Who has tried "TIDAL" vs other streaming applications?

dbtom2,
 Thanks! Yes that helps a great deal - most appreciated!

The more I think about the "business case" Tidal must have evaluated to decide to stream MQA in the (near) future, the more I suspect that they will do the MQA conversion in their app, maybe give you the option to stream MQA "natively", but to have spent gobs to get their library converted and only be able to offer the MQA option to those with an MQA-capable DAC probably doesn't make sense.  Plus, from what I've read, MQA is delivered to the DAC in a "PCM wrapper", so I suspect that streaming MQA, converting it in the Tidal app to FLAC and outputting that converted format to the DAC would probably give the benefits of MQA.

Fingers crossed.

Can I control the volume on Tidal from the ipad I'm about to purchase?

Another vote for tidal.  I love it.  I use it on the browser in my office, and I use it via Roon on my hifi system.

killer system, student!  My system in my student years paled in comparison!

@devilboy If I understand your question correctly, you will control Tidal's volume using the volume controls of the iPad. However, it you're using bluetooth to transmit Tidal music to a bluetooth device, it depends on whether the device allows volume control via bluetooth. In my case I can control using the same iPad volume controls.

Good luck.

+1 on how great Tidal is, but also +++1 on how great the addition of ROON is on top of Tidal. There is a quirk with Roon (or at least I see it as a quirk) that I have to ’add to library’ tracks on Tidal for Roon to then interpret the album or track as part of my music library (it's not actually downloading but more like 'tagging' music as part of my library). Because of this philosophy, I find Roon to be somewhat limited from a music-discovery perspective; I always have to go to the Tidal interface whithin Roon to explore new music, but it’s not a biggie really - still a quirk they should work on.

Most importantly though - the key benefits of ROON:
Roon properly interprets and manages classical music (Spotify or even Tidal doesn’t do a good job with this).
Roon supports a full, lovely iPad app that makes for a wonderful remote.
Roon shows music lyrics, album reviews and other metadata that is fun to explore while listening to the music of the band in question - it’s a great accompaniment to the listening experience.
Roon supports technical integration with things like HQPlayer, allowing me to upsample all Roon tracks to DSD on the fly.

The last point above is HUGE, as it allows me to play all music via DSD 128 via my Lampizator Big 7 chipless DSD dac. The resulting sound quality is jaw-dropping. I paid the $500 for livetime Roon membership and I think anyone who doesn’t is pretty shortsighted, considering we spend more than that (in some cases orders of magnitude more) on the likes of an interconnect or some audio accessory.

Tidal has been an amazing step forward in the music experience vs. what came before it, but Roon (plus HQPlayer plus Lampizator chipless DSD dac) is a revelation and takes things to a whole new level.

@outlier , I bought an iPad Mini 2 to control my music using Room on Tidal. I read on a support thread in a Room forum that my iPad needs to be 64 gb. Mine is 32. Is this true?

Damn spell check. Meant "Roon".

With my system, I can clearly hear the difference Tidal HiFi vs High, but if someone changes my setting secretly, I have little confidence if I can detect it . lol.

A minority opinion here, I suspect.  You can attribute it to what you will...inadequate gear, the wrong set up, old ears and degraded hearing.  Just spent a good amount of time over several days of a "free" 30 day Tidal HIFI trial A/B-ing tracks (and small sections of the same track) on Tidal vs Spotify Premium.  Took pains to get volume levels the same (RadioShack SPL meter). Listened on the main system with Gungnir DAC (not Albert Porter's but good enough to hear cable changes and differences in various issues of an album) as well as headphones (Senn 600/AQ Dragonfly/Asgard 2 amp).  Based on enthusiasm from the Tidal fans here and elsewhere in A'gon, was expecting a night and day difference.  Personally, I was underwhelmed.  I thought I might have heard a tiny, tiny bit more hi end, separation, and density to the music but emphasis on tiny.  Switching back to the same track or section on Spotify Premium and that "remembered improvement" evaporated in a second.  It wasn't like the sound stage shrank or high end started sounding rolled off accompanying a noticeable degradation in SQ..  I doubt I could pick out Tidal vs Spotify in a blind test.  So FWIW, that's my story.  Was really hoping Tidal would bring a step up change in sonics but it didn't for me.  Cancelled the trial.  Saved myself $20/month and kept Spotify which I find very satisfying.  Happy listening to you in which ever format you choose.  

Ghosthouse - you were unable to hear the difference between spotify premium, at 320 kps, vs Tidal, at 14,400 kps?  I hope you had Tidal set for hifi.

cerrot - I thought any difference between Spotify Premium and Tidal HiFi two was tiny and not something I’d necessarily be able to pick out in a blind test. Now, Tidal HiFi vs the "free" non-premium Spotify? - sure that brings a definite improvement.

Re was Tidal set for HiFi? YES, it was. Paid (gave security) for a Tidal HIFI trial, confirmed things in settings and noted the HIFI indicator at the bottom right was "lighting up" when playing a track. The bit rate numbers look like they should make a big difference but in my experience, they didn’t translate to a significant improvement in SQ. Believe me, I would love something that delivered a step change improvement in sonics and was hoping Tidal could provide that. While maybe a minority here and elsewhere, I did find another comment (at HeadFi) to the effect, "Spotify Premium does not give up that much to Tidal HiFi". That would certainly be my conclusion too.

Now...I’m no computer genius but I’ve been learning by trial and error. I do use a Musical Fidelity V-Link 192 USB/Spdif converter that upsamples to 192Hz. Do you think that might "narrow the gap" between the two services? I know up sampling comes in for criticism by some. My experience does have me wondering what the excitement with Tidal is all about. Maybe the tiny improvement I thought I maybe heard is the basis for that. If you have some insight, let me know. Either way, Tidal OR Spotify, it’s great to have access to such vast libraries of music.

BTW - the MF VLink 192 is only on the big system. With headphones do use an Audioquest Dragonfly v1.2. That will upsample to 96Hz. Not a huge difference from Tidal with cans, either.

ghosthouse, I trust your ears and words, and I respect your honesty.

fwiw, i also went back to spotify after a month of tidal. like ghosthouse, at lower volume, casual listening (which is generally my office mode) i didn't hear a big difference. for more critical listening through good headphones, the difference was more significant, mostly in the sense of tidal being more spacious, with more precise instrument placement; tidal also reproduced drums and acoustic instruments a little more naturally. not a vhs-to-dvd improvement, but an improvement nonetheless.
the real dealkiller for me though, was the frequent buffering and pauses, esp. on the mobile app; spotify has been consistently more seamless. spotify also has the deeper catalog, altho tidal's is certainly respectable. i did prefer tidal's interface, which is clearer and more intuitive; i was generally indifferent to tidal's "curated playlists," which were no better or worse than spotify's.

Hello,
Still really having a great time with TIDAL vs other streaming apps I have tried, it just sounds great with so much new music to discover! However, I have found TIDAL to be a bit "buggy" and maybe someone can help? First, when TIDAL posts an update, half of the time I need to uninstall and reinstall Chrome because I would loose HiFi leaving me with just the high and low settings. Second, I checked to see if I had any critical OS updates (I keep this on manual check) and I had about a dozen updates, after the updates I now have an error when I launch Chrome that it "couldn't load plugin". I checked my Chrome settings and everything seems as it should. Has anyone else had this problem? Does anyone know the solution? This problem only causes videos to not play, otherwise no audio problems. Thanks in advance for your help! 

Ghosthouse - I don’t think it "narrows the gap" but distorts the sound to where you are unable to discern the difference. There is a HUGE difference between 320kps and 14,400 kps. (you would walk out of a concert at 320 - not at 44.1). Its like 32 bit color and 256 colors. As for "sampling" I do upsample my 44.1 to 96k as my dac really likes that but I would not think I was getting a decent sound by upsampling a 320kps signal. There is just not enough info (320kps) there. I have sattelite radio which is an MP3 signal (your spotify is MP3) and I upsample it and it sounds like crap compared to a real 44.1 signal.

Loomisjohnson - Tidal is not "buggy". The buffering issues are due to lag with your internet connection. Tidal is a robust signal which needs the appropriate infrastructure.

I would have to agree with cerrot on all counts above 320kbps just does not cut it. The Lightning DS app I use displays the sample rate of what’s playing though it varies it’s usually in the 1000kbps range with Tidal as well as my own recordings that are flac. I have some recordings in my collection that are mp3, mostly live recordings people have sent me, and the first time I put one on through my Aries I was like hmmm that doesn’t sound great and I glance over and sure enough 320kbps. Just not good enough.

Ghosthouse you might want to retry your experiment and leave the V-link out and see what the results are just for fun. And regarding Tidal being buggy I also agree its about your internet connection. One thing that really helped me was moving it to the 5ghz band, the 2.4ghz band is just too crowded in my urban environment.

Just a quick correction, Tidal is 1411kbps, not 14,400.

I agree with both cerrot and jond, once dialed in, Tidal is vastly superior to any MP3 service.

Hi Folks - Thanks for the consideration given my remarks.  A couple of additional points:
- The V-Link was not part of the headphone listening that compared Spotify Premium vs Tidal HiFi.
- I doubt distortion played a role.  Both formats sounded EXCELLENT with only slight advantage to Tidal HiFi as noted above.  I'll add that I actually liked the bass from Spotify Premium a little better.  
- For me any difference between the two was not significant and not worth the 2x price differential for Tidal.  If you judge the differences otherwise,  no problem.  I am certainly not offended...or convinced to revive my Tidal subscription  ;-)
- I did not report Tidal to be buggy.
- Not all MP3 files are created equal...MP3 is only a "container"; it doesn't speak to "contents".
- Based on listening tests, mp3s at 256 kbps were found indistinguishable from CD (G Mitchell citing testing by Fraunhofer and Thomson; see link below).  I know, "HERESY"!
- Do I think there are individuals with exceptional hearing acuity or who have developed listening skills that make them outliers on the bell curve?  Yes.  Doubt I'm one of them, though....and yet, strangely content.
- Bit rate is not the absolute and certainly not the sole determinant of audio quality from a digital file.
- "A low-res file in a hi-res bucket is still..... low res." 
- Spotify Premium is not an MP3 service. It uses compression software called Ogg Vorbis.
- It is claimed an Ogg Vorbis file will "sound" better than an MP3 file of the same bit rate.
- Just posted elsewhere on Audiogon by Pokey77:
 "High Resolution Audio Demystified"
This a great, though lengthy, presentation by Dr. Mark Waldrep.

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/high-resolution-audio-demystified-mark-waldrep

http://grahammitchell.com/writings/vorbis_intro.html 
(see especially the section "Just Say No To Bit rates")

Enjoy the music whatever medium you choose.

'Based on listening tests, mp3s at 256 kbps were found indistinguishable from CD'

I am laughing so hard, my side hurts...

Overall, these types of formats are crap...

There is a mistaken notion among "audiophiles" that format is a reliable predictor of audio quality .  It is not.  See the above referenced presentation by Dr. Mark Waldrep.  

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/when-high-resolution-audio-isnt-hd/

The link here is worth reading.
A text-based, summary of some of Dr. Waldrep’s key points and a good explanation for why calling something hi res don’t always make it so. The sampling rate of the format won’t create data that isn’t present in the source material. Conversely, it won’t necessarily lose data that wasn’t captured in the source material and so lower res formats can sometimes sound as good as so-called, "hi res" formats.

Ghosthouse, that article was basically laughed at by everyone in the audio industry.  Its like saying resolution is not a telltale of the quality of a color photo.  All due respect if you system cannot easilly distinguish an MP3 from a CD, you need to take a look at your rig.  These are night and day differences.  Even with the best recorded MP3 (hurts saying that) and a poor red book, you should still hear the difference, unless you are listening through a transistor radio.  Now, we are talking about native signals, not an MP3 "upsampled" to a higher sampling rate.  That is not hires and is still crap.  

Cerrot - I’ll not question your qualifications for speaking for "everyone in the audio industry" but I do think we continue to talk at cross purposes. You seem to be making judgements based on limitations of the package. I’m not saying those limitations are completely irrelevant but am saying it’s more critical to look first at what’s IN the package before we can evaluate the adequacy of the package.

The point I get from Dr. Waldrep’s discussions is that understanding "provenance" is a key determinant in predicting the likely sound quality of an audio file; that is, knowing the resolution of the original source material in comparison to actual specs of the resulting "file". If the source itself is "low res", an MP3 might possibly be adequate to faithfully convey that info while a "hi res" format won’t do anything to enhance it - using exaggeration to make a point. Again, not all MP3s are created equal because of differences in source material as well as differences in the as-presented-resolution. I’m not advocating everyone switch to MP3s or arguing they always sound as good as anything else. By the same token, not everything from Tidal HiFi is going to derive from a source of sufficient resolution/quality to benefit from their lossless delivery or (ultimately) sound much better than Spotify’s Ogg/Vorbis-based 320k bps Premium service.

Instead of format types or capabilities, our focus needs to be on the actual resolution of the source material and what meaningful data from that source is conveyed within the limits of the format. That’s a bit different than blanket claims of better SQ because something is packaged as lossless/hi res.

By the way, on a different but somewhat related topic...
I mostly avoid buying MP3s from Amazon due to their generally poor sound quality which, yes, I can hear vs CDs (or even Spotify!). What’s interesting to me is that if you compare the SQ of Amazon samples vs the purchased MP3, the samples sound markedly better! Don’t know details but that’s always struck me as a bit of a bait and switch.

Ciao (by the way, you’ve got some very nice gear in your posted systems).

Ghosthouse I just don't see how compressing a signal and shaving off bits, or however it's done sorry not an engineer, can't make it worse sounding. If compression is lossy then there is a loss of information right? It seems to make common sense that a lossless recording is going to sound better than a lossy recording. I am not talking about any sort of upsampling or high rez here. I listen to redbook cd and my Dac doesn't upsample. The difference between mp3's and flacs or wav files isn't just noticeable its pretty glaring.

jond - Please re-read my last post. I’m not saying that "compressing a signal and shaving off bits" can’t make it worse sounding. What did I say about the Amazon MP3s? Lossless/Hi Res is definitely to be preferred assuming there’s data in the original source to benefit from that "superior" format. BUT if there’s no meaningful data in the region that gets removed, hi res might not sound better that a lower res file.

It’s the old "can’t judge a book by its cover" - whether the "cover" is MP3 or Lossless/Hi Res. What matters is the content and how that compares to the original source (so think of the book we’re reading as a translation!).

OR to use another analogy (I’m no EE either) it’s like you have 2 boxes...one larger than the other. The boxes hold data. The data capacity of the larger box is greater than the small box so everybody wants the larger box. But that larger size only matters if the extra space of the larger box is actually filled with meaningful sonic info. If it’s just filled with a bunch of ’zeros’ the extra data carrying capacity won’t make things sound better. If the original source material didn’t have the data to fill the extra space, the extra space in the container won’t magically produce it. A smaller box might be adequate to convey all the data from the source.

Check out that longish YouTube video via the link a couple of posts above this one. Dr. Waldrep is saying it ain’t an automatic "given" that hi res offerings are always conveying a greater quantity of meaningful sonic data than more conventional lower res sources. "Quantity" might not be the best choice of words but it conveys the point I think. Hope that clears things up a bit.

Ghosthouse no recording engineer records at 320kbps, the info in the larger box is in fact there and compressed to fit the smaller box not the other way around. You've basically made the point I was attempting to make for me. These days most recording are done at 24/96 is not higher then downsampled to redbook and further for mp3 so the larger box always has more data.

well said jond.

jond - Thanks for sticking with this. I don’t pretend to know all about digital recording. I’m definitely learning from reading and the discussion here. I mostly agree with your point about "the larger box" if talking exclusively about modern recordings. Even there, however, while the technology might be capable of 24/96 how many studios are actually delivering final product consistent with that? And do all their recordings have sonic content across that range?? Mark Waldrep claims his AIX Records produces and delivers true hi res recordings. There are certainly others but they seem a minority. Big gap maybe between what the studio is capable of and what commercial product gets made available to you and me - hence the need to know "provenance".

My main knock on so-called hi res (using that adjective loosely) is back catalogs from decades ago being re-released as hi res. If the source is tape and not even first gen,, how hi-res is that? See what Waldrep has to say about "tape resolution" and the degradation accompanying production of multiple generations of tape.

Don’t get me wrong, the old master tapes can sound very good even if not "hi res". I certainly agree with you that someone can take an old but good sounding tape mastered recording and ’f’ it up making a crappy MP3 - but I have not been trying to defend MP3s in what I’ve written. I also agree, depending on care taken in a studio that fully utilizes a 24/96 capability, a lossless uncompressed file is going to sound better than something lossy and compressed - or at least that would be my expectation. But you have to consider how much of the library offered by a Tidal or Apple Music or Spotify is actually derived from such high quality sources. I think (my O-pinion) it’s a minority of the available library - regardless of what’s claimed. As a result, the difference between Tidal HiFi and Spotify Premium (to get this back to what I was initially commenting on) might not be that significant OR significant at all.
Let me know if you have a premo recording to experiment with. When I did the Spotify/Tidal comparison I did go back and forth between relatively recent recordings I was familiar with and that I though had great sonics.

Anyway, that’s where I’m at with my understanding right now. If you are hearing some benefit from a service you subscribe to, by all means, enjoy it. Please do check out the Waldrep presentation. It is very illuminating. What I will try to do is see if he has an AIX recording that’s also available in a conventional format. See if these old ears can pick up on that.

Ciao.

Ghosthouse as soon as I wrote my last post I in fact started thinking about remasters. And in terms of recordings made from analog tape and transferred to digital it's as they said in the early days of cd to paraphrase.....'This recording my reveal limitations in the source material'. That being said analog tape is capable of capturing a ton of information, just look at the current revival of reel to reel and analog tape recorders/players. So yes absolutely the original source material matters greatly and not all reissues/remasters are created equally. But that's not really the fault of the digital medium but rather the implementation. Source material being equal a higher resolution recording will sound better than a compressed or downsampled recording. I think we are basically thinking along the same lines and broadly agreeing. And I am enjoying Bill Evans on Tidal as I write this so thank you!

This was posted in another thread it's a bit vague but seems relevant.

http://electronics360.globalspec.com/article/6972/high-resolution-audio-you-can-hear-me-now?id=%2D13...

I don't to hi-rez at all myself.

Hi,
I would like to chime in one more time about the SQ of TIDAL.

I still have, but will soon drop, my subscription to Spotify Premium and keep TIDAL. Why? Because after having TIDAL for some time now,  I queued up the album by "OMI Me 4U", both on Spotify and TIDAL and performed an A/B, Tidal crushed Spotify hands down in terms of SQ! I can only guess for members that do not notice a substantial improvement with TIDAL vs Spotify, that there may be something amiss in their systems? I really don't know.

For me, and "MY" ears, TIDAL has proven to me that this is the streaming App to keep. For those that do not hear any substantial difference, stick with the less costly Spotify Premium.

Hey, life is good, no worries!

@grm, are you running Tidal in hifi mode ONLY? Meaning, are you also running Audirvana, or is it just Tidal by itself?

Hello devilboy,
I am running TIDAL in HIFI mode exclusively. I am not sure what Audirvana is, but I am running TIDAL through Chrome on my PC.

Thanks for the question! By the way, what is "Audirvana?

Do you like the piano? If yes, search Tidal for Eric Harry and select "The Language of Flowers".  He has several other albums on Tidal that are also recommended.

Eric created Calm Radio for music streaming and has maybe 70+ tracks of different types of music. Sorry, it is compressed but his piano music on Tidal is excellent.  See:
https://calmradio.com/

I am trying him now.  THANK YOU for the recommendation.  

Hi, listening to Eric Harry on TIDAL HIFI right now, excellent suggestion! I think there are many diamonds-in -the-rough in TIDAL, and am sure there are many more!

Thank you hgeifman!

I'm still on Spotify premium. Which sounds fantastic. But this is what I started doing; I have my extensive play list, but when I find songs that are my favorite and high quality recordings I go and buy the WAV files some place online. Usually $1 each (from like bandcamp or something, I like a lot of smaller artists, and a lot of them use simple mic techniques and very little post processing so they sound amazing) . So I can buy 10 songs a month, 120 songs a year for what the additional cost of TIDAL would be. Only now I own the songs and put them in my library forever. To be honest I don't buy close to that many anyway. I feel I'm getting everything I need with this plan. Just only wish I could find more bands that have WAV files (or flac or whatever).

What I wish is that some day spotify would just sell any song as a WAV file if you choose to download it. So listen for free, or the premium, and choose to buy any song as a WAV at any time. That would be perfect.

...or, use Tidal.  

No I don’t want to spend $20 a month for Tidal. Still think it’s over priced. My point is I pretty much have $120 extra a year to spend if I wanted. That’s 120 songs I can buy and actually own forever if I wanted. And also already have all the streaming I want on Spotify premium. I can just buy actual music that I own forever and listen anywhere even if I don’t have internet. Eventually you have a large library and can go months without even using or paying for any services if you want. Best of both worlds. And to be honest most music doesn’t even benefit from lossless to much if at all over full bitrate mp3. It’s those audiophile quality ones that do and those are much more fewer and far between. Which I can just buy and still save money over Tidal. Just saying it’s a good option for me and might work well for others too. Tidals selection is still no where near comprehensive enough either. I'd probably have to go hunt down and buy some of my music still anyway on top of the $20 a month.

"And to be honest most music doesn’t even benefit from lossless too much if at all over full bitrate mp3. It’s those audiophile quality ones that do and those are much more few and far between."

EXACTLY. kacz - as far as I’m concerned, you are preaching to the choir. I doubt Tidal’s content managers have tapped into a hither to unknown and unavailable mother lode of high resolution masters for their mostly back catalog stuff. See my comments above. Something like OMI’s Me4U as commented on by grm (also above) might be one of those "few and far between" exceptions (or an argument for the placebo effect...if I spend 2x more, it must be better). Regardless, I use Spotify much like you do albeit when I find something exceptional I am purchasing most often as physical CD unless only available as a digital file. Haven’t run into many cases where only MP3 is available. The things I’ve purchased from Bandcamp, fortunately, have been available as WAV. But as always, whether it’s Spotify or Tidal that makes you happy - it’s the music that matters most.

"to be honest most music doesn’t even benefit from lossless to much if at all over full bitrate mp3." 

What kind of system are you listening to when you draw this conclusion? 

I agree that IT'S ALL IN THE PROVENANCE as to what recordings really sound great,  but find that most mp3s fall short on even moderately well setup modest systems. The only times the better formats aren't noticeable is on overly-produced compressed pop and similar recordings that were mixed and mastered with iPods in mind; often with auto-tuned vocals to make it even worse.
There's plenty of great sounding red-book out there, sounding good when ripped in lossless aiff or wav, but mp3s of the same will sound compressed, undynamic and full of glare. Cheers,
Spencer

I like Tidal Streaming because of its excellent sound quality and albums like the one below.

Search Tidal for Rodriguez and select the album "Searching for Sugar man".  The move is highly recommended and so is his outstanding music. Rodriguez made 2 albums in the US and they did not sell (zero sales).  Somehow these albums landed in South Africa and the sold like crazy (bootleg copies).  Unbelievable.

The movie "Searching for Sugar man" tells his incredible story. Everyone thought he committed suicide and an investigative reporter started looking for him.  His story is wonderful and his music is outstanding.   This movie is a must see and so are his albums.   Enjoy.

The movie "Searching for Sugar man" tells his incredible story. Everyone thought he committed suicide and an investigative reporter started looking for him. His story is wonderful and his music is outstanding. This movie is a must see and so are his albums.

+1 Excellent documentary.

For the last few days I've been streaming Tidal HiFi through my Bryston BDP-2 (using the Bryston beta software) and compared to the same songs ripped to AIFF and played off a SSD, Tidal sounds a bit more two dimensional, but otherwise very comparable to the SQ of the ripped CDs. This is not an issue to me. In 2007 I sold several thousand LPs collected over a good part of a lifetime and, while I have replaced a great many LPs with  CDs, it simply isn't practical financially or otherwise to continue. With Tidal, If I can think of it, I can play it. It works well for me because my tastes run to various flavors of rock, folk, blues and jazz and less so to classical which some say is lacking in Tidal. I'm still getting used to the UI and am investigating Roon, but I'm very happy with Tidal so far...

Since being armed with TIDAL, I no longer find myself purchasing CD's or going to the library in search of new music. If TIDAL manages to stick around, and/or other lossless streaming services become available, the demise of the CD may one day be a reality. I mean really, non of my college friends purchase any CD's. It's all earbuds and streaming with their cell phones. And for them, SQ is less of a factor than content.

No way would I give 1 red cent to Tidal. Google who owns it.