I’m an asperger and have extreme sensitive listening stimulus and I really hear stuff other people don’t hear, not only in music, also in real life, I hear the “high tone” of my freezer and can’t sleep without NC, because I’d hear the train (1km away from me). I don’t think that’s just imagination, cause I’d give everything to stop being an audiophile and be able to live normal, to go to concerts and enjoy the music and life the same way as my friends do. I don’t leave my apartment except for work, friends have to come to my place. Music’s just the only thing that keeps me away from all that noise, paradoxon I know :’D but I always listen only to 1 instrument per song, I can’t listen to all of it at the same time, I’d have a stimulus satiation and that’s the point where hi-res does its “work”, I hear overlaps on 16bit, not much, but there is an overlap and that takes my concentration to a second intrument. And yeah I can hear that stupid sound of the cars to keep away marten. It’s sad to hear it’s my imagination while struggling thanks to that. I’m with you - most of the people don’t hear a difference, I can tell that because of my friends, they don’t think there is a difference, but if it’s my imagination, how can I stop it when my ears sound like I have tinnitus as soon as there is high frequency noise? fireworks are also bad… It’s not only a gift, it’s also a curse, but that’s the only way I can use it as a gift, it’s not like that started suddenly when I started to listen to better quality, it started when I was 7 years old, because my ear hurt as soon as there was a loud noice and my aspergers wasn’t diagnosed then. My father tried it with his hi-fi headphones and I was in a different world, that’s how they were able to travel with me. I use my headphones at least 20 hours per day, obviously not the same headphones in the night/at work/evening, but you won’t find me without my headphones on, doesn’’t matter when or where, unless they fell out of my head in the night. But like I said, I don’t want it, I’d love to live without it and most of the people don’t hear a difference.
oh how I wish you were right in that conclusion! Unfortunately it is very obvious for me that Tidal hi-fi has a fuller, more dynamic sound than Spotify premium :-( And i am really sad about that actually, because i love the spotify functionalities, and am not crazy at all about the user interface in Tidal.
dont worry, spotify will eventually have high quality sound. They have to, in order to further widen that gap between them and the other streaming services.
It's basically down to the equipment you use. Because there's a big difference when I stream through my Bluesound Node 2 and play the music with my DALI Rubicon 8 speakers. It's as you say Jesper, it's fuller more dynamic. I get a slightly bigger soundstage, and a bigger outline of individual instruments/sounds. I suspekt the main reason is the DAC. The Node 2 has a pretty good DAC. However, if I test the same thing on my computer, running a much cheaper setup, it's not the same level of difference. And on most tracks I can't hear the difference. That's running things through some Steelseries headphones with external DAC, max 24/96, but it's just not refined enough to pick up the difference. If I do the same test with some mobile devices and some RHA plugs, I can again gain from the Tidal advantage, but not as much as when I listen through the DALIs. I'll revisit that test after getting the Audioquest Dragonfly Cobalt, because the internal DAC of the tablet isn't that good, even though the plugs are. So unless you have a good pipeline of equipment, it's not better using Tidal. And I totally agree with Spotify being the better solution. I have both, for that reason. I use spotify on all my devices that don't gain anything from Tidal. And Tidal for those who do. Maintaining playlists on both is kind of a pain in the ass, but I'll just have to live with that until Spotify give me hires or lossless audio.
@@mimimimio1496 I wish Tidal would improve so it was as good as Spotify in use, and in feature set. If they manage to do that, I will cut out Spotify. And it's such a waste to pay for several streaming services that does about the same thing.
Tidal offers the highest payout to the artists, what's more important than that? support the artists, now more than ever, they need it, and Tidal is the only format trying to help artists.
The main reason to listen audio files at higher bit depths and sample rates that we can't actually hear it's because the artists record at that quality on the studio and edit the files to lower numbers involves a lot of compression and aditional editing to avoid clipping (like dither). My question here is: Why do studios record the music at audio measures that the humans can't even hear? It's ridiculous trying to perceive any difference as you said.
If you record with high sampling rates you don't need steep filters in order to prevent aliasing, it's a practical decision. In mixing, extreme frequencies below 20Hz or above 20kHz will be cut out anyway in most cases.
Even my disinterested wife could immediately hear the sound quality differences between Spotify and Amazon HD Music. Did some AB testing. For example, compared Billie Eilish and Halsey tracks in Spotify with the same tracks in Amazon's HD Music (Ultra HD with a sample rate up to 24-bit/192kHz). People who have a decent 2-channel audio setup will hear dynamic improvement in the higher and lower ends (detailed/airy highs and tight/thumping bass). Not an audiophile, but I'd describe the UltraHD music as more three dimensional, better highlights and contrasts, a fuller more detailed sound image. For those with Bluetooth headphones and a smartphone setup, you won't hear and feel the difference. Gear tested Pre/Pro: Marantz AV7705 Amp: Outlaw Audio Model 7000x Mains: Martin Logan Motion 60XT (bi-amped) Subwoofer: Martin Logan Dynamo 700w
"For those with Bluetooth headphones and a smartphone setup," How "Bluetooth headphones and a smartphone setup" differs from "Bluetooth headphones and a " setup?
For me, Tidal HiFi is the winner. Tidal HiFi can be a lot cheaper than Spotify Premium depending on where you're from. Where I'm from, the Tidal HiFi family subscription costs less than the Spotify Premium subscription for one person.
There's no point to get hifi since not all albums support it, just as they have a lackluster library as well. Students get both Hulu, Spotify, and Showtime for $5. That by far is the best deal I've seen for any student plans from any service. The only other best deal out there is Amazon Prime
I'm not a audio expert but I've compared both services and I couldn't tell a difference using Spotify premium and Tidal. For me Spotify is a more economical choice. But for others i know they feel Tidal has a better quality sound. I just love the fact that these services are available!
You won't notice a difference if your gear set up isn't goodup enough. For best result have some good pair of headphones that can support the HiFi or have HiFi setting built into them and a HiFi amp for your phone or computer. And you'll notice a good difference. Tidal for music lovers who have good equipment. While Spotify for music lover who lack the equipment or don't care or don't wanna spend the extra 10$. I've listen to songs from FNM angel dust album on both Spotify and tidal HiFi. And with my Audiotechnica m50x headphones with my fiio A5 amp I could hear a decent difference the vocals and instruments were more clear and more vivid and full. Even at loud volumes it still sounded strong clear while with Spotify it still sounded decent but the vocals and certain guitar riffs sounded less clear. I say if you really love vocals and have good gear it's worth the 20$ but either then that Spotify 10$ worth it. I switched and am glad I did my music sounds newer. I love music. sadly I can't afford a computer so tidal my best option with my gear set up. The bass on Spotify sounded slightly louder but if I pick the volume up on my amp the music on tidal sounds loud and still clear. So it's a win win. I have my volume on 30% on my amp and my music sounds so loud and clear :') anything louder then 45% I think I would go deaf lol
I have AB'd between Spotify and Tidal multiple times at this point. Tidal sounds a small fraction better. It really does, but it's only difference that audiophiles will care about. I share your sentiment on the Spotify layout, selection and social networking aspect. Spotify is just better. I still use Tidal though. Sound quality and how artists get paid are the top factors that go into this for me. Artist on tidal come out with more than 50 percent more profits which is an importance that people don't understand.
I've spent hours ABing and I can say that Tidal so far is 1-2% better (and I really have to concentrate to notice those % anyway). And it doesn't have a fifth of my favs playlist.
I feel Tidal is the best for streaming music. $20 for lossless above CD quality music. People think that is a lot of money but you’re cable bill can run up to $250 a month for a lot of low quality nonsense .The sound difference is definitely noticeable. The trend of people going back to vinyl is partly due to vinyls lossless sound quality. I use tidal hifi and would never go to Spotify because of Tidals quality. You can “feel” the music. You hear every string pluck, every breath, every everything. That’s what music is supposed to be, not this compressed lifeless streaming mp3 format that other streaming providers are trying to sell you. Not to mention that 75% of subscription cost benefits the music artist. Tidal ROCKS!!!!
Tidal and Deezer are both good. Appently the difference from a flac download and the cd is very hard to tell the difference. I haven't tried it yet but it's on the list.
There is no reason to go above Spotify, he just made that clear...yet you insist. If sound quality is the same and Spotify has the best interface/music discovery why pay more for Tidal?
It's quite possible that you are that your listening equipment is just basic, so allowances can be made for your judgement. However, better quality equipment is more revealing. Which means that extra data/bits/rates, or lack thereof are clearly evident to anybody with half an ear. For instance, friends, neighbours and kids have all been able to tell when I am switching to better bit rates. The differences may be more slight, but they can even hear better cables. Do you honestly think that doctors, lawyers, judges, architects and engineers, those who afford high end equipment are been taken for a ride. It is more likely that their ears are appreciating something that you don't.
I've done the same abx blind testing over the past few years with some friends. We've never done better than random guessing. Lol. Gear used for testing: HD800s /HE1000v2 Ray Samuels Darkstar /Woo WA22 Schiit Yggy/ Modded Dac Lite 60
@@johndi1962 I suppose you have the unmistakable golden ears lol. Over 30 people have failed blind testing. No one has passed. Spotify premium is not mp3. New rig used. Headphones: Focal Utopia Amp: Headamp GSX-mk2 Dac: Denafrips Terminator. If I or everyone else can't pass the test on my rig. Nobody is lol. Placebo is a thing bro.
@@thechef5531 it all depends on the system is you are using to do the comparison. It also depends on how good your ear is. I would never do a comparison with headphones, it's through your loudspeakers is the only way to test. If your test people have never heard the sound through a 7000.00 set of Focal headphones then everything will sound good. To be fair you need to do your ab testing on the test subjects home system something they are used to listening to. If you can afford a 7000.00 set of headphones your home system must be pretty good why not use that?
@@johndi1962 Did away with speakers a few years ago. What my headphone rig delivers in SQ , it would cost me 10 fold to replicate with speakers. You must have never listened to headphones before. The resolve and image better than any speaker rig I've listened to. I've heard speaker rigs costing well over 100k. I used to have my own shop and sell audio for a living years ago. As much as I love speaker rigs , headphones are hard to beat price to performance. Not everything sounds good through my Focals. Shit recordings will always sound like shit no matter what codec is used. Most of the stuff recorded today is garbage and my Focals will expose it immediately. Take for instance an album like "Jazz at the pawn shop". One of or if not the best recorded albums of all time. I guarantee you that in a blind abx test. You won't pass switching between spotify premium and Tidal hifi. I've taken the test at least 20 times. Focusing on spatial cues, noise floor, micro and macro dynamics, soundstage, and imaging. There were times when I thought I had every one correct and was 100% certain. I ended up with the same result. 45 to 55% correct lol.
@@thechef5531 The headphone vs speakers is a personal choice I personally do not like the feel of wearing headphones. I have B&W 802's unfortunately not the D3's 😕 and they do a great job. I think the sound is different the sound stage etc is different comparing headphones to speakers, its a personal choice and I prefer speakers. And yes I agree my 802's can reveal how bad a recording really is.
Thanks for the thorough process and report, but I have a few points of disagreement: 1. The two tracks on your initial AC comparison sound quite different. The second was superior. 2. I'm nor sure exactly what point you were making with the short, terrible-sounding (screeching mush) 9K sample, but that was unlistenable. 3. If you throw out or average the temporal dimension of a sound sample, you negate the validity of the result. To the first order, errors in time *are* errors in amplitude. Accurate reproduction requires the right note delivered at precisely the right time. (See discussions of "jitter.") Having said all that, I don't think that Tidal Hi-fi is a good investment for most folks. As you suggested, the only exception is for folks that plan on doing dedicated listening on good gear. Cheers.
I agree with Bob on some of this. 1. Cd quality is not the best. You have MQA (Master Quality Audio) also known as studioquality. And Tidal HIFI support this. And spotify is no where near. Spotify dosnt even support CD. 2. You say cables dosnt matter? Have you ever listened to any cable that is worth more than 2$? Cables transfer your sound. If cables are crap than sound is crap. 3. Spotify P. support 320khz maximum but Tidal P support 320khz minimum and higher for the same price as Spotify. 4. You say you cant hear difference between them? Well if you listen with a pair of apple airbuds trough your soundcard on your 2001 dell computer its obvious that you cant hear difference. You need to invest good gear. And to wrap it up. I dont think you realy know what you are talking about Seltzertronics. Tidal P is a better investment for the same price as Spotify P and Tidal HIFI is better for people that care about their sound. Thank you
Tidal better If your serious about listening to music with better quality and are willing to pay the extra ten. You need better headphones and amps. Too hear the big difference. I've heard both apps with the same gear that I have, tidal sounds better more clear and more vivid sound scape. Vocals more clear. Instruments more clear and full. While Spotify was a little more louder but less clear. Vocals were less clear and blended way to much with the instruments. If you don't have good equipment you won't notice any difference.
Tidal and Deezer are comparable on the Hifi level. I had them both on a trial and sometimes I think Deezer sounded better but it depends on the recordings of the songs you compare.
Above 320kb/s it is very difficult to hear major difference but going down from 320kb/s to lets say 128kb/s it is very easy to catch the artifacts even with a untrained ear.
This guy is so pro Spotify its sad. If you cannot hear the difference from Spotify and Tidal hifi your equipment is not good enough to take advantage of tidal hifi so don't pay the extra 10 dollars a month. It doesn't matter what your readings say it's what you hear. And you cannot hear the difference which is actually kind of shocking. If you want the best sound and your system is decent go with the Tidal hifi and leave the Spotify premium to people who prefer to listen to music with entry level headphones. Not that I have anything against entry level headphones.
@@dragonblade1824 spare me your know it all attitude if you've listening with cheap headphones then I do agree. But if you are saying there is no difference in sound quality from mp320 and flac you have no idea what you are talking about.
johndi1962 it comes down to people’s listening preferences as well. Most modern EDM is so 16/44 I wouldn’t be surprised if one _couldn’t_ hear the difference with trap music, Future house, etc. I’ve been using Spotify for my mobile needs (hard to bring one’s LP collection with them) and I appreciate it... mind you, I love SACD/DSD and I CAN HEAR THE DIFFERENCE, and I am not FULL OF ****. But it’ll take decades before DSD audio data can be successfully streamed online.
@@burgmail sorry you cannot hear the difference you are missing out. If you are referring to cheap headphones and probably factory audio then you will never hear the difference. So it's best for you to stay with 320.
johndi1962 you must’ve misread me. I said I _can_ hear the difference... otherwise I would not have invested in DSD, which is my preferred digital format for sound quality. It’s just that some commercial recordings were basically recorded at 16/44 (such as every Lindsey Buckingham-related release since Tusk), and sometimes even with consumer audio gear. There’s a reason why the same albums get multiple audiophile releases: the well-recorded ones are rare... but some of them are absolutely worth it.
Thanks for the feedback! It was quite a bit of work figuring out a way to compare them statistically. The Tidal audio wasn't among their Masters set. This may be something to look at in the future, assuming I can be confident that the Spotify version is from the same master. However, I wouldn't expect to find anything. I didn't go on too much about it in the video but "HD audio" is almost entirely marketing scheme. Philips and Sony did their homework in the 1970s and 80s when they were developing CD audio. CD-quality really does top-out the human ear. While higher sample rates are possible (e.g., 96Khz), that only allows the recording and replay of frequencies well out of our hearing range. Further, not only does it yield no benefits within our hearing range, but our equipment isn't as good at producing ultrasonics as sonics and forcing them to do so can produce distortion, which is audible. Aside from greater file size, higher bit-depths (24 or 32 bit) really only result in a lower noise floor. However, the noise floor at 16-bit is already below our threshold of hearing even when the volume is so high we are pushing into threshold of pain area. I recently saw an excellent tagline on a forum, "With 24 bit audio, now you can listen to silence even louder!" In consideration of the above, I don't expect MQA audio or other "HD" formats to ever be successful in the marketplace. Some people will buy them and may even believe they sound better do to the Placebo effect and a general belief that more expensive things MUST be better. However, most people don't know anything about sample rates, bit depths, etc or these things that are supposed to make their music better, giving them a kind of "immunity" to the Placebo effects. They'll just buy what sounds good to them, and they won't find anything better than what's already widely available. Consequently, "HD audio" will never be successful in the marketplace if it costs more. CD-quality 44.1Khz/16-bit really is good enough, and as my analysis as well as other studies have shown even some lossyness still yields functionally indiscernible sound fidelity. In a way it's disappointing, but if you think about it the implication is that the music we have now is already ideal, allowing you to save your money and buy better speakers/headphones and amps that really do make a difference.
@@CuriousPassenger This is the dumbest thing i've read this week. To think older music can't be used as an example of good production and not knowing that ABBA is still considered to this day as one of the best produced artists of all time, they even had their own designed studio.
@@andretrevelin9042 still considered by whom? I have my own ears. I haven't said it was produced poorly but since then both recording equipment and audio engeneering science have improved significantly. Pop music in general isn't well suited for this goal imo. To test sound quality I'd go with orchestral/chamber music, jazz (bebop specifically), IDM/glitch/ambient/microsound (cos of unusual sound design they provide) and metal of course. Listening to Gimme Gimme Gimme right now, not gonna lie, this sounds so flat and dull to me. There is nothing to impress me. Using the Auident id4 sound card and Beyerdynamics dt 770 pro, in case you're interested. Even Beatles' magnum opus A Day in the Life made in 1967 sounds so much better than this. Man, I love good sounding music so much that I even have my own Spotify playlist called Top Notch Production. Have you heard of Four Tet? I don't really like his music that much (rhythmically it's straight four on the floor) but I listen to it just because of the way it sounds. This guy only has mac book, studio monitors and midi controller, no own studio lol. It's a lot easier to make good sounding music now. In fact, I agree that old music can be used as an example of good production. Pink Floyd, for example. Also, check out this ruclips.net/video/_7wKjTf_RlI/видео.html Do you really think Abba can compete with this in terms of production quality?
@@CuriousPassenger Led Zeppelin chose to record at ABBA's studio, and in a more modern reference Dave Grohl from the Foo Fighters used ABBA's studio design as inspiration for his band's studio in LA. Was just pointing out that old music can sound just as good (if not better) than modern production. Like you pointed out with Pink Floyd. And I definitely feel that it's easier to tell the difference of audio quality when listening to electronic music.
The REAL benefit of Tidal is that it can be integrated with bit-perfect players such as Roon, Audirvana and Amarra Luxe. Roon is basically a cleaner version of Tidal, Audirvana sounds like a super clean, intense, and forceful solid-state experience while Amarra Luxe sounds like vinyl or tubes. Amarra Luxe uses a proprietary code to mess with the transients in such a way that digital sounds analog and it ABSOLUTELY works. I personally highly prefer Amarra Luxe for its sound quality. Give it 10min and you will be smitten.
I'd love to try Amarra Luxe but it's been loading "My Songs" for 20 minutes now, it's one of the slowest pieces of software I've used this year! Edit: Oh finally, it's done. Can barely tell the difference, but it does sound 1% nicer. It's disgustingly slow tho
@@Gamez4eveR Open it up in browser mode. Go to "Window" in top left corner and press "Launch in browser mode". This speeds things up considerably. Sometimes when a song won't play, you have to press the Play button again to queue it.
@@Gamez4eveR The more you listen the more you'll understand the difference between Amarra and say Pure Tidal. In my system, Amarra sounds "bigger" and more dimensional with better width and back to front depth, with a much more pleasant treble and mids but somewhat reduced bass slam.
for tidal hi fi,,, can anyone suggest what hardware needed ,,, piece by piece,,, the internet goes to where first,,, if not pc,,, what sound card etc needed,,,, pls suggest these front end part/s,,,,
I've been there and done it with high bitrate music - 24/192, DSD yada yada - and the simple reality is that streaming services dont NEED to compete with lossless or so-called 'HD audio'. Streaming is for music *discovery* - when you find something you like, you can buy it (be that digital download, CD, vinyl or whatever). There is absolutely no need for anything higher than 320K for streaming - unless you have an incredibly quite work environment or you work from home and even then many of us wouldnt be able to tell the difference between high bitrate Vorbis and lossless anyway. By the time I get on the bus, I just want metal to drown out the idiot parade talking on their phones (or worse) : anything resembling high-fidelity sound would be completely lost in that environment. I'm all for people paying for whatever bitrate/format they want - choice is good - but given that I only use AIFF for archiving and transcode to Vorbis for daily use, I may not be the best judge of what others can and cannot hear. I'm far more interested in finding music I like than finding 'perfect' recordings, but again that doesnt make me the universal arbiter. There is a growing chorus of audio snobs who claim that ALL streaming is evil - apparently it leads to a 'buffet' approach to music that diminishes the overall experience : I guess they were the people who were happy to buy albums that had 1 good tune accompanied by 11 mediocre tracks that the band recorded to fulfil a contractual obligation to their record company ;) Long live TIDAL. Long live Spotify.
nice review but this might be true for headphones but if you play the tracks on a high end speakers (in my case bowers and wilkins 702 s2) the difference is astonishing. Spotify sounds numb in comparison to tidal masters or high fidetlity tracks. Especially when you hear more complex music such as jazz or classical music the difference is apparent. But I do agree. If you are not audiphile and don't have high end equipment and the ability to distinguish tones then spotify premium will definitly do.
Astonishing? I respectfully find that hard to believe. I think I did notice the difference in some cases but it was VERY minor. I have a pair of Adam A7X monitors and a pair of EVE SC208 monitors and the difference was EXTREMELY minor for me. And this was borne out in an online ABX test where I could tell the Tidal track ~65-70% of the time ((over a Spotify 320kbps track, not statistically significant) in cases where I was constantly repeating small portions of the track. Needless to say, this isn't how one listens to music.
@@mohamedahmed1023 Thanks for your reply. I also did some testing. But in my experience the sounds are clearer and I need way less volume with tidal. Especially when you listen to "mqa" tracks. Try something for yourself: Compare "Blake Shelton - Gods Country" in master quality with spotify and tell me that you don't hear any difference...
@@chamade166 thanks for the reply. I know this review though - watched it myself some time ago. I tried the same thing with my ears and the same tracks as well. The difference might lie in mastering but there is a huge difference when listening to TIDAL on a good setup.
You know you’re uploading to RUclips which compresses the shit out of things. Lol. I’m lol so hard, that I contributed to a view which makes you feel even more confident in your presentation. Have fun people. Sound matters*
His analysis and stats still stand, regardless, whether any audiophile likes it or not. I'm laughing so much at your comment. Clearly a self prescribed audiophile. Back to back blind testing would also reveal that you yourself, cannot hear a difference, with all levels matched of course. Sound matters very much. So instead of making silly comments, maybe focus on where you can actually make and hear a difference. I'd start with room correction.
You wouldn't notice any different if music is played on regular headphones or speakers. You really need to have a very high end sound system or headphone to get most out of Tidal which offers Dolby Atmos, Master, 360 surround sound etc. Better stick with cheaper and basic streaming service if you don't have expensive hardware.
Coming from a music producer and mixer, when you throw that bs that higher bit depth and higher sample rates don't sound at least different, I'm not even going to use the word "better", I can tell you that 1: you'r wrong, 2: excepting the fact that you're wrong you're also mocking people who actually have ears to hear, 3: go to a freaking proper music studio and let the audio engineer tell you and show you why a higher sample rate and bit depth actually sounds better on PROPER speakers. 4: get a job where you actually know what you're talking about.
People will hear more differences between sources than you say or "think". It is not all about 'scientific' proof... perhaps you are not the best reference for this test? Good that you tried.
Tidal HiFi is clearly superior to Spotify on good equipment using loudspeakers, (NOT headphones), in a good acoustic setting, when comparing well recorded acoustic music. I can hear more detail and that, for me, makes the sounds more beautiful and enjoyable.
Something you can get used to for sure. But going from flac from my pc to "320" spotify sound def lack of bass that I could not EQ away. Music "can be" thinner. Absolutely fine for the car or "active" listening.
First, you need to listen to Tidal Master albums and then you need to get out of the headphones and put it on a real system. You will hear a HUGE difference between the two.
I totally agree. I'm using a B&W system with a naim unity atoms as a stero and if anybody tells me that spotify sounds even close to tidal masters quality I have to assume that they are death. Even in my B&O headphones (beoplay H9) you hear such a difference. I don't actually know what he is talking about.
If everything you claim is true why is it possible that in AB comp between a cd from my collection and Spotify I hear big difference. Always the cd sounding better. And why is it possible when I AB a Super Audio cd with a normal cd the SACD is MUCH MUCH better? Generally speaking I don't care much for comparisions with measuring equipment. Only what my ears hear is important. Also if you want to compare streams but have to convert them to a different file format first the test is no longer valid.
I'm using PC, chord mojo and Audeze XC gears to hear songs from Tidal Hifi and Spotify Premium. The different between them is clearly discern-able especially when i play techno, heavy bass type of music.Tidal gives me fuller body and Spotify sounds like a empty tin can. It would be great if you could do this test again using techno music or those with drum demo. I'm sure your statistic would show great diff. I guess you are right that on certain freq, the diff between them is minimal as what you had tested but music with full range from 10 - 20khz like drum demo and techno, would show great diff.
I respectfully find that hard to believe. I think I did notice the difference in some cases but it was VERY minor. I have a pair of Adam A7X monitors and a pair of EVE SC208 monitors and the difference was EXTREMELY minor for me. And this was borne out in an online ABX test where I could tell the Tidal track ~65-70% of the time ((over a Spotify 320kbps track, not statistically significant) in cases where I was constantly repeating small portions of the track. Needless to say, this isn't how one listens to music.
Another simple trick: invert the phase of one source, and then add it to the other source. You'll then see the delta signal. You may need to shift and amplify one of the two a bit. Next to that, I did find out that quite some content on Tidal that is supposed to be lossless, is lossy (and very very badly compressed...). Tidal points to the content provider (which is of no use to solve the problem). The compressed material may even sound better than the "lossless" ones.
I find that this comparison is useless because the compressed format will obviously be worse against the flac. But if i compare the compressed format of Tidal and Spotify, Spotify is better for me.
Before that I watched your DAC 101 video which is full of many usefull general audio equipments information. But I think there is to much difference between TIDAL (FLAC) vs Spotify (320kbps mp3), than 200$ vs 1000$ DACs :)
I've had two albums, same mastering, one in 320kbps mp3 and the other in 96kHz FLAC. The difference between my laptop DAC and my cheap pro audio interface DAC was actually audible compared to the format war.
Got a xiaomi note 10 lite phone which has a dedicated hi res dac 24/192 and 1more triple drivers earphones, and honestly I can't tell the difference in sound quality between Spotify and Tidal, or at most I can tell a tiny difference and not in every song, I'm not and audiophile per se, I just wanted to give Tidal a try and see what the fuss was all about and tried to pay close attention to details in music across different genres, I gotta say I noticed a little bit of more controlled bass and wider soundstage when listening to some mqa masters, so it also depends on the quality of the original recording. So to sum it up It's not worth the extra money. Tidal might be useful for those who can afford extra expensive equipment that can actually take advantage of the lossless quality. I think I'm giving up on Tidal after my trial
Im sorry but MP3 is not nor will it ever be quality audio if you praise it so much thats nice for you keep thousands of inaccurate audio files only to find out your hearing is the problem not your eyes .
I mean for a streaming music company it should really be no less than Lossless quality music, they encrypted the music files anyway with DRM protection preventing their low IQ customers to download their music files .
Tidal et Qobuz travaille pour l'avenir de la musique en terme de qualité ! Que font les 3 larves rampantes qui suivent derrière, ils récoltent les fruits produits par Tidal et Qobuz. Vous voulez un monde uniforme géré par des algorithmes qui nous disent ce que nous aimons (à la poubelle le doux chemin de la découverte par soi-même et de la rencontre innatendue avec un artiste). Si nous allons sur cette voix, c'est une vie chiante et interminable qui nous attends.
The compression on spotify is unbearable, wanna take off the headphones after 2 songs.. tidal is the real deal! Only problem with tidal is poor playlist
how you tested it, the software you used to tweak the files and human error can cause changes to the output. aside from that, are yous sure your hardware is up to spec when it comes to high definition? sometimes it doesn't matter if your headphones are 10000k or 10b usd, if you plug it to a cheap mp3 player, they will always sound bad. lastly, although Hi-Fi is popular among audiophiles, that's because audiophiles and musicians have tuned their ears to listen to minute changes and details, unlike the regular listener who is completely fine with 320kbps and cheap earphones.
There is huge difference about audio quality. MQA aka master is highly FAR more better codec than anything 320Kb/s BUT you need also equipments to match it. DONT even try to listen it from MAC or PC audio out to a gaming headset. You need GOOD external headphone DAC/AMP AND good quality headphones like Sennheiser HD600-800s, AKG K701-801, Audioquest Nighthawk or even STAX set and those will cost you anywhere between 400-5000€ (500$-6000$) When you got that kind of set, lets talk again.. I got AKG K712 pro and Audioquest Nighthawks with Audioquest DAC/AMP (Cost me over 1200€.) But yeah i can tell the difference and so does anyone else with that kind of set...
MQA is an absolute EQ scam. Period. Been proved over and over. And I’m not debating that MQA doesn’t sound “different”. One doesn’t need to ABX test to hear a difference in MQA, but one must understand it’s NOT because of the file size. It’s because of a Re-Mastering EQ modification.
This is absoolutely correct. The human ear cannot detect a difference between an original CD track and a compressed copy at 192KB/s or higher. If you really can hear a difference, then this is due to some other factor and has nothing to do with the compression.
Hello. Note that tidal now offer "360 Reality Audio". ;-) Personally I have a preference for Tidal sound level, their MQA format sounds better, and platform with a lot of rap, hip hop, ...
You had better promote Tidal and Qobuz, who are doing better research and development efforts. Spotify doesn't need you and the whole horde that follows you to promote them. Spotify focuses on profits first and bottom on artists and music. Spotify, Amazon, Apple let other Streaming sites do the risky work of research and development, what courage !!
if you cannot make the difference, it is your ears. this is what I get by doing the test with my sennheiser momentums around ears. prnt.sc/obskan While it was difficult to hear difference on some of the songs, there was a very very clear difference for other. It depends on the music you are listening to for the difference to be apparent, but a good quality lossless format surely has much dynamic sound and you hear it with appropriate gear. Give your sennheiser hd headphones to someone with better ears. Additionally, your way of comparing two audio files by looking at their waves is incorrect. I do not use any streaming services so I am not sure if Tidal is playing trick with lossless audio, though.
Tidal sounds noticeably better even with my crap Fiio DAC. With my good DACs, it’s night and day. When you the. Use Roon and upscale, it’s lights out. I dumped Spotify two days into the trial period.
I’m an asperger and have extreme sensitive listening stimulus and I really hear stuff other people don’t hear, not only in music, also in real life, I hear the “high tone” of my freezer and can’t sleep without NC, because I’d hear the train (1km away from me).
I don’t think that’s just imagination, cause I’d give everything to stop being an audiophile and be able to live normal, to go to concerts and enjoy the music and life the same way as my friends do. I don’t leave my apartment except for work, friends have to come to my place. Music’s just the only thing that keeps me away from all that noise, paradoxon I know :’D but I always listen only to 1 instrument per song, I can’t listen to all of it at the same time, I’d have a stimulus satiation and that’s the point where hi-res does its “work”, I hear overlaps on 16bit, not much, but there is an overlap and that takes my concentration to a second intrument. And yeah I can hear that stupid sound of the cars to keep away marten.
It’s sad to hear it’s my imagination while struggling thanks to that.
I’m with you - most of the people don’t hear a difference, I can tell that because of my friends, they don’t think there is a difference, but if it’s my imagination, how can I stop it when my ears sound like I have tinnitus as soon as there is high frequency noise? fireworks are also bad…
It’s not only a gift, it’s also a curse, but that’s the only way I can use it as a gift, it’s not like that started suddenly when I started to listen to better quality, it started when I was 7 years old, because my ear hurt as soon as there was a loud noice and my aspergers wasn’t diagnosed then. My father tried it with his hi-fi headphones and I was in a different world, that’s how they were able to travel with me. I use my headphones at least 20 hours per day, obviously not the same headphones in the night/at work/evening, but you won’t find me without my headphones on, doesn’’t matter when or where, unless they fell out of my head in the night.
But like I said, I don’t want it, I’d love to live without it and most of the people don’t hear a difference.
oh how I wish you were right in that conclusion! Unfortunately it is very obvious for me that Tidal hi-fi has a fuller, more dynamic sound than Spotify premium :-( And i am really sad about that actually, because i love the spotify functionalities, and am not crazy at all about the user interface in Tidal.
dont worry, spotify will eventually have high quality sound. They have to, in order to further widen that gap between them and the other streaming services.
I told him the same thing. You just can't be serious in claiming that Spotify sounds the same as tidal when used with proper equipment..
It's basically down to the equipment you use. Because there's a big difference when I stream through my Bluesound Node 2 and play the music with my DALI Rubicon 8 speakers. It's as you say Jesper, it's fuller more dynamic. I get a slightly bigger soundstage, and a bigger outline of individual instruments/sounds. I suspekt the main reason is the DAC. The Node 2 has a pretty good DAC.
However, if I test the same thing on my computer, running a much cheaper setup, it's not the same level of difference. And on most tracks I can't hear the difference. That's running things through some Steelseries headphones with external DAC, max 24/96, but it's just not refined enough to pick up the difference.
If I do the same test with some mobile devices and some RHA plugs, I can again gain from the Tidal advantage, but not as much as when I listen through the DALIs. I'll revisit that test after getting the Audioquest Dragonfly Cobalt, because the internal DAC of the tablet isn't that good, even though the plugs are.
So unless you have a good pipeline of equipment, it's not better using Tidal. And I totally agree with Spotify being the better solution. I have both, for that reason. I use spotify on all my devices that don't gain anything from Tidal. And Tidal for those who do. Maintaining playlists on both is kind of a pain in the ass, but I'll just have to live with that until Spotify give me hires or lossless audio.
@@mimimimio1496 I wish Tidal would improve so it was as good as Spotify in use, and in feature set. If they manage to do that, I will cut out Spotify. And it's such a waste to pay for several streaming services that does about the same thing.
Besides A/B testing you can have both tracks at the same volume but one with inverted phase and listen which content is lost.
Once Spotify goes lossless this controversy will be forgotten.
Oh great, another pricing tier, yaaaaah!!!!
Soon amiright?
Tidal offers the highest payout to the artists, what's more important than that? support the artists, now more than ever, they need it, and Tidal is the only format trying to help artists.
The main reason to listen audio files at higher bit depths and sample rates that we can't actually hear it's because the artists record at that quality on the studio and edit the files to lower numbers involves a lot of compression and aditional editing to avoid clipping (like dither). My question here is: Why do studios record the music at audio measures that the humans can't even hear? It's ridiculous trying to perceive any difference as you said.
If you record with high sampling rates you don't need steep filters in order to prevent aliasing, it's a practical decision.
In mixing, extreme frequencies below 20Hz or above 20kHz will be cut out anyway in most cases.
Even my disinterested wife could immediately hear the sound quality differences between Spotify and Amazon HD Music. Did some AB testing. For example, compared Billie Eilish and Halsey tracks in Spotify with the same tracks in Amazon's HD Music (Ultra HD with a sample rate up to 24-bit/192kHz). People who have a decent 2-channel audio setup will hear dynamic improvement in the higher and lower ends (detailed/airy highs and tight/thumping bass). Not an audiophile, but I'd describe the UltraHD music as more three dimensional, better highlights and contrasts, a fuller more detailed sound image. For those with Bluetooth headphones and a smartphone setup, you won't hear and feel the difference.
Gear tested
Pre/Pro: Marantz AV7705
Amp: Outlaw Audio Model 7000x
Mains: Martin Logan Motion 60XT (bi-amped)
Subwoofer: Martin Logan Dynamo 700w
"For those with Bluetooth headphones and a smartphone setup,"
How "Bluetooth headphones and a smartphone setup" differs from "Bluetooth headphones and a " setup?
Keep drinking the coolaid
9:20 - "I don't want to get too much into the weeds here". Ha ha ha!!! Dude, you're already way way deep into the weeds, but I love it anyway!
For me, Tidal HiFi is the winner. Tidal HiFi can be a lot cheaper than Spotify Premium depending on where you're from. Where I'm from, the Tidal HiFi family subscription costs less than the Spotify Premium subscription for one person.
That is crazy man! Very interesting
students pay 10 for tidal hifi, so its allways a 100% increase from spotify to tidal no matter what
There's no point to get hifi since not all albums support it, just as they have a lackluster library as well. Students get both Hulu, Spotify, and Showtime for $5. That by far is the best deal I've seen for any student plans from any service. The only other best deal out there is Amazon Prime
I'm not a audio expert but I've compared both services and I couldn't tell a difference using Spotify premium and Tidal. For me Spotify is a more economical choice. But for others i know they feel Tidal has a better quality sound. I just love the fact that these services are available!
You won't notice a difference if your gear set up isn't goodup enough. For best result have some good pair of headphones that can support the HiFi or have HiFi setting built into them and a HiFi amp for your phone or computer. And you'll notice a good difference. Tidal for music lovers who have good equipment. While Spotify for music lover who lack the equipment or don't care or don't wanna spend the extra 10$. I've listen to songs from FNM angel dust album on both Spotify and tidal HiFi. And with my Audiotechnica m50x headphones with my fiio A5 amp I could hear a decent difference the vocals and instruments were more clear and more vivid and full. Even at loud volumes it still sounded strong clear while with Spotify it still sounded decent but the vocals and certain guitar riffs sounded less clear. I say if you really love vocals and have good gear it's worth the 20$ but either then that Spotify 10$ worth it. I switched and am glad I did my music sounds newer. I love music. sadly I can't afford a computer so tidal my best option with my gear set up. The bass on Spotify sounded slightly louder but if I pick the volume up on my amp the music on tidal sounds loud and still clear. So it's a win win. I have my volume on 30% on my amp and my music sounds so loud and clear :') anything louder then 45% I think I would go deaf lol
I have AB'd between Spotify and Tidal multiple times at this point. Tidal sounds a small fraction better. It really does, but it's only difference that audiophiles will care about. I share your sentiment on the Spotify layout, selection and social networking aspect. Spotify is just better. I still use Tidal though. Sound quality and how artists get paid are the top factors that go into this for me. Artist on tidal come out with more than 50 percent more profits which is an importance that people don't understand.
I've spent hours ABing and I can say that Tidal so far is 1-2% better (and I really have to concentrate to notice those % anyway). And it doesn't have a fifth of my favs playlist.
Placebo..they are the same if all variables are consistent.
You recorded a 24bit flac stream into a 16 bit file. Sounds like an excellently done comparison
You should do the same comparison but record the streams into their native resolutions
Or wav versions of each file for the fairest comparison
I feel Tidal is the best for streaming music. $20 for lossless above CD quality music. People think that is a lot of money but you’re cable bill can run up to $250 a month for a lot of low quality nonsense .The sound difference is definitely noticeable. The trend of people going back to vinyl is partly due to vinyls lossless sound quality. I use tidal hifi and would never go to Spotify because of Tidals quality. You can “feel” the music. You hear every string pluck, every breath, every everything. That’s what music is supposed to be, not this compressed lifeless streaming mp3 format that other streaming providers are trying to sell you. Not to mention that 75% of subscription cost benefits the music artist. Tidal ROCKS!!!!
Tidal and Deezer are both good. Appently the difference from a flac download and the cd is very hard to tell the difference. I haven't tried it yet but it's on the list.
There is no reason to go above Spotify, he just made that clear...yet you insist. If sound quality is the same and Spotify has the best interface/music discovery why pay more for Tidal?
Awesome, thoroughly and well explained, thank you!
It's quite possible that you are that your listening equipment is just basic, so allowances can be made for your judgement. However, better quality equipment is more revealing. Which means that extra data/bits/rates, or lack thereof are clearly evident to anybody with half an ear.
For instance, friends, neighbours and kids have all been able to tell when I am switching to better bit rates. The differences may be more slight, but they can even hear better cables.
Do you honestly think that doctors, lawyers, judges, architects and engineers, those who afford high end equipment are been taken for a ride. It is more likely that their ears are appreciating something that you don't.
Enjoy the placebo affect. Educate yourself when you have time. You can't hear the difference.
Atlast better explanation! I try to compare both tidal and spotify no difference if the is difference maybe just a bit.
Nice well thought out video.
I've done the same abx blind testing over the past few years with some friends. We've never done better than random guessing. Lol.
Gear used for testing:
HD800s /HE1000v2
Ray Samuels Darkstar /Woo WA22
Schiit Yggy/ Modded Dac Lite 60
You cannot hear the difference from mp3 to FLAC? Must be your system or ears.
@@johndi1962
I suppose you have the unmistakable golden ears lol. Over 30 people have failed blind testing. No one has passed. Spotify premium is not mp3.
New rig used.
Headphones: Focal Utopia
Amp: Headamp GSX-mk2
Dac: Denafrips Terminator.
If I or everyone else can't pass the test on my rig. Nobody is lol. Placebo is a thing bro.
@@thechef5531 it all depends on the system is you are using to do the comparison. It also depends on how good your ear is.
I would never do a comparison with headphones, it's through your loudspeakers is the only way to test.
If your test people have never heard the sound through a 7000.00 set of Focal headphones then everything will sound good.
To be fair you need to do your ab testing on the test subjects home system something they are used to listening to.
If you can afford a 7000.00 set of headphones your home system must be pretty good why not use that?
@@johndi1962
Did away with speakers a few years ago. What my headphone rig delivers in SQ , it would cost me 10 fold to replicate with speakers.
You must have never listened to headphones before. The resolve and image better than any speaker rig I've listened to. I've heard speaker rigs costing well over 100k. I used to have my own shop and sell audio for a living years ago.
As much as I love speaker rigs , headphones are hard to beat price to performance.
Not everything sounds good through my Focals. Shit recordings will always sound like shit no matter what codec is used. Most of the stuff recorded today is garbage and my Focals will expose it immediately.
Take for instance an album like "Jazz at the pawn shop". One of or if not the best recorded albums of all time. I guarantee you that in a blind abx test. You won't pass switching between spotify premium and Tidal hifi.
I've taken the test at least 20 times. Focusing on spatial cues, noise floor, micro and macro dynamics, soundstage, and imaging. There were times when I thought I had every one correct and was 100% certain. I ended up with the same result. 45 to 55% correct lol.
@@thechef5531
The headphone vs speakers is a personal choice I personally do not like the feel of wearing headphones.
I have B&W 802's unfortunately not the D3's 😕 and they do a great job. I think the sound is different the sound stage etc is different comparing headphones to speakers, its a personal choice and I prefer speakers.
And yes I agree my 802's can reveal how bad a recording really is.
Excellent video, thanks.
Thanks for the thorough process and report, but I have a few points of disagreement:
1. The two tracks on your initial AC comparison sound quite different. The second was superior.
2. I'm nor sure exactly what point you were making with the short, terrible-sounding (screeching mush) 9K sample, but that was unlistenable.
3. If you throw out or average the temporal dimension of a sound sample, you negate the validity of the result. To the first order, errors in time *are* errors in amplitude. Accurate reproduction requires the right note delivered at precisely the right time. (See discussions of "jitter.")
Having said all that, I don't think that Tidal Hi-fi is a good investment for most folks. As you suggested, the only exception is for folks that plan on doing dedicated listening on good gear.
Cheers.
I agree with Bob on some of this.
1. Cd quality is not the best. You have MQA (Master Quality Audio) also known as studioquality. And Tidal HIFI support this. And spotify is no where near. Spotify dosnt even support CD.
2. You say cables dosnt matter? Have you ever listened to any cable that is worth more than 2$? Cables transfer your sound. If cables are crap than sound is crap.
3. Spotify P. support 320khz maximum but Tidal P support 320khz minimum and higher for the same price as Spotify.
4. You say you cant hear difference between them? Well if you listen with a pair of apple airbuds trough your soundcard on your 2001 dell computer its obvious that you cant hear difference. You need to invest good gear.
And to wrap it up. I dont think you realy know what you are talking about Seltzertronics. Tidal P is a better investment for the same price as Spotify P and Tidal HIFI is better for people that care about their sound. Thank you
Lol its really true that for the most part 'audiophiles' are uneducated and many mentally ill. Ripe ground for snake oil salesmen.
Very nice investigation. Thank you, this is what the internet is all about: sharing quality opinions.
Tidal better If your serious about listening to music with better quality and are willing to pay the extra ten. You need better headphones and amps. Too hear the big difference. I've heard both apps with the same gear that I have, tidal sounds better more clear and more vivid sound scape. Vocals more clear. Instruments more clear and full. While Spotify was a little more louder but less clear. Vocals were less clear and blended way to much with the instruments. If you don't have good equipment you won't notice any difference.
Would be great to see the same comparison with Deezer and or Google Play Music...they are all mp3, but apparently with different encoders...
Tidal and Deezer are comparable on the Hifi level. I had them both on a trial and sometimes I think Deezer sounded better but it depends on the recordings of the songs you compare.
Above 320kb/s it is very difficult to hear major difference but going down from 320kb/s to lets say 128kb/s it is very easy to catch the artifacts even with a untrained ear.
This guy is so pro Spotify its sad. If you cannot hear the difference from Spotify and Tidal hifi your equipment is not good enough to take advantage of tidal hifi so don't pay the extra 10 dollars a month.
It doesn't matter what your readings say it's what you hear. And you cannot hear the difference which is actually kind of shocking.
If you want the best sound and your system is decent go with the Tidal hifi and leave the Spotify premium to people who prefer to listen to music with entry level headphones. Not that I have anything against entry level headphones.
johndi1962 I have Studio 2s and I can assure you I don’t hear the difference at all
@@dragonblade1824 spare me your know it all attitude if you've listening with cheap headphones then I do agree.
But if you are saying there is no difference in sound quality from mp320 and flac you have no idea what you are talking about.
johndi1962 it comes down to people’s listening preferences as well. Most modern EDM is so 16/44 I wouldn’t be surprised if one _couldn’t_ hear the difference with trap music, Future house, etc. I’ve been using Spotify for my mobile needs (hard to bring one’s LP collection with them) and I appreciate it... mind you, I love SACD/DSD and I CAN HEAR THE DIFFERENCE, and I am not FULL OF ****. But it’ll take decades before DSD audio data can be successfully streamed online.
@@burgmail sorry you cannot hear the difference you are missing out. If you are referring to cheap headphones and probably factory audio then you will never hear the difference. So it's best for you to stay with 320.
johndi1962 you must’ve misread me. I said I _can_ hear the difference... otherwise I would not have invested in DSD, which is my preferred digital format for sound quality. It’s just that some commercial recordings were basically recorded at 16/44 (such as every Lindsey Buckingham-related release since Tusk), and sometimes even with consumer audio gear. There’s a reason why the same albums get multiple audiophile releases: the well-recorded ones are rare... but some of them are absolutely worth it.
As the Palaces Burn by Lamb of God isn't on Spotify rendering their service basically useless !
Good work!! Was this done using Tidal HIFI with MQA decoding?
Thanks for the feedback! It was quite a bit of work figuring out a way to compare them statistically. The Tidal audio wasn't among their Masters set. This may be something to look at in the future, assuming I can be confident that the Spotify version is from the same master. However, I wouldn't expect to find anything. I didn't go on too much about it in the video but "HD audio" is almost entirely marketing scheme. Philips and Sony did their homework in the 1970s and 80s when they were developing CD audio. CD-quality really does top-out the human ear. While higher sample rates are possible (e.g., 96Khz), that only allows the recording and replay of frequencies well out of our hearing range. Further, not only does it yield no benefits within our hearing range, but our equipment isn't as good at producing ultrasonics as sonics and forcing them to do so can produce distortion, which is audible. Aside from greater file size, higher bit-depths (24 or 32 bit) really only result in a lower noise floor. However, the noise floor at 16-bit is already below our threshold of hearing even when the volume is so high we are pushing into threshold of pain area. I recently saw an excellent tagline on a forum, "With 24 bit audio, now you can listen to silence even louder!" In consideration of the above, I don't expect MQA audio or other "HD" formats to ever be successful in the marketplace. Some people will buy them and may even believe they sound better do to the Placebo effect and a general belief that more expensive things MUST be better. However, most people don't know anything about sample rates, bit depths, etc or these things that are supposed to make their music better, giving them a kind of "immunity" to the Placebo effects. They'll just buy what sounds good to them, and they won't find anything better than what's already widely available. Consequently, "HD audio" will never be successful in the marketplace if it costs more. CD-quality 44.1Khz/16-bit really is good enough, and as my analysis as well as other studies have shown even some lossyness still yields functionally indiscernible sound fidelity. In a way it's disappointing, but if you think about it the implication is that the music we have now is already ideal, allowing you to save your money and buy better speakers/headphones and amps that really do make a difference.
Seltzertronics absolutely correct.
I tried to convince myself that it’s the same for saving money but just play abba on both and you will hear what I mean.Tidal hifi is way better.
Abba? lol. this music was recorded 40 years ago. Not a good example at all.
@@CuriousPassenger This is the dumbest thing i've read this week. To think older music can't be used as an example of good production and not knowing that ABBA is still considered to this day as one of the best produced artists of all time, they even had their own designed studio.
@@andretrevelin9042 still considered by whom? I have my own ears. I haven't said it was produced poorly but since then both recording equipment and audio engeneering science have improved significantly. Pop music in general isn't well suited for this goal imo. To test sound quality I'd go with orchestral/chamber music, jazz (bebop specifically), IDM/glitch/ambient/microsound (cos of unusual sound design they provide) and metal of course. Listening to Gimme Gimme Gimme right now, not gonna lie, this sounds so flat and dull to me. There is nothing to impress me. Using the Auident id4 sound card and Beyerdynamics dt 770 pro, in case you're interested. Even Beatles' magnum opus A Day in the Life made in 1967 sounds so much better than this. Man, I love good sounding music so much that I even have my own Spotify playlist called Top Notch Production. Have you heard of Four Tet? I don't really like his music that much (rhythmically it's straight four on the floor) but I listen to it just because of the way it sounds. This guy only has mac book, studio monitors and midi controller, no own studio lol. It's a lot easier to make good sounding music now.
In fact, I agree that old music can be used as an example of good production. Pink Floyd, for example.
Also, check out this ruclips.net/video/_7wKjTf_RlI/видео.html Do you really think Abba can compete with this in terms of production quality?
@@CuriousPassenger Led Zeppelin chose to record at ABBA's studio, and in a more modern reference Dave Grohl from the Foo Fighters used ABBA's studio design as inspiration for his band's studio in LA.
Was just pointing out that old music can sound just as good (if not better) than modern production. Like you pointed out with Pink Floyd.
And I definitely feel that it's easier to tell the difference of audio quality when listening to electronic music.
Enjoy the placebo effect.
The REAL benefit of Tidal is that it can be integrated with bit-perfect players such as Roon, Audirvana and Amarra Luxe.
Roon is basically a cleaner version of Tidal, Audirvana sounds like a super clean, intense, and forceful solid-state experience while Amarra Luxe sounds like vinyl or tubes.
Amarra Luxe uses a proprietary code to mess with the transients in such a way that digital sounds analog and it ABSOLUTELY works.
I personally highly prefer Amarra Luxe for its sound quality. Give it 10min and you will be smitten.
I'd love to try Amarra Luxe but it's been loading "My Songs" for 20 minutes now, it's one of the slowest pieces of software I've used this year!
Edit: Oh finally, it's done. Can barely tell the difference, but it does sound 1% nicer.
It's disgustingly slow tho
@@Gamez4eveR Open it up in browser mode. Go to "Window" in top left corner and press "Launch in browser mode".
This speeds things up considerably. Sometimes when a song won't play, you have to press the Play button again to queue it.
@@Gamez4eveR The more you listen the more you'll understand the difference between Amarra and say Pure Tidal.
In my system, Amarra sounds "bigger" and more dimensional with better width and back to front depth, with a much more pleasant treble and mids but somewhat reduced bass slam.
for tidal hi fi,,, can anyone suggest what hardware needed ,,, piece by piece,,, the internet goes to where first,,, if not pc,,, what sound card etc needed,,,, pls suggest these front end part/s,,,,
Easier to just get a phone that can play hi-res and some hi-res headphones
Well done!
You saved them as 16 bit 44,1? Well here's the news for you, 24bit 192 is what MQA can output.
You obviously didnt watch the entire video...
The placebo effect comes when listening to tidal
Do you mean that using Tidal you hear music when you're playing a silent track?
I've been there and done it with high bitrate music - 24/192, DSD yada yada - and the simple reality is that streaming services dont NEED to compete with lossless or so-called 'HD audio'. Streaming is for music *discovery* - when you find something you like, you can buy it (be that digital download, CD, vinyl or whatever). There is absolutely no need for anything higher than 320K for streaming - unless you have an incredibly quite work environment or you work from home and even then many of us wouldnt be able to tell the difference between high bitrate Vorbis and lossless anyway. By the time I get on the bus, I just want metal to drown out the idiot parade talking on their phones (or worse) : anything resembling high-fidelity sound would be completely lost in that environment.
I'm all for people paying for whatever bitrate/format they want - choice is good - but given that I only use AIFF for archiving and transcode to Vorbis for daily use, I may not be the best judge of what others can and cannot hear. I'm far more interested in finding music I like than finding 'perfect' recordings, but again that doesnt make me the universal arbiter. There is a growing chorus of audio snobs who claim that ALL streaming is evil - apparently it leads to a 'buffet' approach to music that diminishes the overall experience : I guess they were the people who were happy to buy albums that had 1 good tune accompanied by 11 mediocre tracks that the band recorded to fulfil a contractual obligation to their record company ;)
Long live TIDAL. Long live Spotify.
Hi-res Master Race👐🏾
nice review but this might be true for headphones but if you play the tracks on a high end speakers (in my case bowers and wilkins 702 s2) the difference is astonishing. Spotify sounds numb in comparison to tidal masters or high fidetlity tracks. Especially when you hear more complex music such as jazz or classical music the difference is apparent. But I do agree. If you are not audiphile and don't have high end equipment and the ability to distinguish tones then spotify premium will definitly do.
Astonishing? I respectfully find that hard to believe. I think I did notice the difference in some cases but it was VERY minor. I have a pair of Adam A7X monitors and a pair of EVE SC208 monitors and the difference was EXTREMELY minor for me. And this was borne out in an online ABX test where I could tell the Tidal track ~65-70% of the time ((over a Spotify 320kbps track, not statistically significant) in cases where I was constantly repeating small portions of the track. Needless to say, this isn't how one listens to music.
@@mohamedahmed1023 Thanks for your reply. I also did some testing. But in my experience the sounds are clearer and I need way less volume with tidal. Especially when you listen to "mqa" tracks.
Try something for yourself: Compare "Blake Shelton - Gods Country" in master quality with spotify and tell me that you don't hear any difference...
@@lukaswinter4579 you are hearing mastering differences. You are not hearing anyyhing stemming from the differences in OGG compression.
@@chamade166 thanks for the reply. I know this review though - watched it myself some time ago. I tried the same thing with my ears and the same tracks as well. The difference might lie in mastering but there is a huge difference when listening to TIDAL on a good setup.
You know you’re uploading to RUclips which compresses the shit out of things. Lol. I’m lol so hard, that I contributed to a view which makes you feel even more confident in your presentation. Have fun people. Sound matters*
His analysis and stats still stand, regardless, whether any audiophile likes it or not.
I'm laughing so much at your comment. Clearly a self prescribed audiophile. Back to back blind testing would also reveal that you yourself, cannot hear a difference, with all levels matched of course.
Sound matters very much. So instead of making silly comments, maybe focus on where you can actually make and hear a difference. I'd start with room correction.
You wouldn't notice any different if music is played on regular headphones or speakers. You really need to have a very high end sound system or headphone to get most out of Tidal which offers Dolby Atmos, Master, 360 surround sound etc. Better stick with cheaper and basic streaming service if you don't have expensive hardware.
You can't hear the difference either way. Your subjective uneducated opinion is worthless. Enjoy the placebo effect.
Coming from a music producer and mixer, when you throw that bs that higher bit depth and higher sample rates don't sound at least different, I'm not even going to use the word "better", I can tell you that 1: you'r wrong, 2: excepting the fact that you're wrong you're also mocking people who actually have ears to hear, 3: go to a freaking proper music studio and let the audio engineer tell you and show you why a higher sample rate and bit depth actually sounds better on PROPER speakers. 4: get a job where you actually know what you're talking about.
New 2020 Spotify Premium AAC 256kbps lossy max.
my ear can be deceived with an AAC above 400 kbps.
I'm lucky.
Sure buddy
People will hear more differences between sources than you say or "think". It is not all about 'scientific' proof... perhaps you are not the best reference for this test? Good that you tried.
Tidal HiFi is clearly superior to Spotify on good equipment using loudspeakers, (NOT headphones), in a good acoustic setting, when comparing well recorded acoustic music. I can hear more detail and that, for me, makes the sounds more beautiful and enjoyable.
Something you can get used to for sure. But going from flac from my pc to "320" spotify sound def lack of bass that I could not EQ away. Music "can be" thinner. Absolutely fine for the car or "active" listening.
Did you try turning off Spotify normalization? It destroys audio
First, you need to listen to Tidal Master albums and then you need to get out of the headphones and put it on a real system. You will hear a HUGE difference between the two.
I totally agree. I'm using a B&W system with a naim unity atoms as a stero and if anybody tells me that spotify sounds even close to tidal masters quality I have to assume that they are death. Even in my B&O headphones (beoplay H9) you hear such a difference. I don't actually know what he is talking about.
If everything you claim is true why is it possible that in AB comp between a cd from my collection and Spotify I hear big difference. Always the cd sounding better. And why is it possible when I AB a Super Audio cd with a normal cd the SACD is MUCH MUCH better? Generally speaking I don't care much for comparisions with measuring equipment. Only what my ears hear is important. Also if you want to compare streams but have to convert them to a different file format first the test is no longer valid.
I'm using PC, chord mojo and Audeze XC gears to hear songs from Tidal Hifi and Spotify Premium. The different between them is clearly discern-able especially when i play techno, heavy bass type of music.Tidal gives me fuller body and Spotify sounds like a empty tin can.
It would be great if you could do this test again using techno music or those with drum demo. I'm sure your statistic would show great diff.
I guess you are right that on certain freq, the diff between them is minimal as what you had tested but music with full range from 10 - 20khz like drum demo and techno, would show great diff.
I respectfully find that hard to believe. I think I did notice the difference in some cases but it was VERY minor. I have a pair of Adam A7X monitors and a pair of EVE SC208 monitors and the difference was EXTREMELY minor for me. And this was borne out in an online ABX test where I could tell the Tidal track ~65-70% of the time ((over a Spotify 320kbps track, not statistically significant) in cases where I was constantly repeating small portions of the track. Needless to say, this isn't how one listens to music.
Another simple trick: invert the phase of one source, and then add it to the other source. You'll then see the delta signal. You may need to shift and amplify one of the two a bit. Next to that, I did find out that quite some content on Tidal that is supposed to be lossless, is lossy (and very very badly compressed...). Tidal points to the content provider (which is of no use to solve the problem). The compressed material may even sound better than the "lossless" ones.
I find that this comparison is useless because the compressed format will obviously be worse against the flac. But if i compare the compressed format of Tidal and Spotify, Spotify is better for me.
Before that I watched your DAC 101 video which is full of many usefull general audio equipments information. But I think there is to much difference between TIDAL (FLAC) vs Spotify (320kbps mp3), than 200$ vs 1000$ DACs :)
I've had two albums, same mastering, one in 320kbps mp3 and the other in 96kHz FLAC. The difference between my laptop DAC and my cheap pro audio interface DAC was actually audible compared to the format war.
Got a xiaomi note 10 lite phone which has a dedicated hi res dac 24/192 and 1more triple drivers earphones, and honestly I can't tell the difference in sound quality between Spotify and Tidal, or at most I can tell a tiny difference and not in every song, I'm not and audiophile per se, I just wanted to give Tidal a try and see what the fuss was all about and tried to pay close attention to details in music across different genres, I gotta say I noticed a little bit of more controlled bass and wider soundstage when listening to some mqa masters, so it also depends on the quality of the original recording. So to sum it up It's not worth the extra money. Tidal might be useful for those who can afford extra expensive equipment that can actually take advantage of the lossless quality. I think I'm giving up on Tidal after my trial
Im sorry but MP3 is not nor will it ever be quality audio if you praise it so much thats nice for you keep thousands of inaccurate audio files only to find out your hearing is the problem not your eyes .
I mean for a streaming music company it should really be no less than Lossless quality music, they encrypted the music files anyway with DRM protection preventing their low IQ customers to download their music files .
Tidal et Qobuz travaille pour l'avenir de la musique en terme de qualité ! Que font les 3 larves rampantes qui suivent derrière, ils récoltent les fruits produits par Tidal et Qobuz. Vous voulez un monde uniforme géré par des algorithmes qui nous disent ce que nous aimons (à la poubelle le doux chemin de la découverte par soi-même et de la rencontre innatendue avec un artiste). Si nous allons sur cette voix, c'est une vie chiante et interminable qui nous attends.
The compression on spotify is unbearable, wanna take off the headphones after 2 songs.. tidal is the real deal! Only problem with tidal is poor playlist
temskee just search for the song you want to listen to and toggle shuffle on tidal. I get better playlists that way.
lol, turn the volum up, you get the same sound quality :D
Sucker born every minute.
I understood absolutely nothing, too many „professional” words. So, which is better?
go to 11:05
@@christominded4726 Same here. Thanks
how you tested it, the software you used to tweak the files and human error can cause changes to the output. aside from that, are yous sure your hardware is up to spec when it comes to high definition? sometimes it doesn't matter if your headphones are 10000k or 10b usd, if you plug it to a cheap mp3 player, they will always sound bad. lastly, although Hi-Fi is popular among audiophiles, that's because audiophiles and musicians have tuned their ears to listen to minute changes and details, unlike the regular listener who is completely fine with 320kbps and cheap earphones.
There is huge difference about audio quality. MQA aka master is highly FAR more better codec than anything 320Kb/s BUT you need also equipments to match it.
DONT even try to listen it from MAC or PC audio out to a gaming headset. You need GOOD external headphone DAC/AMP AND good quality headphones like Sennheiser HD600-800s, AKG K701-801, Audioquest Nighthawk or even STAX set and those will cost you anywhere between 400-5000€ (500$-6000$)
When you got that kind of set, lets talk again.. I got AKG K712 pro and Audioquest Nighthawks with Audioquest DAC/AMP (Cost me over 1200€.)
But yeah i can tell the difference and so does anyone else with that kind of set...
MQA is an absolute EQ scam. Period. Been proved over and over. And I’m not debating that MQA doesn’t sound “different”. One doesn’t need to ABX test to hear a difference in MQA, but one must understand it’s NOT because of the file size. It’s because of a Re-Mastering EQ modification.
teach me,,, if pc is no good,, then pls suggest what u use in that critical first step..pls,,,help
audiophile claims with a hum on background
your equipments are low fi that is why you cannot hear the difference
This is absoolutely correct. The human ear cannot detect a difference between an original CD track and a compressed copy at 192KB/s or higher. If you really can hear a difference, then this is due to some other factor and has nothing to do with the compression.
It has to do with listen to your music through your cell or or a decent home system, then the difference is obvious
Hello.
Note that tidal now offer "360 Reality Audio". ;-)
Personally I have a preference for Tidal sound level, their MQA format sounds better, and platform with a lot of rap, hip hop, ...
Lol man you are pretty funny. Great video I agree with everything.
So in 2020 spotify has flac 16bit
The format of music doesn't matter, it's what you use to listen to that format that makes a difference in sound
Chile compare.
You had better promote Tidal and Qobuz, who are doing better research and development efforts. Spotify doesn't need you and the whole horde that follows you to promote them. Spotify focuses on profits first and bottom on artists and music. Spotify, Amazon, Apple let other Streaming sites do the risky work of research and development, what courage !!
if you cannot make the difference, it is your ears. this is what I get by doing the test with my sennheiser momentums around ears. prnt.sc/obskan While it was difficult to hear difference on some of the songs, there was a very very clear difference for other. It depends on the music you are listening to for the difference to be apparent, but a good quality lossless format surely has much dynamic sound and you hear it with appropriate gear. Give your sennheiser hd headphones to someone with better ears. Additionally, your way of comparing two audio files by looking at their waves is incorrect.
I do not use any streaming services so I am not sure if Tidal is playing trick with lossless audio, though.
So unless you have unicorn ears Spotify seems to be the better choice..
lost me at 9:00
Tidal sounds noticeably better even with my crap Fiio DAC. With my good DACs, it’s night and day. When you the. Use Roon and upscale, it’s lights out. I dumped Spotify two days into the trial period.
@@RaveyDavey If you can't hear, that's fine. It's night and day for me.
Oh how the so called audiophiles are not going to like this
Would it make a noticeable difference with the sound quality if Im using Sennheiser HD569 (no amp/dac)