Tidal Hi Fi

strumjoughlamps

I is converted.

Been a/b ing the Master quality with Spotify highest quality.  An unfair comparison some will say but I wanted to see if I noticed. I did

Snap

I am waiting for the Spotify version of high quality audio to come out, I think it is due later this year. Seeing as the whole family is on the one account, this would be the better route I think, than to change service. I didn't notice a difference when I did the A/B, but then that may not have been vs the Master quality level. It was a while ago, a couple of years.

Grumpyrocker

strumjoughlamps said:

I is converted.

Been a/b ing the Master quality with Spotify highest quality.  An unfair comparison some will say but I wanted to see if I noticed. I did

The difference is likely to different masters rather than file resolution. 320k compressed files are transparent compared to lossless when from the same source. 

Rocker

Grumpyrocker said:

strumjoughlamps said:

I is converted.

Been a/b ing the Master quality with Spotify highest quality.  An unfair comparison some will say but I wanted to see if I noticed. I did

The difference is likely to different masters rather than file resolution. 320k compressed files are transparent compared to lossless when from the same source. 

If you can't hear the difference between 320K and lossless, your DAC is the reason.  A decent DAC like John Kenny's Ciunas will be a revelation so.

RobDavies

Rocker said:

Grumpyrocker said:

strumjoughlamps said:

I is converted.

Been a/b ing the Master quality with Spotify highest quality.  An unfair comparison some will say but I wanted to see if I noticed. I did

The difference is likely to different masters rather than file resolution. 320k compressed files are transparent compared to lossless when from the same source. 

If you can't hear the difference between 320K and lossless, your DAC is the reason.  A decent DAC like John Kenny's Ciunas will be a revelation so.

It could also be that as a guitarist who’s played and attended hundreds of heavy metal gigs over the last thirty five years, my hearing is buggered.  

I’ve A/B’d Spotify and Tidal hifi and couldn’t tell the difference on a £2k hifi.... Deezer was possibly slightly better than both but the difference wasn’t significant enough for me to move my entire Spotify library over to another service.  

Grumpyrocker

Rocker said:

Grumpyrocker said:

strumjoughlamps said:

I is converted.

Been a/b ing the Master quality with Spotify highest quality.  An unfair comparison some will say but I wanted to see if I noticed. I did

The difference is likely to different masters rather than file resolution. 320k compressed files are transparent compared to lossless when from the same source. 

If you can't hear the difference between 320K and lossless, your DAC is the reason.  A decent DAC like John Kenny's Ciunas will be a revelation so.

Any decent DAC above £50 should sound the same - ie not add anything to the sound. 

MattBanshee

Tidal good quality? Yes.
Tidal also a shill company for siphoning off loads of money to Kanye West and Beyonce via vastly overcooked streaming numbers, resulting in fraud investigations and court action? Also yes.

MattBanshee

When Beyonce's album released on Tidal as an exclusive, the royalty payouts for the streams recorded 250 million streams in 10 days, which would have to have meant that every single Tidal subscriber streamed the whole album at least 8 times per day, every day.

RaymondLin

Those Beyoncé fans, hardcore! Lol

Rocker

Grumpyrocker said:

Rocker said:

Grumpyrocker said:

strumjoughlamps said:

I is converted.

Been a/b ing the Master quality with Spotify highest quality.  An unfair comparison some will say but I wanted to see if I noticed. I did

The difference is likely to different masters rather than file resolution. 320k compressed files are transparent compared to lossless when from the same source. 

If you can't hear the difference between 320K and lossless, your DAC is the reason.  A decent DAC like John Kenny's Ciunas will be a revelation so.

Any decent DAC above £50 should sound the same - ie not add anything to the sound. 

Oh if that were only true......

DefaultM

Sounds ace through my built in ipad 4 speakers.

spark240

I had Deezer Hi res on my Astell and Kern player...with Focal Pro cans....honestly...it didn't do much for me.....

darthed1981

Grumpyrocker said:

strumjoughlamps said:

I is converted.

Been a/b ing the Master quality with Spotify highest quality.  An unfair comparison some will say but I wanted to see if I noticed. I did

The difference is likely to different masters rather than file resolution. 320k compressed files are transparent compared to lossless when from the same source. 

Yes this.

In fact to most people in a normal room with whatever gear you like, you will achieve transparency at 192kbps MP3 with a modern codec, or even as low as 128kbps AAC.

OGG at 320kbps, which Spotify uses, is transparent, that's that.  It fixes most of the compression artefacts you can hear in MP3 if you know what to look for in certain "torture samples".

Rather clearly, most hi-res audio is made from very different (and often much less compressed) masters, as it is mastered for hi-fi enthusiasts - not the general punter.

Actually, this may justify the cost by itself for some, but it is NOTHING to do with how the files are encoded.

The bad reputation MP3 has is mostly down to shitty early codecs and encoders, that your mate Jeff said "I got the new Muse album off Napster for free" and sounded like listening with your shower on despite claiming 128kbps.

monquixote

Rocker said:

Grumpyrocker said:

strumjoughlamps said:

I is converted.

Been a/b ing the Master quality with Spotify highest quality.  An unfair comparison some will say but I wanted to see if I noticed. I did

The difference is likely to different masters rather than file resolution. 320k compressed files are transparent compared to lossless when from the same source. 

If you can't hear the difference between 320K and lossless, your DAC is the reason.  A decent DAC like John Kenny's Ciunas will be a revelation so.

I've worked with people who designed hifi for Sony and B&O and helped to design the MPEG codecs and they couldn't.

monquixote

darthed1981 said:

Rather clearly, most hi-res audio is made from very different (and often much less compressed) masters, as it is mastered for hi-fi enthusiasts - not the general punter.

Actually, this may justify the cost by itself for some, but it is NOTHING to do with how the files are encoded.

Bingo

I would actually pay extra for high dynamic range remasters.

Unfortunately most remasters actually sound worse because they take the opportunity to compress the crap out of them to make them "pop" on the radio which is stupid as they compand the crap out of them again to make their station louder than other stations meaning they end up with loads of horrible artifacts.

I listened to some Queen high definition remasters on a crazy expensive Linn system and it was just shockingly awful because they had brick wall limited them. We compared it to the old non remastered versions and it was night and day.

Danny1969

I'm quite happy with 320K mp3 but in the right environment you can certainly hear the difference between  320 file and a wav, in fact you can hear the difference between the 24 \ 48 mulitrack and the 16 \ 44.4  bounce. When I was running the studio we got into this stuff and during blind testing  all of us could pick the correct files but that was in a soundproof, treated control room where you could hear your heart beating if everyone shut up breathing loudly.

What also helps is knowing what to listen for, the tails of the cymbals are one thing that can be spotted quite reliably depending on the material. Another things that helps is familiarity with the source material. When you have been mixing a record for 8 hours you get so familiar with it you can tell when it's been trunc'ed down to 16 bit and you can tell when it's been converted from the 16 \ 44 to a 320 MP3 but in real life just listening to causal music I doubt very much I could tell. 

@monquixote I think the opportunity to listen to some pre masters would be great, as in a bounce of the multitrack before it was  brickwalled  in mastering. There's so many great albums I would pay for in that format.  

exocet

Solo piano was always the acid test for me. Harmonics galore that quickly get mangled with data compression. 

Rocker

monquixote said:

Rocker said:

Grumpyrocker said:

strumjoughlamps said:

I is converted.

Been a/b ing the Master quality with Spotify highest quality.  An unfair comparison some will say but I wanted to see if I noticed. I did

The difference is likely to different masters rather than file resolution. 320k compressed files are transparent compared to lossless when from the same source. 

If you can't hear the difference between 320K and lossless, your DAC is the reason.  A decent DAC like John Kenny's Ciunas will be a revelation so.

I've worked with people who designed hifi for Sony and B&O and helped to design the MPEG codecs and they couldn't.

The whole test one, then test two or random one or two idea is a waste of time.  It merely tests the listener and not the technology.  Setup the 'better' (in this case) DAC and listen to the output for a couple of weeks.  Then insert the lesser product.  If you are like me, you go 'WTF is the music gone to?'

Then you know why I wrote what I wrote.

monquixote

If you can't hear it in a double blind listening test you can't hear it.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

Think about it rationally, if you can't see it on a scope, or pick it out in a listening test it's not possible to actually develop the product.

TheMarlin

I’m using it to 
I also have an Apple Music family account, but I use Tidal HD with my Hifi streamer.  There is a huge difference in quality between the two.