was wondering if I should upgrade to Premium or if there's any difference between the sound quality. I find the normal SQ to be OK,but just okay. It's listenable but not ideal for me


 
  
 Tidal support ASIO on the PC. Tidal sound better, even compressed on my Note3 mobile. I hear distinct differences, increasing bit-rate in Spotify. I can hear the difference for all my gear, even the cheap in ears.
  
 To be honest, most people cannot track these differences, going beyond Spotify premium at high quality. What you are able to tell of difference, only you will now. But the difference is clearly there. Unless you have the ear for this stuff, most people benefit little as in joy of listening, going beyond Spotify premium.
  
 As for Tidal, ASIO must be enabled every time you start Tidal. If not, the windows interface is used instead. Also, in Tidal, you need to enable both privledged mode and disable the Tidal volume control. Disable enhachments in windows settings, and enable both privledge mode and let apps take control of audio device. If you use gear with a XMOS USB chip, like the Oppo HA-1 uses, you also need to maximize the ASIO buffer, and keep the output at 16/44.1. A bit of work, that even most nerds skip. But it is worth it, and by then, tidal lossy sounds distinctly better than Spotify. Quite a bit.


----------



## theveterans

> Tidal support ASIO on the PC. Tidal sound better, even compressed on my Note3 mobile. I hear distinct differences, increasing bit-rate in Spotify. I can hear the difference for all my gear, even the cheap in ears.
> 
> To be honest, most people cannot track these differences, going beyond Spotify premium at high quality. What you are able to tell of difference, only you will now. But the difference is clearly there. Unless you have the ear for this stuff, most people benefit little as in joy of listening, going beyond Spotify premium.
> 
> As for Tidal, ASIO must be enabled every time you start Tidal. If not, the windows interface is used instead. Also, in Tidal, you need to enable both privledged mode and disable the Tidal volume control. Disable enhachments in windows settings, and enable both privledge mode and let apps take control of audio device. If you use gear with a XMOS USB chip, like the Oppo HA-1 uses, you also need to maximize the ASIO buffer, and keep the output at 16/44.1. A bit of work, that even most nerds skip. But it is worth it, and by then, tidal lossy sounds distinctly better than Spotify. Quite a bit.


 
  
 In my experience, Spotify Premium with WASAPI using Fidelify sounds just as good as Tidal Hi-Fi ASIO which I cancelled my subscription due to being unable to discern a difference in SQ. Plus I get way more songs and albums on Spotify than TIDAL. I do agree that Spotify app sounds very slightly inferior than either Fidelify or TIDAL. To me, 16 bit lossless FLAC is overrated but it's just me.


----------



## victoranastacio

onetallguy said:


> I have had Spotify premium for over a year.  I have enjoyed almost everything about the service: audio quality, selection, suggestions for me, etc.  I tried Tidal for awhile.  I tried hard to prefer Tidal audio quality.  I thought I could sometimes hear a difference, but I never was really sure.  I tried to blind test and I failed way more than I was correct as to which service sounded the better.  I finally gave up,.  They are so close on sound quality and Spotify is so much better in all other aspects that I dropped Tidal and am happy with Spotify now.


 

 I've been with Spotify Premium for 3+ years and tried Tidal's HiFi premium service to compare. At first I was excited with Tidal's FLAC format and it's true, the sound is slightly better when connected to quality home equipment (i.e. Denon DA-USB 300 DAC + high-end Denon receiver + B&W speakers and Mirage Sub).  There was definitely an improvement with detail and separation over Spotify premium.  
  
 The problem is that Tidal premium service did not sound better on my iPhone and I'm always connected listening to music everywhere I go. Spotify premium on an iPhone sounded much superior connected to Beyerdynamics T51i headphones or to a good bluetooth speaker such as the Definitive Technology Cube. 
  
 Also, if you like Metallica, then forget Tidal, since they don't have it.


----------



## fluidz

theveterans said:


> In my experience, Spotify Premium with WASAPI using Fidelify sounds just as good as Tidal Hi-Fi ASIO which I cancelled my subscription due to being unable to discern a difference in SQ. Plus I get way more songs and albums on Spotify than TIDAL. I do agree that Spotify app sounds very slightly inferior than either Fidelify or TIDAL. To me, 16 bit lossless FLAC is overrated but it's just me.


 
  
 Absolutely agree.
  
 When I load Spotify using an Asio output - only option being *Fidelify* at the moment, it's slightly a bit clearer in the high end than using the stock Spotify app.
  
 Fidelify isn't adding any magic to the mix, or performing wizardry, its simply just letting me use Asio, bypassing Windows mixer, job done.


----------



## MacedonianHero

victoranastacio said:


> I've been with Spotify Premium for 3+ years and tried Tidal's HiFi premium service to compare. At first I was excited with Tidal's FLAC format and it's true, the sound is slightly better when connected to quality home equipment (i.e. Denon DA-USB 300 DAC + high-end Denon receiver + B&W speakers and Mirage Sub).  There was definitely an improvement with detail and separation over Spotify premium.
> 
> The problem is that Tidal premium service did not sound better on my iPhone and I'm always connected listening to music everywhere I go. Spotify premium on an iPhone sounded much superior connected to Beyerdynamics T51i headphones or to a good bluetooth speaker such as the Definitive Technology Cube.
> 
> Also, if you like Metallica, then forget Tidal, since they don't have it.


 
  
 Did you reselect HiFi for Tidal on your iPhone? It defaults to compressed mp3s otherwise. I did A-B both before settling on Tidal...there is no going back to mp3s...the lossless Tidal is better in every way to my ears and exceeds my CDs played through my CDP and fed with SPDIF into my DAC.


----------



## victoranastacio

macedonianhero said:


> Did you reselect HiFi for Tidal on your iPhone? It defaults to compressed mp3s otherwise. I did A-B both before settling on Tidal...there is no going back to mp3s...the lossless Tidal is better in every way to my ears and exceeds my CDs played through my CDP and fed with SPDIF into my DAC.


 
  
 I selected Tidal HiFi on my iPhone but it never sounded better than Spotify. I tested it with all the gear I usually connect to which includes an Onkyo HA200 DAC into Fidelio x2 headphones or to my Acura premium sound system and even to my favourite Definitive Technology Cube bluetooth speaker. I agree when playing Tidal HiFi FLAC to my home system it was definitely better than Spotify.


----------



## MacedonianHero

victoranastacio said:


> I selected Tidal HiFi on my iPhone but it never sounded better than Spotify. I tested it with all the gear I usually connect to which includes an Onkyo HA200 DAC into Fidelio x2 headphones or to my Acura premium sound system and even to my favourite Definitive Technology Cube bluetooth speaker. I agree when playing Tidal HiFi FLAC to my home system it was definitely better than Spotify.


 
  
 I can detect a reasonable difference between them on my iPhone 6. But that difference does widen when I throw my Chord Mojo into the mix.


----------



## sonitus mirus

macedonianhero said:


> I can detect a reasonable difference between them on my iPhone 6. But that difference does widen when I throw my Chord Mojo into the mix.


 
  
 Is the Chord Hugo still under warranty so you can have it fixed?


----------



## MacedonianHero

sonitus mirus said:


> Is the Chord Hugo still under warranty so you can have it fixed?


 
 ? Sorry, I don't have the Hugo. 
  
 My comments were that the differences between Tidal and Spotify are greater when using my Mojo with my iPhone.


----------



## sonitus mirus

macedonianhero said:


> ? Sorry, I don't have the Hugo.
> 
> My comments were that the differences between Tidal and Spotify are greater when using my Mojo with my iPhone.


 
  
 My fault, I meant the Mojo.  Are you saying "greater" as in the difference is larger between Spotify and Tidal or do you mean "greater" as in better?


----------



## MacedonianHero

sonitus mirus said:


> My fault, I meant the Mojo.  Are you saying "greater" as in the difference is larger between Spotify and Tidal or do you mean "greater" as in better?


 
 Both!


----------



## mkarikom

In an age where we can carry a month's worth of music in a pocket transport, the primary function of radio is music discovery.  I have Tidal HIFI and Spotify and I get way more use out of Spotify.  At 320kbps, mp3 sounds fine out of my portable rig.  Yes the difference is audible, but $1-5k gear still scales noticeably on well-encoded 320 to my ears.  What matters most is that sweet mixes can be readily built from Spotify's huge library, that is if I can't find something awesome in their selection of curated and user-shared mixes, which hasn't happened yet.


----------



## SmokeyThePanda

Completely agreed. Spotify's music collection is the selling point for me. Old music,niche music,new music. Often times Spotify even has early releases on extremely popular songs/albums. You name it,Spotify has it.


----------



## duotone

In the UK, 4 out of the top 5 albums are not currently available.

http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/four-out-of-the-top-5-albums-in-the-uk-arent-on-spotify/


----------



## markus94103

Tried switching from Spotify Premium to Tidal HiFi, and I hear a noticeable improvement. I had no idea that Tidal was offering lossless streaming! Quite a discovery, thanks guys. I also agree with some of the previous comments, it seems like Spotify Premium's 320 kbps is not always true 320 kbps.


----------



## theveterans

markus94103 said:


> Tried switching from Spotify Premium to Tidal HiFi, and I hear a noticeable improvement. I had no idea that Tidal was offering lossless streaming! Quite a discovery, thanks guys. I also agree with some of the previous comments, it seems like Spotify Premium's 320 kbps is not always true 320 kbps.




Some are 160 kbps if you use Fidelify as the client


----------



## markus94103

theveterans said:


> Some are 160 kbps if you use Fidelify as the client


 
  
 It's too bad there aren't any consumer protection laws that would make it illegal for Spotify to do this. It feels like fraud to charge for a certain level of quality and then deliver a lower quality product.


----------



## theveterans

> It's too bad there aren't any consumer protection laws that would make it illegal for Spotify to do this. It feels like fraud to charge for a certain level of quality and then deliver a lower quality product.


 
  
 I don't mind it that much since some 160 kbps encodes sounds fantastic to me. But since most people use Spotify as the main app, they won't know that they're actually streaming 160 kbps on some of their offerings so no lawsuit is happening.


----------



## reginalb

smokeythepanda said:


> Completely agreed. Spotify's music collection is the selling point for me. Old music,niche music,new music. Often times Spotify even has early releases on extremely popular songs/albums. You name it,Spotify has it.


 
  
 You might prefer Google Play Music, the subscription now gives you access to YouTube Red, as well. In the off chance you can't find it in Play Music (which has a bigger selection than Spotify), it's probably on YT, which you can now play in the background and is ad-free because of your Red subscription. If it's not on either, so long as you can get it on to your computer somehow, you can upload it to your own Play Music library, and access it streaming through the app. 
  
 I would like to give Deezer a spin should it ever make its way to the U.S. but for now, I think Play Music is the best bang for your buck. Though I suspect you'd use less data with Apple Music, since it likely streams at 256k vs the 320 for Play Music.


----------



## upstateguy

I would like to recommend reviewing *Testing Audiophile Claims and Myths* and *My Cable Test Enterprise*


----------



## Vero Golf Champ

Ok now I think I hear the difference, even thru my portable rig. Been running them in parallel for a couple of months. Tidal HiFi is crisper with more detail and definition. Of course it's very easy to enter the realms of fantasy in this hobby.


----------



## krismusic

vero golf champ said:


> Ok now I think I hear the difference, even thru my portable rig. Been running them in parallel for a couple of months. Tidal HiFi is crisper with more detail and definition. Of course it's very easy to enter the realms of fantasy in this hobby.



It doesn't help that Tidal plays louder than Spotify. 
Having used both extensively I would say that the real difference in SQ is very small. I like the idea that Tidal is at least trying to work for musicians though.


----------



## reginalb

krismusic said:


> It doesn't help that Tidal plays louder than Spotify.
> Having used both extensively I would say that the real difference in SQ is very small. I like the idea that Tidal is at least trying to work for musicians though.


 
  
 What do they do to work for musicians, out of curiosity?


----------



## krismusic

reginalb said:


> What do they do to work for musicians, out of curiosity?



Well I honestly don't really know but it is run by and owned by musicians. It's the only streaming service that some musicians will allow their music to be released on. I figure that says something. Tidal does not have a free service, which I think is a good thing. 
Personally, £20 a month seems fair for my usage. Spotify's £10 felt like a steal.


----------



## pervysage

I don't care about any potentional "better SQ" on Tidal when the UI is garbage and the monthly free is an overpriced $20.
  
 Spotify sounds just fine and is great to browse around on.


----------



## reginalb

I know that Tidal pays way more _per stream _than Spotify or Apple, but Tidal has far fewer users, and so it takes a much smaller percentage of Spotify (or Apple's) users streaming a song to make more money. And it should be noted, Google Play Music (which I always talk up because I think it's a lot better than Spotify having tried both) pays more per stream than Tidal. I don't know if the current market even approaches sustainability. And with the Googles, Apples, and Amazons of the world in the market, I don't know that the standalone streamers will ever turn a profit. Even Spotify and Pandora have trouble actually making money, and with the big guys in the room, willing to use their services as loss leaders, prices aren't likely to come up. I pay $8/month for Google Play Music, which comes with YouTube Red (because I got in at the beginning and keep that rate as long as the service continues). But again, even at that low pricing, they still pay more per stream than Tidal.


----------



## sterling1

I'm so pleased with Apple Music, for a multitude of reasons, that it just seems meaningless to ponder the "greatness" of other streaming services. Accessories like iTunes Match and AirPlay make it so convenient to listen to as well, over all sorts of devices and places.


----------



## reginalb

sterling1 said:


> I'm so pleased with Apple Music, for a multitude of reasons, that it just seems meaningless to ponder the "greatness" of other streaming services. Accessories like iTunes Match and AirPlay make it so convenient to listen to as well, over all sorts of devices and places.


 
  
 Yeah, if you're in Apple's ecosystem, then it's always going to make sense. FYI, though, Tidal also works with AirPlay, and Google Play Music has an identical service to iTunes Match (and it's free, unlike Match). But I mean, there is always going to be some advantages to the ecosystems that the big boys provide. 
  
 Having Android and Google Cast speakers, Play Music makes a lot of sense for me.


----------



## Aerosphere

After testing it for quite a while with sony zx2, I am confident to say, tidal sounds effortless, better.


----------



## krismusic

aerosphere said:


> After testing it for quite a while with sony zx2, I am confident to say, tidal sounds effortless, better.


 Have you tested it over several days?


----------



## reginalb

pervysage said:


> I don't care about any potentional "better SQ" on Tidal when the UI is garbage and the monthly free is an overpriced $20.
> 
> Spotify sounds just fine and is great to browse around on.


 
  
 I actually like the UI of Tidal. I do not like the UI of Spotify at all. Now, maybe it's been updated since I auditioned it a while ago, but last I used it, it felt like they'd been absent for 10 years of UX evolution. But as I say, that may have changed, since it was a few years ago. I prefer both Apple Music and Google Play Music to all of them, to be honest, in terms of UI, but Tidal didn't seem bad when I ran through a trial of it. Also, They're priced $20 for their hifi service, but their standard service (which is the same as Spotify) is priced right with all of the others. And they offer student and military discounts, which is nice. I'd probably switch if I wasn't grandfathered in at the trial price for Google Music, as I could get that sweet military discount.


----------



## duotone

reginalb said:


> I actually like the UI of Tidal. I prefer both Apple Music and Google Play Music to all of them, to be honest, in terms of UI, but Tidal didn't seem bad when I ran through a trial of it. Also, They're priced $20 for their hifi service, but their standard service (which is the same as Spotify) is priced right with all of the others. And they offer student and military discounts, which is nice. I'd probably switch if I wasn't grandfathered in at the trial price for Google Music, as I could get that sweet military discount.




I have been using Google Play Music for my first time, for the last 3 weeks. So far so good.


----------



## saintintn

I will second what sterling1 states.  I had been using Tidal for some time and switched back to Apple Music.  Number one reason is the third party apps that I can use after I download the songs from Apple Music to my iPhone.  As long as I have iTunes Match for my songs, I can play them through CanOpener, Relisten, etc...  And when I listen to any number of songs through CanOpener and play the same song in Tidal HiFi, it sounds better through CanOpener.  I understand that people prefer Tidal for what it offers when played through Audirvana, etc... in their homes, but I have most of my music in ALAC, FLAC, or DSD anyways, so it doesn't have that big of an impact.


----------



## reginalb

saintintn said:


> I will second what sterling1 states.  I had been using Tidal for some time and switched back to Apple Music.  Number one reason is the third party apps that I can use after I download the songs from Apple Music to my iPhone.  As long as I have iTunes Match for my songs, I can play them through CanOpener, Relisten, etc...  And when I listen to any number of songs through CanOpener and play the same song in Tidal HiFi, it sounds better through CanOpener.  I understand that people prefer Tidal for what it offers when played through Audirvana, etc... in their homes, but I have most of my music in ALAC, FLAC, or DSD anyways, so it doesn't have that big of an impact.


 
  
 That's actually pretty cool. I prefer Chromecasting solutions, because I use chromecast all over, but that's a pretty sweet feature that you can use the pinned music elsewhere on the device. I don't think any of the other services offer that.


----------



## canali

Latest streaming blind test comparison by CNBC crew using Genelec speakers...

Hi-fi music streaming: People can't tell it when they hear it
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/05/hifi-music-streaming-services-people-cant-tell-it-when-they-hear-it.html

_We conducted our test in the high-fidelity audio "sweetening" room at CNBC headquarters. 

We had top-notch Genelec speakers, a wired internet connection, and professional audio experts
 conducting and overseeing the test. We brought in many of our colleagues for a blind test — hearing
 three songs each with three different services — to find out if they could hear the difference between 
high-fidelity and regular-quality streaming. Again, the details on the test are available here._

_The results were dramatic. We played a total of 48 songs, and 16 times the person correctly identified the 
high-fidelity service. That's exactly 1 of 3 — the same figure one could expect from completely random guessing._

similar to what "the verge"found in their own blind testing last summer 
http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/7/8872115/apple-music-tidal-spotify-audio-quality-test


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

I REALLY don't think that someone can distinguish lossless from a OGG Vorbis 320 kbps (Spotify) - no matter how expensive the gear. OGG is a better codec than MP3 320 and there is inumerous debates and tests that point the transparency of this bitrate. Seriously, just sit down, open a good beer and enjoy your songs.
  
 And I think the same for 256 AAC.


----------



## canali

extremegamerbr said:


> I REALLY don't think that someone can distinguish lossless from a OGG Vorbis 320 kbps (Spotify) - no matter how expensive the gear. OGG is a better codec than MP3 320 and there is inumerous debates and tests that point the transparency of this bitrate. Seriously, just sit down, open a good beer and enjoy your songs.
> 
> And I think the same for 256 AAC.


 
 what is interesting coming from this is the importance of the quality of the recording being played, too.... 'garbage in, garbage out'
 ..and thus for Tidal to charge 2x the price for 'cd quality' hi fi maybe doesn't hold as much water if the production is meh-ish to begin with.
 ...maybe that is why they're investigating MQA to really make the difference heard.


----------



## pureangus62

To keep it short and simple, I switched from Spotify after 2 years to Tidal. I can hear a (small) difference in the quality and with a student discount I'm paying the same for Tidal as I was with Spotify. I haven't had any issues yet with Tidal's music library and actually prefer the UI. I do however miss Spotifys recommendations and think it had better a better artist/song radio. Maybe I just haven't used Tidal long enough to get good recommendations?


----------



## Ancipital

This will all be very interesting when Tidal gets bought out, as seems inevitable, by one of the big boys. It's quite poorly-run right now, and the financials are apparently a bit on the disappointing side, to the point where Jay-Z forgets that it's one of his babies in interviews.
  
 There has been a lot of speculation that Apple will hoover them up for what would be pocket change to them- I wonder how this would affect their lossless streaming, and other bits of their business model?


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

pureangus62 said:


> To keep it short and simple, I switched from Spotify after 2 years to Tidal. I can hear a (small) difference in the quality and with a student discount I'm paying the same for Tidal as I was with Spotify. I haven't had any issues yet with Tidal's music library and actually prefer the UI. I do however miss Spotifys recommendations and think it had better a better artist/song radio. Maybe I just haven't used Tidal long enough to get good recommendations?


 
  
 You did a blind test (volume matched) to prove this small difference?


----------



## pureangus62

extremegamerbr said:


> You did a blind test (volume matched) to prove this small difference?


 
 I did. Volume matched and all that (Tidal definitely is louder).Tidal just has the tiniest amount of sparkle in the upper mids/high that I could tell was missing from Spotify. If I wasnt actively listening I dont think I'd notice a difference but its there. Im paying the same for both services so Ill take an edge no matter how small it is.
  
 Also, Ill never claim that 320kbps MP3 sounds bad because it doesnt in the slightest so dont take what Im saying as "spotify is dirty water trash garble and Tidal is crystal clear amazing" because it really is a _barely _noticable difference to my ears


----------



## canali

pureangus62 said:


> I did. Volume matched and all that (Tidal definitely is louder).Tidal just has the tiniest amount of sparkle in the upper mids/high that I could tell was missing from Spotify. If I wasnt actively listening I dont think I'd notice a difference but its there. Im paying the same for both services so Ill take an edge no matter how small it is.
> 
> Also, Ill never claim that 320kbps MP3 sounds bad because it doesnt in the slightest so dont take what Im saying as "spotify is dirty water trash garble and Tidal is crystal clear amazing" because it really is a _barely _noticable difference to my ears



agree...diffs are subtle for the most part....and they sure don't jump out at me that they're worth double the cost...or even for that matter that Tidal does not have consistently the superior sound (as those 2 blind tests in the previous page show  ...links  below, too).....will be interesting to see if Apple takes them over will the music move to 'high res' (as has been rumoured that Apple will go this route)...maybe we'll see more of that development with the new iphone 7...or 8...or maybe not.

but as i'm finding: alot of Tidal's inventory ''cd quality 44.1'' is meh-ish quality, too, if you check out the loudness wars on any given album they have....i've learned alot by visiting steve hoffman's forum on this area.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/
...so garbage in, garbage out.

Hi-fi music streaming: People can't tell it when they hear it
[COLOR=22229C]http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/05/hifi-music-streaming-services-people-cant-tell-it-when-they-hear-it.html[/COLOR]

similar to what "the verge"found in their own blind testing last summer
[COLOR=22229C]http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/7/8872115/apple-music-tidal-spotify-audio-quality-test[/COLOR]


----------



## pureangus62

canali said:


> agree...diffs are subtle for the most part....they sure don't jump out at me  that they're worth double the cost...or even for that matter that Tidal has consistently the superior sound (as those 2 blind tests in the previous page show).....will be interesting to see if Apple takes them over will the music move to 'high res' (as has been rumoured that Apple will go this route)...maybe we'll see more of that development with the new iphone 7..,or 8...or maybe not.


 
 I agree, and I wouldnt pay double the cost for Tidal either. The main reason for my switch from Spotify was the discount making them both the same price


----------



## saintintn

I use Apple Music and have Tidal HIFI, as well.  Where I hear the difference is through my home system (Rogue Audio Integrated, PSB Imagine B's, Marantz NA8005 DAC, and Audioquest Type 4 speaker cables) with Tidal having a slight edge.  But with the Dragonfly Red and Shure SE846's, I really have to strain to hear a difference on an iPhone.  Sometimes I swear I hear a difference and then go back and forth between the two and the difference disappears.  If you only listen to music via mobile, however, I think it's a really tough call.  My dos pesos.


----------



## canali

just switched back to spotify premium from tidal hifi (after 2 mo).
 like the spotify UI better, at least...don't find much diff at all
 for portable music listening, esp with so much ambiant noise.
 ..but we'll see what happens in the next few months...more changes
 will happen in the streaming world, i'm sure.
  
 starting to rip my own cds and buy flac, for better quality sound.
  
 when tidal truly shows a significant difference, as well as getting better mastered albums
 in their collection, then i might switch over...but until then paying double doesn't warrant it for me


----------



## sonitus mirus

canali said:


> just switched back to spotify premium from tidal hifi (after 2 mo).
> like the spotify UI better, at least...don't find much diff at all
> for portable music listening, esp with so much ambiant noise.
> ..but we'll see what happens in the next few months...more changes
> ...


 
  
 Give Google a try.  
  
 You'll have a library of music that is grouped by song, album, or artist that can all be shuffled to play randomly.  Any songs that you rip from CD or purchase as FLAC and convert to Lame vbr -0 (or any version of mp3) can be uploaded to your library and will work seamlessly with any artist radio or shuffle play, as if it were part of the regular Google streaming music library.  It works on any PC, Android, or iOS device.  The best quality streams are 320 kbps files, which is friendly to your mobile data plan and still has a spectacular audio quality that most folks can't distinguish from a CD.  
  
 I've been using Google music and have tried everything else multiple times and still keep Google.  Unless you are after some social aspect that might be available only with Spotify, I'd strongly suggest giving Google music a test run for a month or two.  You might like it.


----------



## chef8489

With a military discount they are the same price. Which would you go for?


----------



## Ancipital

chef8489 said:


> With a military discount they are the same price. Which would you go for?


 
  
 I suspect that especially for mobile use, you'd be hard pressed to hear much difference between Tidal's lossless and Spotify's highish bitrate Vorbis streaming. Maybe if you're planning to do a lot of listening with a nice desktop amp and decent headphones in a quiet room, you might benefit from Tidal's "Hifi" mode. However, for most people, most of the time, it's really hard to hear much difference except for that rare really hard to code material, which might sound slightly less pristine.
  
 Consider differences in catalogue and also quality of clients for the platforms you care about, maybe. I suspect that either would be decent enough to listen to- so these may be bigger differentiators.


----------



## Quenty

I have Google Play Music subscription and really like it. But Google doesn't have lossless music so I wanted to try lossless streaming services  from Tidal and Qobuz. I really like the Tidal's playlists and mobile interface, but from the second day of listening Tidal's HIFI I observed a serious problems with sound quality on some "lossless" tracks: some tracks, despite claiming to be HIFI lossless, are playing with significant audio defects (2 examples): 
 
Diana Krall's The look of love: from the beginning the sound of piano is distorted, the track sounds terrible. 
Shelby Lynne's Just a little Loving', please listen carefully from 2:38 to 2:40, the cymbals sound like they were encoded at a very low bit rate, although my Tidal application shows HIFI quality.
  
I compared these same tracks with my trial Qobuz lossless streaming service and they sound great, without any artifacts . As there are many audiophiles on this forum, I'm surprised no one else has reported these sound quality issues with Tidal HIFI. For those of you who have Tidal HIFI subscription, did you notice any sound issues?


----------



## audiosplitz

Just my 2 cents on this. I was using Tidal and Spotify concurrently at one point. Have not tried Google as yet.
  
 Sound quality:
 To me, I am on the move a lot where I take planes and buses very often. Tidal Hi-Fi and Spotify 320kbps simply could not be differentiated regardless of how good my audio gear was in terms of noise isolation and / or clarity. There's simply too much noise pollution around. That's not to say Tidal Hi-Fi sucks (it doesn't)...just that to fully leverage it, a quiet controlled environment is needed to appreciate the nuances of each song. 
  
 User Interface:
 In terms of UI, Spotify seems to work for me. Text and pictures is bigger ie. easier for fat fingers to actuate (not that my fingers are fat!). 
  
 Catalogue and Source:
 I found similar tracks on both platforms. Sure there are some artist exclusives for new music but it really depends on the genre or even the age of the songs you listen to. If you listen to 90s or 2000s tracks, either should be fine. Dunno about others but Sia's Chandelier on Tidal appeared to be crackly which I attribute to the song source. Anyone had the same experience?
  
 Pricing:
 A no brainer. Spotify wins hands down.


----------



## Thenazgul

audiosplitz said:


>


 
 I have both, Spotify and Tidal.

 On that type of gear you probably do not hear the difference. I don't hear it either when on the move and having my phone as source. On my main-audio system I do hear the difference between the two loud and clear. 

 On the User Interface part you are right. Tidal one is horrible compared to Spotify. Mobile spotify app is a lot better too. Yet I use Roon to solve that issue.
 I don't like the advertising / genre match system of Tidal and Spotify. It is really bad.
  
 Catalogue and Source:.
 Tidal catalogue is more complete. There are many artists that didn't wanna cut a deal with Spotify anymore.
  
 Pricing:
 Spotify if you have a family pack. Else it makes no difference. Tidal has also a 320kbs subscription which is also 10 dollars.


----------



## chef8489

I now have both for the 30 day trial. There are things I like about spotify that are not on tidal like the stations. Spotify 320 is 9.99 a month and tidal hifi is 11 a month for me. I dont think I need both so need to make a decision soon.


----------



## MacedonianHero

audiosplitz said:


>





> "...how good my audio gear was in terms of noise isolation and / or clarity..."


 
  
  
 Can you fill us in in what that was?


----------



## audiosplitz

macedonianhero said:


> Can you fill us in in what that was?


 
  
 I use a few. There's the Grado SR60i, Klipsch Reference X20i to name a couple.
 For jogging, I'm using the Jaybird X2.


----------



## MacedonianHero

audiosplitz said:


> I use a few. There's the Grado SR60i, Klipsch Reference X20i to name a couple.
> For jogging, I'm using the Jaybird X2.


 
 Then I'm not surprised with your comments. The differences do propagate out quite a bit with my HD800S, SR009 and Utopias. But looks like you've hit your sweet spot and saved some $.


----------



## audiosplitz

macedonianhero said:


> Then I'm not surprised with your comments. The differences do propagate out quite a bit with my HD800S, SR009 and Utopias. But looks like you've hit your sweet spot and saved some $.


 
  
 Absolutely! The SR60i is great value 
  
 Just wondering, are these the headphones (eg HD800S) you would bring when traveling on bus / trains? My context is that I'm on the move so portability is a big factor for me. How's the sound quality for Spotify / Tidal Hi Fi like in these conditions?


----------



## MacedonianHero

audiosplitz said:


> Absolutely! The SR60i is great value
> 
> Just wondering, are these the headphones (eg HD800S) you would bring when traveling on bus / trains? My context is that I'm on the move so portability is a big factor for me. How's the sound quality for Spotify / Tidal Hi Fi like in these conditions?


 
  
 I wouldn't stream music while travelling. But I do have some gear that is portable that would make a difference...have a look at my profile. I mostly use my AK240SS when on the go.


----------



## 427159

For anyone interested in Spotify for A&K please check out my post here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/823959/spotify-app-for-astell-kern-devices


----------



## SRKRAM

I didn't think there would be any difference (to me) between Spotify and Tidal HiFi, but I finally signed up for a 30 day Tidal trial to see for myself. Tidal is very very slightly more detailed, but it isn't worth double the price to me. I'm listening on a mojo and T90s. I'll keep listening and comparing during the free trial. If there's any music where I really want the tiny extra bit of quality I probably spend the money on a CD and rip it.


----------



## MacedonianHero

mark r-s said:


> I didn't think there would be any difference (to me) between Spotify and Tidal HiFi, but I finally signed up for a 30 day Tidal trial to see for myself. Tidal is very very slightly more detailed, but it isn't worth double the price to me. I'm listening on a mojo and T90s. I'll keep listening and comparing during the free trial. If there's any music where I really want the tiny extra bit of quality I probably spend the money on a CD and rip it.


 
 It really depends on your setup. With the T90 and Mojo, Spotify is a great option!


----------



## DoctaCosmos

When I had tidal I always felt there was an EQ integrated into the sound. Not a ton but I definitely felt it was there.


----------



## MacedonianHero

doctacosmos said:


> When I had tidal I always felt there was an EQ integrated into the sound. Not a ton but I definitely felt it was there.


 
  
 It depends on what your setup is. For the Mojo/T90, Spotify is just fine IME. But with my SR-009 setup, Tidal is clearly the way to go for me.


----------



## DoctaCosmos

who knows, maybe I was hearing more of my dac with my setup.


----------



## gregorio

doctacosmos said:


> who knows, maybe I was hearing more of my dac with my setup.


 
  
 No one knows for absolute certain but there is an overwhelming probability this is not the case. Even $2 DAC chips measure pretty much ruler flat these days, to within a fraction of a decibel. Differences between the the high bitrate lossy codecs and lossless are also inaudible, with almost no exceptions and even then, only with studio grade equipment/environments.
  
 As so often seems to be the case in the audiophile world, many focus on tiny,  insignificant, marketing driven details. A fraction of a dB may not be completely insignificant under certain tightly controlled, exceptional circumstances, when all the other variables are precisely equal but it surely is when there are a number of other variables at play, each of which can be anything from double to about 100 times greater in magnitude! One can hear a pin drop 10m away, given the correct circumstances but it makes absolutely no rational sense to discuss the impact of that sound when standing 10m away from a busy highway. So many audiophiles do exactly this, discussing variations in pin drop sounds while apparently completely unaware that the busy highway even exists! I'm not saying this is definitely the case with you personally but it does appear that way.
  
 G


----------



## SRKRAM

macedonianhero said:


> It depends on what your setup is. For the Mojo/T90, Spotify is just fine IME. But with my SR-009 setup, Tidal is clearly the way to go for me.


 
 With a set up like that I would believe that the difference would be much clearer, and lossless would be a clear choice. I briefly listened to some classical music last night, and I believe that I could hear more of a difference. I just need to decide whether it's worth the money. I'll listen to Tidal a while longer and then switch back to Spotify and see how it sounds.


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

mark r-s said:


> With a set up like that I would believe that the difference would be much clearer, and lossless would be a clear choice. I briefly listened to some classical music last night, and I believe that I could hear more of a difference. I just need to decide whether it's worth the money. I'll listen to Tidal a while longer and then switch back to Spotify and see how it sounds.


 

 It is not that simple. You have to compare both volume matched, to avoid any bias, a blind test would be required.


----------



## musical-kage

Trains by Porcupine Tree.
One recorded in Spotify, at max quality, volume level matched and saved as wave, and the other Tidal lossless.

I think I can safely say the difference is apparant.
Spotify sounds duller, especially in the singers voice. I had no problems in figuring out which really.
But that was during A-B.
Did sound like some life had been removed though, with some bass notes less full, cymbal clatter less bright, and voice duller.
Be interesting to see if it is just how it was recorded by them, and doing the same with both streams at 320kbps would have the same result... Spotify is OGG whereas Tidal is ACC

Worth an extra tenner for lossless vs 320? Not sure.
Plus the fact you can't import other tracks for portable use like you can with Spotify.

I'll try another track tomorrow.
Not sure on legality of even doing this as a test mind, but can't think of any other way to check if I'm wasting money or not. Helps I own this track on CD I guess.

Equipment pretty sub par:
Realtek PC DAC (no dedi soundcard), to a Logitech Z-5500 amp via analog, and into V-Moda M-100s (highest quality item on test).

So with more expensive equipment/headphones?
Even easier to tell I'd imagine


----------



## castleofargh

@musical-shadow, I used body replacement technique on your post, so that it's in the proper topic.
  
 you find a clear audible difference from that test, now the logic following is to try and find the reason. is it because they used 2 different masters? because of the formats? because of the 2 apps themselves or some setting in them? etc. depending on the actual cause the conclusions might not be the same.


----------



## musical-kage

Thanks for that and I'm sorry I posted in the wrong place.

Yeah makes you wonder. The difference isn't night and day but it is there.
No EQ on either, sound normalisation off on both.
It could very easily be I'm hearing OGG differences.

I may try A-Bing the 320kbps of both the AAC and OGG of Spotify/Tidal,

Or maybe I should rip my CD FLAC version into AAC 320 and compare it to Tidals... Then compare both FLACs

Maybe Tidal is adding something extra into the mix that shouldn't be there?


----------



## SRKRAM

musical-kage said:


> Thanks for that and I'm sorry I posted in the wrong place.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 


FLAC is lossless, so it would me interesting to compare a CD rip with a Tidal stream, as they should be the same, as long as the sources were the same.


----------



## musical-kage

That will be my next test.
I know this track very well, so if I spot a difference between the CD rip FLAC and the FLAC from Tidal, it either means Tidal is doing some EQing so it isn't flat or... well I don't know.

I'll perform it tonight and see if I spot any differences.

As far as I know, they only released it in the Absentia album.

After that, I'll do a 320kbps ogg vs their AAC


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

musical-kage said:


> Thanks for that and I'm sorry I posted in the wrong place.
> 
> Yeah makes you wonder. The difference isn't night and day but it is there.
> No EQ on either, sound normalisation off on both.
> ...


 

 Pick any FLAC file that you have and convert it to OGG 320 or even 256kbps. It should be really hard to know which is FLAC which is OGG.
  
 If you compare both and don't hear a difference, maybe something is wrong with your comparision between Tidal vs Spotify.
  
 If you still be able to hear a difference, that would be very interesting.


----------



## musical-kage

I'll do that too 

That is why I'm doing the test with a CD FLAC rip and Tidal too because who knows if Tidal is EQing bass up/mid bass

EDIT:

Well the good news is, I can't tell the difference between the CD ripped FLAC and Tidal's FLAC, so it isn't adding any EQ

Now to rip a OGG 320kbps of the CD FLAC and see if I can still tell. Report back in a bit.


Okay, so my tests have proven to be as far as I can tell useless. I don't think I can tell the 320kbps OGG from the original CD FLAC.
So my recording of Spotifys stream may have been flawed in some way?

I'll re-record tomorrow. Turns out I had normalisation of all tracks switched on I thought I had off.
That might have been the difference I was hearing.
In other words, turn it off.

Though I volume matched so the issue is deeper when you normalise if so affecting various parts.

I'll report back later.

REPORTING BACK:

Yep, the issue was the normalisation. I cannot tell the difference now.
At times I "feel" like I can, but apart from of course Tidal streaming at a higher volume (which I volume matched), I cannot tell a difference anymore from the 320kbps OGG on Spotify and the FLAC stream from Tidal.

I pretty much fail the ABX so, yeah, can pretty much rule this one out.

I can safely cancel my Tidal Lossless and go back to Spotify before I am charged 

No idea what sort of differences I'd be listening out for even if I did get lets say the HD 800 headphones with a good DAC. Even then, I probably wouldn't now.

At least throughout the tests, I've been honest


----------



## daphen

On one of my favourite albums, "Pretty. Odd" by Panic! at the Disco, they have two different masters on Tidal and Spotify and the difference is huge. Tidal has the same version as my FLAC and I can't tell the difference. Spotify however, have some low quality version, which lead me to believe the difference in quality between Tidal and Spotify was enormous.
  
 Now that I'm A/B-testing "The Beatles(remastered)" I can't tell the difference.
  
 I wonder if Tidal has the better master in more cases or if there's equally many cases where it's the other way around and I just happened to be unlucky to find that there were different masters on one of my favourites.
  
 If you want to see the difference yourself, try the track "Nine in the afternoon", it's like two different tracks all together.
  
 Ugh, I've been loyal to Spotify for so long and the UI for Tidal is just so terrible, I wouldn't want to switch.
  
 Edit: @MacedonianHero have you done the same test as above? Can you tell the difference on every track?
 Since you said earlier in the thread that Tidal was your absolute choice for your Stax I mean.
  
 I'm testing with my K3003 at work at the moment and just seeing if I can hear a difference, not doing any real testing.


----------



## musical-kage

I'll A/B that track tonight if my Tidal subscription is still valid

EDIT:

Don't even need to A-B

Nine in the afternoon (Radio edit) is totally different. Tidal's vocal sounding more upfront.

This is less a problem to do with the quality, and more to do with the master it seems.

Only test I have come across that is indeed different, so thanks for that!

Spotify's version sounds more like the loudness wars has took over, as I can hear some distortion in the drums, whereas on the Tidal version I cannot.

I repeat though. This has nothing to do with the quality of streaming.

Weird how they've opted for different masters.


----------



## daphen

Yeah, well, Tidal's version is the one I have on CD. Spotify seem to have put all the instruments in a blender..


----------



## WhiteKnite

I have been subscribed to Tidal since launch.  Just grabbed the 3 months for $9.99 deal on Spotify last night.  Really missed their suggested tracks and artist/track radio algorithms.  So much better than Tidal... At first I was shocked at the poor quality, but then I remembered I had to set it to "Extreme" mode which helped.  And then I had to turn off the volume matching.  But it still sounded worse to me so I cancelled.  Mostly the soundstage seemed flat and instruments didn't have the crispness and texture.  Power of the placebo effect maybe, I'm not going to argue that I could tell a good 320kbps MP3 from Flac in a blind A/B, but I think there may be something to this idea that Spotify is using poorer quality masters.


----------



## daphen

whiteknite said:


> I have been subscribed to Tidal since launch.  Just grabbed the 3 months for $9.99 deal on Spotify last night.  Really missed their suggested tracks and artist/track radio algorithms.  So much better than Tidal... At first I was shocked at the poor quality, but then I remembered I had to set it to "Extreme" mode which helped.  And then I had to turn off the volume matching.  But it still sounded worse to me so I cancelled.  Mostly the soundstage seemed flat and instruments didn't have the crispness and texture.  Power of the placebo effect maybe, I'm not going to argue that I could tell a good 320kbps MP3 from Flac in a blind A/B, but I think there may be something to this idea that Spotify is using poorer quality masters.


 
 Yeah, it doesn't sound very scientific, haha.
 Would you mind posting the songs in which you hear a difference?
 I A/B-tested the entire "The Beatles(remastered)" yesterday and my conclusion is that I can't tell the difference if the masters are the same.
  
 Edit: The UI in Spotify is not wonderful. But at least it's a million times better than Tidal's. I'm not sure if I've missed something but I can't even see my own playlists in the sidebar in Tidal. Ridiculous.


----------



## Thenazgul

I have my doubts that all music-content on Spotify is 320kb/s btw. Some might be 240kb/s or even lower. 
 If you do a simple search on Google regarding this matter, you find some interesting evidence.


----------



## daphen

thenazgul said:


> I have my doubts that all music-content on Spotify is 320kb/s btw. Some might be 240kb/s or even lower.
> If you do a simple search on Google regarding this matter, you find some interesting evidence.


 
 Sure, but isn't that the case with all these services? I mean, it's pretty hard to find perfect quality for every album.
 I would be interested to hear how Google Play's quality is compared to Tidal.
  
 Like I said, I can't personally hear a difference between the same masters on Spotify and Tidal when Tidal has FLAC and Spotify is at 320kbps.
 And that's with neither my AKG K3003 or my HD800S.
  
 Edit: If you could find a song that is very low quality on Spotify and sound different just because of the quality on Tidal, I'd be interested to hear it.


----------



## Thenazgul

daphen said:


> Sure, but isn't that the case with all these services? I mean, it's pretty hard to find perfect quality for every album.
> I would be interested to hear how Google Play's quality is compared to Tidal.
> 
> Like I said, I can't personally hear a difference between the same masters on Spotify and Tidal when Tidal has FLAC and Spotify is at 320kbps.
> And that's with neither my AKG K3003 or my HD800S.


 
 Well not really. It shouldn't be hard. They have direct access to the artists themselves. Spotify promises 320kbps and delivers less. It intrigues me that no-one filled a claim yet.
 I earlier mentioned in this topic that I could hear the difference between Spotify and Tidal loud and clear (I have both, I know, money must roll). 
 Tidal is superior. Larger library as well (more artists). Although their phone-app is not that good as Spotify. Both desktop gui's I do not like. Both companies are trying to push music of artists while it is not even related to the same type of music you mostly listen. Tidal is better on this front since it is support by Roon (Spotify doesn't ). Roon's library meta-data system is absolutely amazing.


----------



## daphen

thenazgul said:


> Well not really. It shouldn't be hard. They have direct access to the artists themselves. Spotify promises 320kbps and delivers less. It intrigues me that no-one filled a claim yet.
> I earlier mentioned in this topic that I could hear the difference between Spotify and Tidal loud and clear (I have both, I know, money must roll).
> Tidal is superior. Larger library as well (more artists). Although their phone-app is not that good as Spotify. Both desktop gui's I do not like. Both companies are trying to push music of artists while it is not even related to the same type of music you mostly listen. Tidal is better on this front since it is support by Roon (Spotify doesn't ). Roon's library meta-data system is absolutely amazing.


 
 "I can hear the difference loud and clear". Elaborate please. Are you saying that you hear the difference if you volume match and listen to songs with the same master? That you hear a difference between every song?
  
 I also have both. I'd love to switch to Tidal as my main service but I can't handle the GUI..


----------



## musical-kage

It is possible they haven't transferred eveey track to 320kbps but from my tests and what I listen to, I can't tell a damn difference.

If both are using the same master, you will not be able to tell the difference between a 320 and a FLAC.
Lacking soundstage etc is because you have found one with a different file.
Not the fact one is OGG and one is FLAC


----------



## daphen

I'm just genuinely curious and would love to see some real evidence of a difference.
 Like measured differences. That someone says that they can tell a "massive difference in clarity and soundstage" is not enough for me.


----------



## Thenazgul

daphen said:


> "I can hear the difference loud and clear". Elaborate please. Are you saying that you hear the difference if you volume match and listen to songs with the same master? That you hear a difference between every song?
> 
> I also have both. I'd love to switch to Tidal as my main service but I can't handle the GUI..


 
 I hear it on the vocals and the sound-stage (more dynamic) even. Volume match is always there. I control my volume output with the amplifier. Volume within programs / Windows is always 100%. Although it is not on all artists/albums i could hear it. But that has to do with the recording not with the bandwidth 

 Volume- in general is a thing though. A lot of artists nowadays are linked to crap studio's. Those studio's care only about volume (loud as possible on the radio). Making it clip, dynamics (instruments) are destroyed and it starts sounding flat/dull. It is a serious issue that starts to bother me more and more. We buy high-end equipment and the source-audio is getting worse and worse.


----------



## daphen

thenazgul said:


> I hear it on the vocals and the sound-stage (more dynamic) even. Volume match is always there. I control my volume output with the amplifier. Volume within programs / Windows is always 100%.
> Volume- in general is a thing though. A lot of artists nowadays are linked to crap studio's. Those studio's care only about volume (loud as possible on the radio). Making it clip, dynamics (instruments) are destroyed and it starts sounding flat/dull. It is a serious issue that starts to bother me more and more. We buy high-end equipment and the source-audio is getting worse and worse.


 
 Well, Tidal streams louder by default. If I have both Spotify and Tidal on 100% I can tell the difference every time.
  
 Totally agree with you on the last part though. Masters are definitely getting worse.
 I have a small playlist with nice audio recordings (mostly Beatles) and I never feel like a newly released recording belongs on that playlist.


----------



## Thenazgul

daphen said:


> Well, Tidal streams louder by default. If I have both Spotify and Tidal on 100% I can tell the difference every time.
> 
> Totally agree with you on the last part though. Masters are definitely getting worse.
> I have a small playlist with nice audio recordings (mostly Beatles) and I never feel like a newly released recording belongs on that playlist.


 

 Yes, a few artists are doing a good job. Some artists are lucky for not using much instruments. It is especially hear-able on rock music.
 Recently I was really disappointed by Poets of the Fall latest album. All the albums before did sound good, but this one is just horrible. clipping etc all over the place. example : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_8wYwvlmBE


----------



## daphen

thenazgul said:


> Yes, a few artists are doing a good job. Some artists are lucky for not using much instruments. It is especially hear-able on rock music.
> Recently I was really disappointed by Poets of the Fall latest album. All the albums before did sound good, but this one is just horrible. clipping etc all over the place. example : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_8wYwvlmBE


 
 Yeah, ugh.


----------



## musical-kage

daphen said:


> I'm just genuinely curious and would love to see some real evidence of a difference.
> Like measured differences. That someone says that they can tell a "massive difference in clarity and soundstage" is not enough for me.




Be real easy if a different master was used, but as I proved to myself a few pages back, Spotify and Tidal sound exactly the same on max settings.
Impossible to tell the differences.

Someone ABX a FLAC against a 320kbps OGG and tell me they really hear a difference with the results please as I did


----------



## HotIce

I was Spotify Premium, but switched to Google Play, since Spotify did not offer high bitrate on Web Player, which is the only one I can use at work.


----------



## WhiteKnite

musical-kage said:


> Be real easy if a different master was used, but as I proved to myself a few pages back, Spotify and Tidal sound exactly the same on max settings.
> Impossible to tell the differences.
> 
> Someone ABX a FLAC against a 320kbps OGG and tell me they really hear a difference with the results please as I did


 
 FLAC vs 320 OGG is not really the issue.  Spotify is possibly either using lower quality masters, some kind of adaptive streaming behind the scenes, or is not actually 320.  I don't have the time to go through every track and compare, but I really _wanted _Spotify quality to be acceptable.  I don't believe in $1000 cable upgrades and opamp rolling or any of the other silly psychoaccoustic myths unless I see proof, but listening to Spotify for a few hours I am totally convinced it doesn't sound as good as Tidal, or even my 320 mp3 library streamed from my OneDrive.  Maybe this really doesn't belong in the sound science forum since it is still speculative, and I will admit it is possible expectation bias is fooling me to some degree, but I can usually get past that to a large extent.  Another possibility is that the random songs Spotify promotes are just highly compressed and Tidal pushes well mastered recordings more often. I find WAY more _music _that I like on Spotify but I find WAY more _recordings _that I like on Tidal.


----------



## daphen

whiteknite said:


> FLAC vs 320 OGG is not really the issue.  Spotify is possibly either using lower quality masters, some kind of adaptive streaming behind the scenes, or is not actually 320.  I don't have the time to go through every track and compare, but I really _wanted _Spotify quality to be acceptable.  I don't believe in $1000 cable upgrades and opamp rolling or any of the other silly psychoaccoustic myths unless I see proof, but listening to Spotify for a few hours I am totally convinced it doesn't sound as good as Tidal, or even my 320 mp3 library streamed from my OneDrive.  Maybe this really doesn't belong in the sound science forum since it is still speculative, and I will admit it is possible expectation bias is fooling me to some degree, but I can usually get past that to a large extent.  Another possibility is that the random songs Spotify promotes are just highly compressed and Tidal pushes well mastered recordings more often. I find WAY more _music _that I like on Spotify but I find WAY more _recordings _that I like on Tidal.


 
 "I find WAY more _music_ that I like on Spotify but I find WAY more _recordings_ that I like on Tidal. ", I have to chime in on this. I probably won't keep paying for Tidal since I can barely use it. But your statement is exactly the way I've felt during the six months I've been using it.


----------



## Soundizer

I was prepared to pay the Tidal Premium, but many Apple Music tracks sound even better than my Lossless ripped CD's. Dire Straits Album is where i did a 2hour AB test between my ripped CD and (Apple Music which is a Mastered for iTunes). Apple Music sounded best, (not louder, but better quality).


----------



## Firelthos

That's actually really interesting. I've ripped a few CD's but feel like the ripped CD quality was still better. What app were you using to rip the files from your CD's?


----------



## Soundizer

Ripping directly into my Apple iMac via iTunes.


----------



## canali

soundizer said:


> I was prepared to pay the Tidal Premium, but many Apple Music tracks sound even better than my Lossless ripped CD's. Dire Straits Album is where i did a 2hour AB test between my ripped CD and (Apple Music which is a Mastered for iTunes). Apple Music sounded best, (not louder, but better quality).


 
 mastered for itunes, from an article i'd read on it, is supposed to involve some pretty cool tech and skills.
  
 the engineers or more advanced audiophiles on here will appreciate this article more than I can.
*Does “Mastered for iTunes” matter to music? Ars puts it to the test* http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/04/does-mastered-for-itunes-matter-to-music-ars-puts-it-to-the-test/
 from 2012...


----------



## Soundizer

canali said:


> soundizer said:
> 
> 
> > I was prepared to pay the Tidal Premium, but many Apple Music tracks sound even better than my Lossless ripped CD's. Dire Straits Album is where i did a 2hour AB test between my ripped CD and (Apple Music which is a Mastered for iTunes). Apple Music sounded best, (not louder, but better quality).
> ...





Many thanks and a very interesting article. I had Spotify Premium for 3 years and then when i upgraded my headphones plus added headphone dac/amp i could hear how bad Spotify Premium sounded compared to my ripped CD's. i trialled Apple Music which sounds amazing and better than many of my lossless ripped CD's.


----------



## Soundizer

canali said:


> soundizer said:
> 
> 
> > I was prepared to pay the Tidal Premium, but many Apple Music tracks sound even better than my Lossless ripped CD's. Dire Straits Album is where i did a 2hour AB test between my ripped CD and (Apple Music which is a Mastered for iTunes). Apple Music sounded best, (not louder, but better quality).
> ...





Many thanks and a very interesting article. I had Spotify Premium for 3 years and then when i upgraded my headphones plus added headphone dac/amp i could hear how bad Spotify Premium sounded compared to my ripped CD's. i trialled Apple Music which sounds amazing and better than many of my lossless ripped CD's.


----------



## canali

soundizer said:


> Many thanks and a very interesting article. I had Spotify Premium for 3 years and then when i upgraded my headphones plus added headphone dac/amp i could hear how bad Spotify Premium sounded compared to my ripped CD's. i trialled Apple Music which sounds amazing and better than many of my lossless ripped CD's.


 
 to me spotify premium doesn't sound too bad at all...then again i don't have 'golden ears' like many.
 too bad apple music didn't do 'mastered for itunes' for most of their stuff that is in demand or would need it
 ..am sure they'd get more subscribers


----------



## canali

i just got some audioengine a5+ monitors (pioneer sw 8km2 sub on the way)
 and so resubscribed to spotify premium.
 (seeking the emotiva airmotiv 4s to replace the a5s)
  
 getting into classical music now....just lovely esp coming from speakers vs just cans.
 (there is something fab about music coming from speakers  and not just can/iems)
  
 i'm finding streaming is so helpful for getting to know new material, genres etc
 ...then i'll go and order a better sounding version
 somewhere else...anyone else also do this?
 seems steve silberman of audioquest does this, too.


----------



## sonitus mirus

canali said:


> i just got some audioengine a5+ monitors (pioneer sw 8km2 sub on the way)
> and so resubscribed to spotify premium.
> (seeking the emotiva airmotiv 4s to replace the a5s)
> 
> ...


 
  
 I listen to music over nearfield studio monitors most of the time.  I basically only listen to headphones in my office at work. (closed with good isolation)
  
 I'm almost exclusively streaming music.  The places I frequent all have excellent access to the internet.  I use Google as I like the interface the best.  I have boxes filled with CDs, and some of these I have ripped and uploaded into Google as Lame vbr -0 mp3s.  Sounds perfectly fine to my ears and I have attempted to ABX several tracks.  I passed the Phillips Golden Ears challenge when it was still available with my Denon D5K headphones and my current speaker setup with the KRK R8 G3 pair, so I'm apparently not completely deaf.  I have a cheap laptop that is dedicated to streaming music at home, and I have been using a Radial Pro USB DAC since it has balanced outputs for my speakers.  It is perfect for me.  
  
 I used to have a big record collection, and I made cassette tapes to save the wear on the vinyl and to play in my car. (first car was a Datson 510...I'm getting up there in age)  Then I bought an early Onkyo CD player and repurchased my library again once they were available on CD.  At one time I had most of my CDs ripped to FLAC and saved on a NAS.  Eventually I neglected that setup to the convenience of streaming.  Still have the hard drives, but I no longer use the old NAS.  Just collecting dust in a closet now.


----------



## Dat_Dude

Subscribing to this thread.  I am about to begin my free trial of Tidal as a long time Spotify user (on Extreme setting). I LOVE the interface of Spotify and their selection is second to none, so I hope I will not be able to notice too much of a difference with my new high-end gear.  
  
 Do any of you that notice the difference between the two use any of the EQ presets in Spotify?


----------



## netdog

Here's a vote for Qobuz


----------



## Morkai

Qobuz.. Their selection of classical is nice.  But they can't stream between 4pm and 10pm most days, in France, to a sizeable portion of their user base (those who have the internet provider "orange", 40% of market share). It happened to others in switzerland. 


 Between spotify vorbis -q9 (premium) and TIdal MQA through a meridian explorer², I don't hear any difference. The music is great in both cases. Spotify has by far a better UI, and i like their discover weekly and user playlists.


----------



## beaux

I will vote tidal. They offer lossless music. And many streaming devices support tidal.


----------



## theveterans

>


 
  
 Spotify ASIO over Tidal anyday IMO. It's as good as hi-res audio to my ears. Spotify mobile app however is a tie with Tidal mobile IMO.


----------



## Thenazgul

theveterans said:


> Spotify ASIO over Tidal anyday IMO. It's as good as hi-res audio to my ears. Spotify mobile app however is a tie with Tidal mobile IMO.


 
 Tidal has WASAPI. Also Bit-perfect lock on DAC. I prefer Tidal. Mobile-app of Spotify is better compared to Tidal.


----------



## Morkai

Lossless/flac is supposed to be for archiving purpose. In this light it don't make a lot of sense to include it in a streaming service, if you don't plan to rip the stream (which is illegal).

 To test for yourself that, for listening purpose spotify HQ is as good as lossless, you can take this abx test :  http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html


----------



## watchnerd

morkai said:


> Lossless/flac is supposed to be for archiving purpose. In this light it don't make a lot of sense to include it in a streaming service, if you don't plan to rip the stream (which is illegal).
> 
> To test for yourself that, for listening purpose spotify HQ is as good as lossless, you can take this abx test :  http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html


 
  
 I subscribe to lossless Tidal because it alleviates the audiophilia nervosa I feel when listening to lossy.
  
 And, no, I can't pass an ABX test of well done 320 vs Redbook.


----------



## canali

I returned from Spotify premium to Tidal because I thought "if I really want to support campanies trying to offer quality music Hi-Rez lossless etc. that I better Pony up and put my money where my mouth is...and now that Tidal has MQA, well it's even more of a differentiator and reason to back them up"
And paying $10 more is no biggie...just think of all the money we can piss away with no second thoughts...eg.a few coffees or some junkfood, a couple of beers a month etc


----------



## WhiteKnite

Exactly, the bigger Tidal gets the more likely artists and producers are to pay more attention to making well mastered music. And I also subscribe to Tidal to ease my mind as mentioned in the previous post, despite knowing I can't hear any discernable difference between a good 320kbps mp3 and FLAC


----------



## netdog

The strength of Qobuz is H-Res downloads which are heavily discounted if you also join the 24-bit streaming service.


----------



## Morkai

> audiophilia nervosa


 

 It will be included in *Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 6th edition*


----------



## WhiteKnite

morkai said:


> It will be included in *Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 6th edition*


 
 LOL it should. Yep the whole reason I read the Sound Science section is to keep me grounded from floating off into voodoo-placebo lala land.  Some things I just can't get over, especially 24 bit lossless.


----------



## canali

*writeup by Darko on Tidal and MQA, currently.*
  
*http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/01/mqa-tidal-where-are-we-now/*
OPINIONSOFTWARE
MQA & Tidal – where are we now? by 


John H. Darkoabout


----------



## Morkai

Bought a merdian explorer² to test this. Thought it made a difference... until I abxed it. From then on, no difference could be heard. 

 Audio is simple. What isn't is our thirst for dopamine. The thrill of novelty etc..


 Don't be a junkie, quit audiophily


----------



## watchnerd

canali said:


> *writeup by Darko on Tidal and MQA, currently.*
> 
> *http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/01/mqa-tidal-where-are-we-now/*
> OPINIONSOFTWARE
> ...


 
  
  
  
  
 MQA not compatible with DSP?
  
 Well, that's a deal-breaker....


----------



## castleofargh

watchnerd said:


> MQA not compatible with DSP?
> 
> Well, that's a deal-breaker....


 
 that one was kind of obvious from the start, if you go changing the bit values too much with a DSP, how can they decode anything from the lower values?


----------



## watchnerd

castleofargh said:


> that one was kind of obvious from the start, if you go changing the bit values too much with a DSP, how can they decode anything from the lower values?


 
  
 Of course, makes sense.
  
 I just hadn't thought about it.
  
 But it also means all those guys who are using HQPlayer etc aren't going to see their little light come on.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

For every one person that dismisses MQA because it isn't compatible with DSP...
3 people will dismiss *DSP* because it isn't compatible with MQA
10 people will use MQA with no idea what DSP is in the first place
... of which about 5 people will run into problems because of stuff like system mixer, resampler and volume control, eventually fix it using bitperfect protocols, and ask for stuff like system mixer, resampler and volume control (never mind DSP) to be abolished for the stock system as well...

Just saying


----------



## canali

So Spotify might offer lossless..


"Spotify is preparing to launch a Hi-Fi music tier
The company is A/B testing its pricing strategy on some users"
By Micah Singleton on March 1, 2017 11:09 am
https://www.google.com/amp/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/3/1/14776780/spotify-hi-fi-preparing-launch-lossless-audio-tier


----------



## theveterans

canali said:


> So Spotify might offer lossless..
> 
> 
> "Spotify is preparing to launch a Hi-Fi music tier
> ...


 
  
 Hopefully Fidelify can accommodate flac if Spotify uses that codec. If not, I'll stick with the premium as Fidelify easily beats Tidal Hi-Fi in sound quality in my system IMO.


----------



## west0ne

Spotify needs to build direct USB DAC output into their apps so that we can have bitperfect output for both streaming and offline music; this would set them ahead of Tidal, particularly on Android.


----------



## theveterans

west0ne said:


> Spotify needs to build direct USB DAC output into their apps so that we can have bitperfect output for both streaming and offline music; this would set them ahead of Tidal, particularly on Android.


 
  
 For Windows OS, tt has to be ASIO for it to be bitperfect IMO. I still don't trust WASAPI as it still sounds like directsound, but with other audio stream muted in my experience. That ASIO drivers from my W4S USB audio interface just does wonders in providing the best digital sound before the DAC.


----------



## SRKRAM

west0ne said:


> Spotify needs to build direct USB DAC output into their apps so that we can have bitperfect output for both streaming and offline music; this would set them ahead of Tidal, particularly on Android.



 


+1 for that. I Commented the same thing to Spotify in the feature proposal discussion. I don't hear much difference between Tidal and Spotify on a Mac, but on Android there's a huge difference between Tidal via UAPP (and the eXtreme USB driver) and the Tidal app (with the crappy Android driver).

-Mark.


----------



## NeoG

watchnerd said:


> Of course, makes sense.
> 
> I just hadn't thought about it.
> 
> But it also means all those guys who are using HQPlayer etc aren't going to see their little light come on.


 
  
 DSP is the anti-thesis of MQA, so it makes sense that the system they created does not take it into account.
  
 I mean, the whole purpose of it is to tightly control the creation and delivery of bit-perfect audio and avoid PCM "shadiness" that happens in the audio chain. DSP is considered a shady practice to quite a few people.
  
  
 Also on the subject of Spotify not streaming the selected bitrate, I feel like they don't have the entire library in the extreme preset. I've heard obvious low quality streams with the setting on maximum and was unable to force the music to a version without compression artifacts.


----------



## castleofargh

theveterans said:


> west0ne said:
> 
> 
> > Spotify needs to build direct USB DAC output into their apps so that we can have bitperfect output for both streaming and offline music; this would set them ahead of Tidal, particularly on Android.
> ...


 
 wasapi can be set to output the fidelity as asio, but can also be used with various settings. like be set in non exclusive mode where its really not different from direct sound(you can have the sound of the media player and youtube at the same time for example). in such setting you're not bypassing anything and don't have the "bit perfect" idea. but it's only a matter of settings.
 anyway if a DAC has dedicated asio drivers and they're not too buggy, I'd indeed suggest using them. 
  


neog said:


> DSP is the anti-thesis of MQA, so it makes sense that the system they created does not take it into account.
> 
> I mean, the whole purpose of it is to tightly control the creation and delivery of bit-perfect audio and avoid PCM "shadiness" that happens in the audio chain. DSP is considered a shady practice to quite a few people.
> 
> ...


 
 is this post sarcastic?  MQA discards several bits of the original signal to replace them with sample data. so bit perfect... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 and MQA relies on DSP. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 it just doesn't enjoy other DSPs coming before the extraction of the stuff it has coded inside the PCM signal.


----------



## NeoG

castleofargh said:


> is this post sarcastic?  MQA discards several bits of the original signal to replace them with sample data. so bit perfect...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Not at all.. The whole idea of is it lossy or lossless is being put through a washing machine. If you say MQA is lossy compared to a 192/24 stream, then literally everything can be lossy compared to whatever you choose as a reference. 192/24 is lossy compared to DXD for example.
  
 The fact that MQA has a non-rectangular capture window doesn't make it lossy in the traditional sense. It just means they've optimised the capture window to what they believe is important to record in the first place. It's the same argument for distributing in 44/16, everything that went in will come out as intended.
  
 Now, I don't think anyone has any inside information currently on the fold and unfold transform - this may be done as a data based operation (Like with Dolby technologies) or it may be an audio-space transformation. It's entirely possible the low level high frequency information is a data-difference stream embedded in the 44/16 audio, and the MQA decoder is able to fully restore the original triangular window without doing using a break-point notch.
  
 If that is the case, the system is lossless as per it's original intention, and DSP is not involved in the reconstruction. But I digress, it's entirely circumstantial.


----------



## gregorio

neog said:


> The whole idea of is it lossy or lossless is being put through a washing machine. If you say MQA is lossy compared to a 192/24 stream, then literally everything can be lossy compared to whatever you choose as a reference.


 
  
 That would be true, if we were to choose whatever we want as a reference but of course that's not what we do! The reference of what we get out of a codec, is what we put in. If we put in a 192/24 stream but get out less than a 192/24 stream after encoding/decoding, then the encoding/decoding process is lossy. If we put in 16/44.1 and get out less that 16/44.1 then the codec is lossy. If we get out exactly what we put in, then it's lossless.
  
 How audible any loss maybe, is entirely another question of course.
  
 G


----------



## sonitus mirus

gregorio said:


> That would be true, if we were to choose whatever we want as a reference but of course that's not what we do! The reference of what we get out of a codec, is what we put in. If we put in a 192/24 stream but get out less than a 192/24 stream after encoding/decoding, then the encoding/decoding process is lossy. If we put in 16/44.1 and get out less that 16/44.1 then the codec is lossy. If we get out exactly what we put in, then it's lossless.
> 
> How audible any loss maybe, is entirely another question of course.
> 
> G


 
  
 Yep, MQA is like MP3 with Replay Gain, except one format is open source and can play over a wide range of existing products without the requirement of proprietary software or hardware.  Ok, there are other differences, I'm mostly joking.


----------



## NeoG

gregorio said:


> That would be true, if we were to choose whatever we want as a reference but of course that's not what we do!


 
  
 Well, arguably you are still choosing an arbitrary reference point - I suppose I see the 192/24 as an intermediary in what is likely a 2-3 step data reduction process from whatever the source is. So it seems weird to me to single out that particular piece of the process as the point of comparison to the unfolded output...


----------



## gregorio

neog said:


> Well, arguably you are still choosing an arbitrary reference point - I suppose I see the 192/24 as an intermediary in what is likely a 2-3 step data reduction process from whatever the source is. So it seems weird to me to single out that particular piece of the process as the point of comparison to the unfolded output...


 
  
 It's not an arbitrary reference point. All digital audio formats (raw, compressed lossy or lossless) can only know, store and restore what they are given. There is no way for a digital audio format to know, store or restore data which was contained in any other version or format prior to the version it's being fed. It would be nonsensical to try and reference an impossibility, the only logical reference point for an encoder/decoder is what you give it to encode in the first place!
  
 BTW, it's extremely unlikely that a 192/24 file is the result of even one intermediary data reduction step, let alone two or three. The only time a 192/24 file is the result of a data reduction is when mixing/mastering a SACD and even then, it's difficult to argue logically that the conversion from DSD to 192/24 constitutes a data reduction. The other time could be if you're referring to the mix environment but although this is a master source in one sense, it only ever exists 'virtually", it's never recorded as a file and it's never played or heard by anyone (including the artists/engineers who created it), because it can't be played!
  
 G


----------



## NeoG

gregorio said:


> It's not an arbitrary reference point. All digital audio formats (raw, compressed lossy or lossless) can only know, store and restore what they are given. There is no way for a digital audio format to know, store or restore data which was contained in any other version or format prior to the version it's being fed. It would be nonsensical to try and reference an impossibility, the only logical reference point for an encoder/decoder is what you give it to encode in the first place!


 
  
 I guess the point I'm trying to make is, why is MQA all of a sudden being thrown in the lossy bin when 44/16 distribution has been doing the same thing in a different form for years from 96/24 or 192/24 masters?
  
 What is it about decoded MQA that is worse than mastering down to 44/16 for it to be labelled as such?


----------



## castleofargh

neog said:


> I guess the point I'm trying to make is, why is MQA all of a sudden being thrown in the lossy bin when 44/16 distribution has been doing the same thing in a different form for years from 96/24 or 192/24 masters?
> 
> What is it about decoded MQA that is worse than mastering down to 44/16 for it to be labelled as such?


 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_compression
 we're not talking about final resolution, downsampling, filtering, bit reduction...  we're talking about lossless format.
 take the 16/44 PCM, make a flac out of it, decompress the flac and you can go back to the same identical 16/44 PCM.
 try doing that with MQA. if you think 16/44 is a bad starting point for MQA  you can pick 24/192, or even let's be super nice and say 15/192 or 17/192 PCM. if the decompression uses dither, it's lossy decoding. the end.
  
 how some people assume that lossy is a pejorative word,  now that's a very different matter but I don't feel the need to be dragged down to their level of interpretation. yes a lossy format can have very high resolution and yes a lossy format can sound transparent.


----------



## gregorio

neog said:


> [1] I guess the point I'm trying to make is, why is MQA all of a sudden being thrown in the lossy bin when 44/16 distribution has been doing the same thing in a different form for years from 96/24 or 192/24 masters?
> 
> [2] What is it about decoded MQA that is worse than mastering down to 44/16 for it to be labelled as such?


 
  
 Huh, you do realise that makes no sense? It's also bizarre that someone has given you a "reputation" for not making any sense!
  
 1. 44/16 is not a format, it's a resolution. So you're trying to compare a resolution to a format, which makes no sense! If you want to logically compare MQA to something you have to compare it to another format, say FLAC, WAV or ALAC. If you don't reference a format/codec to what you feed that codec then any comparison is nonsense, one could for example easily demonstrate that a 128kbps MP3 is better than DSD Wide.
  
 2. Let's compare apples to apples shall we? What's the difference between 44/16 in say FLAC format and 44/16 in MQA format? Firstly, the FLAC format provides a bit perfect copy, MQA does not AND Secondly, the FLAC format is free, MQA has to be licensed. If you don't like 44/16 for some reason and prefer 192/24, no problem, let's ask the same question again: What's the difference between a 192/24 in say FLAC format and 192/24 in MQA format? Answer is the same!
  
 G


----------



## wormcycle

Lots of  posts here saying "well Spotify is lossy, Tidal hifi is FLAC therefore it must be a difference and I hear the difference". And it is like "day and night". Yeah.....
  
 If you listen mostly using good amp, good DAC and resolving  headphones then listen for yourself and decide if you hear the difference. On some tracks you will on some you will not. I went for days A/Bing between the Spotify and Tidal classical tracks and decided on Tidal on the a very slim margin. But if I used mostly my phone to stream music I would not even think about Tidal.


----------



## nrvenice (Jun 30, 2017)

I volume-matched Spotify Extreme (their app has separate volume control) and Tidal HiFi on my macbook through LCD-2f. I played my go to test tracks (track 1 of https://www.amazon.com/Montserrat-Figueras-Emotion-Jordi-Savall/dp/B006MZS932 and track 2 of https://www.amazon.com/Tous-Matins-Monde-Bande-Originale/dp/B00005S0MD). I'm very familiar with the 2nd track and have heard it live in 3 different concerts over the years. I had no difficulty picking out what was playing and thought Tidal was far superior.

Tidal have since added Masters for some albums for their desktop app but I have not tested this.


----------



## Niouke

nrvenice said:


> I volume-matched Spotify Extreme (their app has separate volume control) and Tidal HiFi on my macbook through LCD-2f. I played my go to test tracks (track 1 of https://www.amazon.com/Montserrat-Figueras-Emotion-Jordi-Savall/dp/B006MZS932 and track 2 of https://www.amazon.com/Tous-Matins-Monde-Bande-Originale/dp/B00005S0MD). I'm very familiar with the 2nd track and have heard it live in 3 different concerts over the years. I had no difficulty picking out what was playing and thought Tidal was far superior.
> 
> Tidal have since added Masters for some albums for their desktop app but I have not tested this.



Was it blind testing, or did you switch between apps yourself? Removing the psychological aspect is very important to blind testing. Also Spotify is a bit annoying because the app doesn't say if you are listening to 160kbps or 320kbps, and 160kbps is indeed detectable. maybe you should add other tracks to your comparison?


----------



## frodeni

I hope MQA dies. There is supposed to be clean 16/44.1 stream, if you do not use it, but that is simply not the case. The MQA reproduction is far worse than the 16/44.1, for all the tracks I have tried. That something sounds different, does not mean that it is an improvement. Both the supposedly clean 16/44.1 and the MQA stream is lossy, and if you read the papers closely, that is actually stated in there. Sure, the sound is different, but it is no improvement.


----------



## nrvenice

Niouke said:


> Was it blind testing, or did you switch between apps yourself? Removing the psychological aspect is very important to blind testing. Also Spotify is a bit annoying because the app doesn't say if you are listening to 160kbps or 320kbps, and 160kbps is indeed detectable. maybe you should add other tracks to your comparison?



I agree re blind testing but I couldn't do it easily. I did try to let the Macbook "choose" which app to play by using the keyboard play button but that was dependent on which app was on "top" of the other most recently. I also tried listening to popular music tracks and even here could discern a difference though not as marked. 

I'll probably end up trying to ABX this in the future to confirm but I've participated in many double-blind tests over 20 years (wine, vodka, tequila, scotch, amplifiers, speakers) and have observed that I'm pretty objective when ABing.

The cost difference was nominal and I want to support their support of higher bitrates and artists (I always feel like I should send my favorites a check since they make such little money from my listening).


----------



## bigshot (Jul 1, 2017)

The problem with comparing streaming services is it's hard to be sure you're listening to the same mastering. Add to that the likelihood that the levels aren't matched and it can be tough. It takes a lot of work to do a solid A/B test even if it isn't double blind. To do this properly, I'd say that you would need to...

1) Capture the stream in high quality so you can line them up for direct comparison
2) Level match the two samples
3) Try to null the two samples to determine if the mix is the same
4) Set up a true double blind direct switchable comparison

Obviously, this would take the better part of a weekend to do. It's probably not worth the effort. But when you are presented with two nearly identical sounding samples, this is how you would go about figuring out if there is a difference between them or if you are imagining a preference. If the difference was clear, you wouldn't need to be so stringent in setting up your test.

Personally, if it requires that much effort to even determine if there is a difference, I would just decide that it doesn't matter at all. If I can't perceive a clear difference, I'll take either.


----------



## nrvenice

bigshot said:


> The problem with comparing streaming services is it's hard to be sure you're listening to the same mastering. Add to that the likelihood that the levels aren't matched and it can be tough. It takes a lot of work to do a solid A/B test even if it isn't double blind. To do this properly, I'd say that you would need to...
> 
> 1) Capture the stream in high quality so you can line them up for direct comparison
> 2) Level match the two samples
> ...



Thanks for outlining the methodology. I looked into Foobar but it doesn't run on mac and didn't immediately find other software to use. I would put some faith in someone else's double blind if the participants were classically trained musicians listening to works they were very familiar with using highly resolving headphones or speakers that they'd used for more than 3 months but search (including sound science) hasn't yielded any.

I trust Linkwitz's methodology and he uses lossless for his test cd (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/sound_picture_cd.htm) and personal recordings and makes some interesting comments on sound quality (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/ALMA'14/Sound_quality.htm). Aczel observes (http://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/audio_critic_web1.htm#red) that higher resolution recordings signal a greater care in recording process and I have made similar observations, hence my continued support of Tidal hoping to signal a consumer demand for better product.

Tl;dr Aczel: "Now, Meyer and Moran are careful to point out that the new hi-rez formats generally sound better than standard CDs, but not because the processing technology is superior. The hi-rez discs are aimed at a more sophisticated market, and therefore the recording sessions and production techniques tend to be more sophisticated, more puristic, in terms of microphoning, compression, editing, etc."


----------



## bigshot

Of course for classical music, performance quality is much more important than recording quality. I'd take a dry boxy Toscanini Beethoven symphony over the best high bitrate recording by a no name regional Eastern European band. And thankfully, classical music has been well mastered and recorded since the late 60s, so most of it sounds very good.


----------



## nrvenice

bigshot said:


> Of course for classical music, performance quality is much more important than recording quality. I'd take a dry boxy Toscanini Beethoven symphony over the best high bitrate recording by a no name regional Eastern European band. And thankfully, classical music has been well mastered and recorded since the late 60s, so most of it sounds very good.



False dichotomy. Even Rachmaninoff playing Rachmaninoff is hampered by the low quality mono recordings.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 3, 2017)

It depends on if you are listening to the recording or the music. "Audiophile" classical music is usually performed by experienced, but faceless regional orchestras. And most classical recordings since the age of stereo are recorded to very high standards anyway. There's no reason to sacrifice performance quality for recording quality.


----------



## Strangelove424 (Jul 5, 2017)

Reading through this thread, there seems to be a lot of confusion as to what the differences may be in regard to encoding vs. mastering. I have a pretty big stake in finding an answer to this, and I think it's worth the time. For the most part, I switched to streaming, even when I have PCM files sitting right next to me locally. Streaming has become my access point for most music- it's just easier, and I have the kid in a candy store feeling when I can access almost every album ever made. With this in mind, I put aside my negative feelings about Tidal's associating with MQA and recent Jay-Z acquisition, and got a trial subscription for a month.

 I began by capturing a WAV from both Spotify @ "premium" (320kbps 16/44.1 OggVorbis) and Tidal @ "HiFi" (16/44.1 FLAC) quality. I sampled Philip Glass' Sand Mandala from Kundun, Bach's Matthaus Passion by Ton Koopman, and the Beatles "Let It Be" Remaster. I tried my best to find the same masters of each, but can't absolutely guarantee it. With the soundcard in 44.1khz mode, I created an Audacity project @ 44.1khz, and captured streams from both music services. I then output both streams independent to a 16-bit/44.1khz WAV file, as to retain all data possible. My first step was ABXing. I could not differentiate beyond statistically random. This led me to approach things from a more concrete perspective, a nulling of the two WAV files I attained from each stream using the audio processing software Diffmaker. I have decided to post the files so that everybody can listen with their own ears:

*Tidal HiFi vs Spotify Premium Null track: Philip Glass, Sand Mandala, Kundun - *
(edit: Please do not adjust your volume for this test, the purpose is to compare noise and artifacts to regular listening levels. I should also warn you that there is a slight overhang at the end of the clip where the null drops off and the monks return, so please don't blow your ears or speakers out by turning up the volume.)

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=86139679279655796028

Consists mainly of low frequency oms and didgeridoo. Doesn't seem to present any issue.


*Tidal HiFi vs Spotify Premium Null track: Bach, Matthaus Passion, Ton Koopman *

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=51110490042415488335

Low level noise, seems to be amplified when the chorus comes in toward the end. Wish I had captured more of the chorus, but was worried about file sizes.


*Tidal HiFi vs Spotify Premium Null Track: Beatles, Let It Be, Remastered*

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=00880002567388396767

Some low level noise around the vocals, but I don't know what to make of the extra piano hit. There are two remasters of Let It Be, from 2004 and 2009, and because Spotify and Tidal both list the albums' original 1970 release date, there's no way to know for sure which is which. Probably a mastering difference.

I hope this has been useful. To me, according to the ABX results, the differences based on encoding do not appear to audible enough to justify Tidal on their own. However,  it does seem to me that certain masters on Tidal are of better quality. One example is Fleetwood Mac's Rumors, which only appears on Spotify as the brickwalled and distorted "Deluxe" version. Tidal has a standard non-deluxe master that sounds much better. Philip Glass' Koyaanisqatsi was in its original form on Tidal, whereas Spotify only had an inferior soundtrack version with lots of hiss. I was also able to find a Till Bronner album named Oceana on Tidal that I have been missing since the days of MOG. On the other hand, Tidal was missing the Beatles Anthology, which I never purchased due to price, and enjoy having access to on Spotify. And Jay-Z's obvious marketing influence over Tidal, along with MQA, makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little. MQA is very disturbing to me, and I find it difficult to give money to a company that promotes it. I am still in the process of deciding what to do, because I do think that Tidal's library is curated with better masters. I may do further testing at Tidal's reduced 320kbps ($10/month) quality to see if it contains any marked differences from their 16/44.1 FLAC. But even at $10/month (same as Spotify Premium) the moral qualms I have with MQA are deep, and are the biggest hurdle in me choosing Tidal.


----------



## bigshot

Great info! Thanks!


----------



## Strangelove424

No problem, glad if you can find it useful!


----------



## Niouke

very nice, the candy store effect is real over here as well


----------



## nrvenice

Very helpful in my own exploration, thank you. It seems from your post that you are very familiar with the Beatles but I'm curious about the Bach track, had you ever heard it performed live? And in general, how familiar were you with that particular recording prior to the abxing?

My hypothesis is that track selection is crucial when trying to pick up subtle differences during abxing. Hearing classical pieces live and being familiar with the tracks is part of this. Also, I've noticed that isolated voices and instruments recorded at higher volume, and full choruses and orchestration recorded in unison are most revealing of differences in headphones and speakers.

I plan on testing myself on pieces fitting the above description (that I listen to very frequently: at least once per week) to see if I can't reliably hear a difference.


----------



## Strangelove424

Glad if the data could be useful to you! I've been a Beatles fan for a long time. I have not heard Matthew's Passion performed live.  I attended concerts when I knew someone with a season pass to the LA Philharmonic. This was at the new Disney Concert Hall, which was amazing. Unfortunately, I never heard Bach there. At the time, I thought  I was too cool for baroque. Then I was invited to an opera and I fell asleep (I realized that night not a single bone in my body appreciates opera) and I was never invited back again. Anyhow, Bach eventually became my favorite, and I came to see him as more modern than any composer that's arrived since. It would be nice to see Matthaus Passion performed live. Ton Koopman's version is well recorded and performed, and by a youth choir no less! (atleast it's listed as a youth choir, they sure sound older to me).

Regarding ABX, I think with enough training anything is possible. Now that I have the null files and know exactly what to listen for, I tried to ABX one more time, but it's still a toss up for me statistically. Maybe someone with better hearing can parse it. The null tracks do indicate that OggVorbis has some difficulties with vocals and high frequency transitions. Perhaps that could cause some long term listening fatigue at cranked levels, but I have yet to ABX them successfully one by one. The closest I got was with Let It Be by focusing on the initial piano strike. I guessed a few times in a row successfully, but then I began messing up. My mind became fuzzy, I started losing concentration, thinking about the pretty colors in my desktop background, and then I got a headache. I don't think I'm cut out for ABXing.


----------



## nrvenice (Jul 7, 2017)

The Disney Concert Hall is my favorite venue for classical music. I've only been thrice but everything I experienced there was amazing (with sound design reasons: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/se...-disney-concert-hall-yasuhisa-toyota-20130922). I've loved Bach with his mass and the double violin concertos (Stern/Zuckerman) being my favorites.

My abxing results for Tidal vs Spotify are probably flawed because I don't have a sound pressure meter that's sensitive to a tenth of a decibel. I painstakingly level matched the macbook volume for each track independently before abxing by playing both at the same time with one trailing by a few fractions of a second so that the "echos" sounded identical. For the tracks I selected I thought this worked fairly well because they had significant amount of silence. I then turned my back to my accomplice to ensure no physical cues. She rolled a 20-sided die (not what it looks like) and played Spotify or Tidal first depending upon whether the die showed odd or even. She wrote down each roll and I wrote, on a separate pad, my guess.

I used the following songs:
1. Track 1 (Medea: Invocation) from Montserrat Figueras: Voice of Emotion
2. Track 6 (Les Pleurs [Mr. de Sainte Colombe, version viole seule de Jordi Savall]) from All the Morning of the World Soundtrack
3. Good Liar by Selena Gomez

For 1. I got 7 out of 10 right (after changing my last 2 answers). Before I changed my answers, I had 9 out of 10. I blame the change of my answers on the song since it got much more complicated as my trial progressed.

For 2. I got 5 out of 5. No hesitation this time.

For 3. Again, I had 5 out of 5. No hesitation again.

For 2 and 3 I didn't  bother to extend the trial because the differences were so obvious. It made me wonder if Tidal uses some kind of equalization to goose something.

Anyway, this is good enough for me for now. And coupled with Strangelove424's observation on their masters, makes me comfortable to pay the extra $10 each month.

I'llI'll purchase a



I'll buy an appropriate spl meter if I decide to extend my foray into headphones and repeat this test.


----------



## Strangelove424

The Disney Hall has an acoustic intimacy that belies its vast space. I was completely transfixed by a violin solo once, my eyes adjusting to figure the spacial dimensions of the tiny soloist amid the grandeur of the auditorium, because to my ears she was right beside me. It was striking.  

I dunno what to say about Spotify vs Tidal ultimately. I don't think perceptual quality is enough to justify the cost. So to me it comes down to function. Tidal has some better masters. The concert videos are pretty cool, atleast what I saw of Eric Clapton. I like the sound output control I get from their app. But Tidal's library isn't as extensive or eclectic, their marketing is nauseating, their music discovery abysmal, and helpful features like Spotify's remote connect are hard to give up once you've had them.


----------



## ThomasHK

One of the recent advantages of Tidal, is that you can route the audio directly to the external DAC in windows, bypassing the windows mixer. This to me at least has a bigger effect on sound quality than the minute differences between the lossy and lossless compression schemes used.


----------



## Orestes1984 (Jul 11, 2017)

At this point I'm hard pressed to tell the difference between Spotify and CD. If I listen to the same album on vinyl however, I notice a much greater difference. Maybe its my ears, maybe its the 180gram vinyl, or original vinyl pressings no matter my ears prefer the vinyl.


----------



## bigshot

Your turntable probably has a different response curve than your digital player. You should be able to recreate that with EQ for the digital side and have both sound great.


----------



## shuto77

Strangelove424 said:


> The Disney Hall has an acoustic intimacy that belies its vast space. I was completely transfixed by a violin solo once, my eyes adjusting to figure the spacial dimensions of the tiny soloist amid the grandeur of the auditorium, because to my ears she was right beside me. It was striking.
> 
> I dunno what to say about Spotify vs Tidal ultimately. I don't think perceptual quality is enough to justify the cost. So to me it comes down to function. Tidal has some better masters. The concert videos are pretty cool, atleast what I saw of Eric Clapton. I like the sound output control I get from their app. But Tidal's library isn't as extensive or eclectic, their marketing is nauseating, their music discovery abysmal, and helpful features like Spotify's remote connect are hard to give up once you've had them.



As someone who has both Spotify and Tidal, I have to agree with this 100%.

To get the best experience from both, this is how I use them:

I use Spotify at work, in the car, or on-the-go, when data is at a premium. Here, I typically use their discovery/station options to learn about new artists.

While at home, or when I have a chance to download entire albums, I use Tidal. I just hit play, and forget the app is on. The less I interface with the app, the better. This is also mitigated somewhat if I use USB Audio Player Pro with an Android device, as I completely bypass the stock Tidal app, and access the files. Tidal is essentially then just a file server. The only drawback to using the USB Audio Player Pro app is that Tidal doesn't allow it to access downloaded encrypted offline files, so it's not really practical to stream on-the-go.
I'm not sure if this helps anyone, but it's at least a way to use both effectively. (And in the case of USB Audio Player Pro, a way to enjoy the benefit of Tidal without out all the baggage that comes along with it. If I get another notification telling me Jay-Z's new album is available, or that the footnotes for said album are available, I may just throw my phone out the window.)


----------



## Orestes1984

bigshot said:


> Your turntable probably has a different response curve than your digital player. You should be able to recreate that with EQ for the digital side and have both sound great.



Quite possibly.


----------



## bigshot

An imbalance like that would either be the result of the cartridge not being flat, or your phono pre amp being colored. You might try swapping in a different phono preamp and see if it's causing the response shift. In any case, if your digital media doesn't sound as good as your turntable, some judicious EQ is badly needed. You can probably equalize to make both your turntable and digital sources sound better.


----------



## Orestes1984

The reality of it at the moment is listening to digital through a pure analogue stage with a valve amplifier as that is how I've got everything set up right now. Digital files sound quite harsh, my source at the moment is an Apple TV3 with a DAC which adds more issues in the loop, but even when I go directly in, it sounds about the same. There is something about listening to analogue sources such as vinyl on valve amplifers as they were intended to be listened to. I should add an EQ in the loop and check out what exactly is going on though.


----------



## castleofargh

vinyl has so many things going wrong(objectively) that I wouldn't expect an EQ to be enough to even out the differences with a digital source. many types of distortions, extra noise, massive crosstalk, EQ, and of course the master being typically different. 
but maybe we could take this discussion to a topic that isn't so very digital in substance ^_^.


----------



## Orestes1984 (Jul 15, 2017)

There is nothing perfect about digital reproduction either the redbook standard is just one such standard and its flawed also, we have much higher resolution, higher detail digital sources now. To be fair I'm not talking about digital files mastered for analogue media, I'm talking untranslated analogue pressings that were originally recorded on an analogue reel to reel tape. Lets separate out the wheat from the chaft. CDs lack resolution especially at high frequencies that lead to harsh and tinny sounding highs that are especially exposed when played through an analogue amplifier and despite the higher noise factors involved vinyl has a far more accurate and untainted wave form than any CD can have (objectively speaking) I'm not even going to buy into the way digital files are brick walled to the point of clipping for extra loudness where vinyl mastered on analogue tape is generally not either.

We do have some greater advantages today that weren't available in the seventies, but most recording studios don't actually make use of them. I'm not sure you've ever seen a Pro Tools, or VST mix down on a modern desk where compressor is stacked on top of auto tune, is stacked on top of reverb, on top other filters egads leave it alone please or find someone who can actually sing... don't get me started on what people call "producers" today its not even worth entering into that discussion.

Go have a listen to Adele's world famous "*21"* album and then listen to Melody Gardot's *"The Absence" *album please and then tell me that popular music producers are any good at actually mixing music today and you will hear the difference with your own ears. Most modern music is a bit like looking through photos with both instagram and snapchat filters applied, most of the stuff that they do to music today is terrible and sounds terrible. Then very occasionally there is someone who speaks Jazz music, as it was spoken 50 years ago.

Technically there is more resolution and bit depth in digital files, but the way music is mastered today and abused it really doesn't take advantage of that extra resolution and anyway, the perceived differences don't really stack up. You might here a cymbal crash in the highs, or some extra bass kick in the lows but most people don't perceive below 30hz and above about 16khz though with all of the other noises going on. That's just physics of the human ear. If you normalise the music for the middle there is actually no benefit in either format (technically speaking) of course. Those few producers that come close are not the types that most people listen to.

Whenever I have found actual attributed differences beyond what I like and don't like, it has always been able to be attributed to the mix and not to the medium itself. If you want an actual attributed hard and fast rule as to whether an LP or a CD will sound better, you need to know a little bit about the pressing of the LP and the approach of the CD master. Music recorded and released on vinyl from the original tape source almost inevitably will sound better than the CD reissue of the same track, likewise music mixed for digital and released digitally will almost inevitably sound better on CD. If the LP has been remastered for digital it almost definitely wont sound anything like the original LP release, and probably worse. Music produced during the oil crisis on vinyl in the 1970s and 1980s might sound worse, but if you get a re-release on thicker vinyl it might sound better.

I listen to digital, but I keep my digital and analogue spaces separated. The two don't go together. People like to profess the greater bit depth of digital music from a technical perspective. They might be right but the vast majority of the differences that they spout out will be found in areas that are not discernible to the average persons ears and if they were listening by ear on a double blind test rather than pulling out statistics to support their claims they probably wouldn't be able to hear any technical difference what so ever.


----------



## bigshot (Jul 15, 2017)

You're wrong about redbook. To human ears it is perfect. If it doesn't sound perfect, there is something in your system that is coloring it to sound bad. If you have speakers, that and the room would be the first suspects to check out to try to eliminate the problem. Equalization is essential in any speaker rig. I didn't realize that until about 15 years ago and it totally transformed my system. If everything is equal, the format shouldn't matter. LPs can sound great. So can CDs. So can lossy digital files. The trick is getting your system to present them all at their best.

Edit: I see you're amping your digital audio through a tube amp. Perhaps the tube amp isn't used to getting the upper frequencies and is distorting. Most LPs started rolling off the highs at about 12kHz. CDs are flat all the way up to 20kHz. I would bet that has something to do with why your digital stuff doesn't sound good. It would be an interesting experiment to try EQing your CDs to roll off between 12kHz and 15kHz to simulate the LP curve. I bet that might sound just like your LPs.


----------



## Orestes1984 (Jul 15, 2017)

The issue really shouldn't be the tops it should be the bottom end below 30khz, but I'm rolling a sub for that.

https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/pioneer/sa-400.shtml

The issue is probably the fact that I haven't flattened everything out with an EQ just yet. I'll need to get a spectrum analyser and work out exactly what is going on.


----------



## bigshot

Too much treble and upper mids sounds the same as not enough bass. I've learned a lot about frequencies by EQing. There's a lot about it that isn't particularly intuitive.


----------



## Strangelove424

shuto77 said:


> As someone who has both Spotify and Tidal, I have to agree with this 100%.
> 
> To get the best experience from both, this is how I use them:
> 
> ...



Ha! I understand that feeling completely! Or at least throwing Tidal out the window. Just because Jay-Z owns the company doesn't mean he gets to pretend no other musician is releasing an album that week. Tidal talks about wanting to empower musicians, but with all of their exclusive releases and Jay-Z tunnel vision, I think Tidal is doing less than Spotify to promote new artists. Speaking of which, you have an interesting idea to use Spotify to find music, and Tidal to listen, but does that mean you are paying for both services? Or using Spotify free?

The Tidal desktop app is driving me nuts. Tidal keeps opening on startup, even though I have disabled that option. I've gone into msconfig to disable it manually but every time I do a new enabled entry shows up to replace it! I've never seen such aggressive behavior by a program to run at startup. I'm on Windows 7, but people are having the same kind of issue with OSX:

https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/4xjqvn/apps_inc_tidal_starting_automatically_when_mac/

Am I alone in this automatic startup experience using Windows?


----------



## ev13wt

Orestes1984 said:


> At this point I'm hard pressed to tell the difference between Spotify and CD. If I listen to the same album on vinyl however, I notice a much greater difference. Maybe its my ears, maybe its the 180gram vinyl, or original vinyl pressings no matter my ears prefer the vinyl.



It is because due to the technical limitations of the medium "Vinyl" compared to "digital". They are simply mastered differently. 


This is why many early CDs sound pretty "bad". They just used the master mix which was originally intended for vinyl.


----------



## neil74

I am no audio expert but I recently started the 30 day trail of Tidal after being a long-term Spotify user,  I have historically also used Apple music but when I switched the android I had to go with Spotify as the apple music app is garbage on android.


I only really stream indoors and mainly download all of my music for offline listening.  It is actually this rather than sound quality that prompted me to try Tidal as Apple music has constant issues playing when offline and I have also had a few gremlins with Spotify losing downloaded songs too.  I go on holiday in a couple of weeks and just did not feel I could trust either totally when I sat on the plane in flight mode.  Anyway enough waffling here is my take on these 2 after a week with Tidal….


*General stuff excl.sound quality*


·        The UI on Spotify is mostly better, I think it feels slicker and more mature, not massively so but I do prefer it.  e.g. if I am browsing playlists on tidal and view one, when I navigate back it takes me to the top of the page again.

·        I do prefer though how Tidal displays offline material

·        Playlists are better on Spotify and Tidal is imo too hip-hop focussed.  I have spent some time importing my playlists (using stamp) and also finding playlists on Tidal so I am all set up now but Tidal does lack the regular curated ones that I use on Spotify so new music discovery feels like it will be harder work on Tidal.

·        Playlist folders - Spotify has them Tidal doesn't.

·        Spotify Connect!

·        Anecdotal but so far Tidal feels better on battery too


*Sound Quality*


This is where it gets a little muddy for me.  As I said above I am no audio expert, I have a Sonos setup at home and otherwise my listening is mainly through my Samsung S8 and B&W P5 S2 or P7 wireless, so decent but not top end kit by any means.   I have tried a blind test and failed badly, that was though using my P5s through my MacBook pro so may or may not have been a good test.  When I test the same song on both on my phone through the P5 or P7s I think Tidal sounds a hair fuller but that just could be my mind playing tricks. Where Tidal has been noticeably better so far though is consistency, I have always had the sense that some songs on Spotify sound worse than others and certainly the volume variance is wider than any other service I have tried (and I ensure that normalisation is off) so there may be some mileage in the claims that not all material is 320kbps on Spotify (the same concern has kept me away from Deezer too).  It is a shame that Spotify does not display the quality like Tidal does.


So I am not sure where I stand on these two to be honest, I have been patiently waiting for Spotify to deliver their own h-fi tier since it was mentioned in February/March but almost 6 months on the silence is deafening on this one. Will I stick with Tidal when the 30 days is up?  not decided yet. Right now my most likely path is switching back to iPhone when the 8 is released and returning to Apple Music.  I actually still pay for Apple music as my family all use it but am lucky enough to have 12 months of Spotify for free via my mobile phone provider.


Lastly in closing another interesting theory I read recently was that lossless may be less stressful to listen to as with compressed files your brain fills in the gaps that you  may not notice.  Initially this sounded like a nonsense but it is an intriguing point, music interpolation on the fly?????


----------



## castleofargh

I know which article you refer to for your last point, and there is no doubt in my mind that it is garbage theory as soon as we start looking at the magnitudes involved. first there is no gap and we could probably stop there. lossy formats just offer a slightly different sound because the quietest parts(somewhere below -60dB for high rate mp3/aac) are altered to save storage space. if the sound engineer had moved a microphone somewhere else, the sound would have been different. at a concert, if I change seat I will get a sound a little different. those 2 examples will alter the music significantly more than a high rate lossy codec will. some decide to treat any possible difference as a demon but then they change their headphone every 6 months and think that outstanding difference is just fine. it's constant double thinking and failure to see things as they really are. 
there is nothing wrong with the desire for fidelity, and sure enough lossless formats do that better. that alone should be the reason why people go for it, if they want to. not some propaganda to make a grain of sand look like a mountain because the market has monetized music based on weight so they'd rather have us purchase anything with big numbers. 

of course if 2 sounds were very obviously different in magnitudes and content, then it would be reasonable to consider that one can be more tiring than the other. one hour of lullaby will not feel as stressful as one hour of some punk singing his lungs out, even if played at the same loudness. but nobody would fail a blind test of lullaby vs punk rock. ^_^ 
artifacts on real low sample rate are another matter, when clearly audible they can reach high amplitudes, and even from a subjective point of view, it kind of pisses me off when I notice them on low bitrate web radios. so yeah that's definitely stressful, like hearing Despacito 25 times a day. 

it all comes down to magnitudes.


----------



## bigshot

If a lossy format and bit rate is audibly transparent, I don't see how it can be any more stressful to listen to than any other format. I find "listening fatigue" usually comes down to frequency response imbalances or spike, particularly in the upper mids where the ears are most sensitive. Headphone clamping can have an effect too. And of course extended exposure to really bad music!


----------



## ev13wt

bigshot said:


> If a lossy format and bit rate is audibly transparent, I don't see how it can be any more stressful to listen to than any other format. I find "listening fatigue" usually comes down to frequency response imbalances or spike, particularly in the upper mids where the ears are most sensitive. Headphone clamping can have an effect too. And of course extended exposure to really bad music!




I have been posting this idea a couple of years now as well. Missing gaps are quiet cues that get cut off too fast or removing "sounds" we can't hear.

Just because we can't hear something, doesn't mean it hasn't arrived at the eardrum. 

Before we hear, our brain filters out those sounds, after matching them against the brains memory lookup table of "sound correlates to X"

Can someone link the article or pm me?


----------



## neil74

At the bottom of this article, not much beyond that but it did make me curious 

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/05/hif...es-people-cant-tell-it-when-they-hear-it.html


----------



## Strangelove424

neil74 said:


> Lastly in closing another interesting theory I read recently was that lossless may be less stressful to listen to as with compressed files your brain fills in the gaps that you  may not notice.  Initially this sounded like a nonsense but it is an intriguing point, music interpolation on the fly?????



I'm more inclined to believe that compression artifacts would cause fatigue due to added content, rather than any missing content. All the audible frequencies are accounted for during compression, nothing goes missing, and the idea that compression leaves "gaps" is a Pono sales line or a myth, depending on how you view the intentions of the people portraying it that way. However, unwanted things do show up in digital artifacts, and that is usually the tell. There seems to be very little evidence that anything higher than 320kbps can be reliably differentiated, and Spotify vs. Tidal proves that I think. However, it could still be argued (though extremely difficult to prove) that digital artifacts could cause fatigue over long periods. Our brains like mathematically organized relationships in sound and frequency. It's that mathematical order that's responsible for things like musical chords. Artifacting can arguably make our brain's interpretation of the mathematical order in a song more difficult, and perhaps lead to long term fatigue or stress. Proving this would be difficult though, and they'd need to find a reliable way to measure fatigue, while also removing other control variables like frequency response imbalances or low quality source material. I can tell you this: if I play the difference files I made at a reasonable volume, they are very unpleasant to listen to and would probably lead to fatigue if I did that for an extended period (like anything more than 3 minutes). The question is, once that -30db noise get overlayed with the content of an actual music signal, and I can't hear it anymore, does it still fatigue me? This issue gets at the heart of the difference between sensation and perception, or what our brains can sense and what we are conscious they can sense. That is an iceberg.


----------



## castleofargh

Strangelove424 said:


> I'm more inclined to believe that compression artifacts would cause fatigue due to added content, rather than any missing content. All the audible frequencies are accounted for during compression, nothing goes missing, and the idea that compression leaves "gaps" is a Pono sales line or a myth, depending on how you view the intentions of the people portraying it that way. However, unwanted things do show up in digital artifacts, and that is usually the tell. There seems to be very little evidence that anything higher than 320kbps can be reliably differentiated, and Spotify vs. Tidal proves that I think. However, it could still be argued (though extremely difficult to prove) that digital artifacts could cause fatigue over long periods. Our brains like mathematically organized relationships in sound and frequency. It's that mathematical order that's responsible for things like musical chords. Artifacting can arguably make our brain's interpretation of the mathematical order in a song more difficult, and perhaps lead to long term fatigue or stress. Proving this would be difficult though, and they'd need to find a reliable way to measure fatigue, while also removing other control variables like frequency response imbalances or low quality source material. I can tell you this: if I play the difference files I made at a reasonable volume, they are very unpleasant to listen to and would probably lead to fatigue if I did that for an extended period (like anything more than 3 minutes). The question is, once that -30db noise get overlayed with the content of an actual music signal, and I can't hear it anymore, does it still fatigue me? This issue gets at the heart of the difference between sensation and perception, or what our brains can sense and what we are conscious they can sense. That is an iceberg.


the famous fatigue caused by really quiet sounds. ^_^ an almost homeopathic approach to sound waves.


----------



## blackrain139

I've always preferred Spotify's UI and music recommendations but I signed up for Tidal as well primary because of lossless playback.

If Spotify does offer lossless in future, I would cancel Tidal in a heartbeat.


----------



## King CATalyst

i actually did an A/B of spotify vs tidal and found that tidal seemed to have more body and somehow more soundstage, so i decided to stick with tidal. Side note though i have found that tidal DOES NOT sound bettter when streamed through jriver and its very glitchy with lots of delay.


----------



## Tim Le

King CATalyst said:


> i actually did an A/B of spotify vs tidal and found that tidal seemed to have more body and somehow more soundstage, so i decided to stick with tidal. Side note though i have found that tidal DOES NOT sound bettter when streamed through jriver and its very glitchy with lots of delay.



I've A/B'd between spotify and tidal, and I also notice the differences you mentioned. The very first thing I noticed for all of my EDM tracks is that the bass reaches deeper (more rumble) and hits harder in Tidal. However, because I've been a user of Spotify for so long and have a bunch of playlists on Spotify, I got suckered and currently have a subscription for both. On one of my days off this week though, I plan to convert all of my Spotify playlists to Tidal playlists. I will say, Spotify seems to have a wider selection of music, but this may change in the future


----------



## bigshot

Your descriptions sound like it might be a slight volume level difference between the two.


----------



## King CATalyst

Tim Le said:


> I've A/B'd between spotify and tidal, and I also notice the differences you mentioned. The very first thing I noticed for all of my EDM tracks is that the bass reaches deeper (more rumble) and hits harder in Tidal. However, because I've been a user of Spotify for so long and have a bunch of playlists on Spotify, I got suckered and currently have a subscription for both. On one of my days off this week though, I plan to convert all of my Spotify playlists to Tidal playlists. I will say, Spotify seems to have a wider selection of music, but this may change in the future


 I was previously a napster/rhapsody subscriber for years but decided to either switch to spotify or tidal and although i feel spotify is better in most ways it just simply didnt sound as good as tidal my ears. if spotify would go lossless or maybe just refine their sound quality somehow i would switch back in a heart beat.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> Your descriptions sound like it might be a slight volume level difference between the two.


I make you right on that bigshot. I initially thought that there was a worthwhile difference between the two and was very excited. Once I realised that Tidal plays slightly louder than Spotify, even crude volume matching makes them indistinguishable to me.


----------



## neil74

After my post on the last page I did cancel Tidal but a few months on I am thinking of going back.  Mainly the sound quality for me on Spotify is just too inconsistent, I do listen to a lot of playlists so with songs from different albums and artists it is really obvious even to my non-expert ears.  It is not even old stuff either, compared Coldplay adventure of a lifetime this week and it sounded terrible on spotify vs apple music and even amazon unlimited too.   Apple Music though continues to be a glitchy mess on Android, I just canot use it.

Actually thinking that Tidal premium with it's 320 kbps AACs may be a good compromise as AAC is generally regarded as being better than mp3.  Thinking it through.  I also really like how Tidal handles the saving of albums, with both spotify and apple music my albums view is pretty useless as each playlist also adds the asscociated album so I end up with lots and lots of albums with just 1 or 2 songs


----------



## trellus

frodeni said:


> I would also like to point out the obvious: Spotify is ten times greater as to point you to potential new music to listen to. For ordinary people, with ordinary gear, I would point them to Spotify for that reason alone. Compared to Spotify, the Tidal App is lacking on all fronts but SQ. *I actually used Spotify to find new music, then added that to my Tidal playlist, just prior to writing this*.



That’s precisely what I do often, spot on that Spotify is so much better at pointing me to new music.  I love the Discovery and Daily mixes that it autogenerates.


----------



## Niouke

neil74 said:


> Actually thinking that Tidal premium with it's 320 kbps AACs may be a good compromise as AAC is generally regarded as being better than mp3.  Thinking it through.  I also really like how Tidal handles the saving of albums, with both spotify and apple music my albums view is pretty useless as each playlist also adds the asscociated album so I end up with lots and lots of albums with just 1 or 2 songs



just so you know Spotify is not mp3, it's Vorbis, which is arguably better. Comparing streaming service's sound quality is a tricky business, besides the loudness issues, they often use different masters...

I find that the best benchmark for compression are the cymbals, at lower bitrates the artefacts are easily noticeable with a revealing equipment (balanced armatures come to mind), although compression can lead to similar effects.

I have my doubts on a specific album on spotify, even in premium I'd bet it's only in 160kbps. The album is Paradise & Saints from Thee S.T.P 

.


----------



## neil74

Yeah, I know that spotify is Vorbis, as I understand it vorbis is maybe slightly better than mp3 but not as good as AAC?


----------

