Can someone give me a short answer about Tidal vs Spotify? I swear I can hear a difference but this forum got me confused.

[1niltothe]

I know this topic has come up a few times but I find the threads leave my head spinning.

For me the screaming difference is hi hats, cymbals etc. I thought it was a no brainer, FLAC vs 320Kbps.

I saw someone on another thread say Tidal is a rip off.

I have a good DAC / speakers etc. I work with music and at least tell myself I have decent ears for this kind of thing.

So, the overheads on on Eyeless by Slipknot. Am I just imagining that Tidal does a better job than Spotify?

 

[Jimbob54]

I know this topic has come up a few times but I find the threads leave my head spinning.

For me the screaming difference is hi hats, cymbals etc. I thought it was a no brainer, FLAC vs 320Kbps.

I saw someone on another thread say Tidal is a rip off.

I have a good DAC / speakers etc. I work with music and at least tell myself I have decent ears for this kind of thing.

So, the overheads on on Eyeless by Slipknot. Am I just imagining that Tidal does a better job than Spotify?

You've read the threads. There is a lot of different reasons why you might perceive a difference between 2 versions of the same track on different services. Rule out the obvious ones and see where you are then.

1. You know which service you are listening to
2. The signal level to your dac might be different from each service. (so perhaps tidal is slightly louder?)
3.its possible the versions of the track are actually different masters /mixes

 

[BeerBear]

Am I just imagining that Tidal does a better job than Spotify?

As Jimbob said, there can be multiple factors at play...
To be sure, you need to know that you have the same release/version of a song, perform careful level and time matching and then do a blind (ABX) test.

If this stuff is important to you, use a service that always provides a lossless stream. Tidal is a bit sketchy in that they lie about offering "CD quality" lossless, even though that's not always the case.

 

[NiagaraPete]

I've not done that comparison but prior to Apple Music going lossless I found I got listening fatigue really quickly.

 

[1niltothe]

Thanks for the replies. Sorry I know it is an annoying question.

I suppose partly I wanted to try and make a simple thread on this reputable forum, so someone in a similar position could understand more at a glance what's going on.

I find that there are so many answers across various platforms, not to mention articles online that seem a bit like puff pieces, or some subjective things ("you can hear the difference if you have a good setup and know what to listen for.")

"Tidal is a bit sketchy in that they lie about offering "CD quality" lossless, even though that's not always the case."

Thanks, I guess this goes some way to explain the remark someone made about "Tidal is a rip off." I thought this might have just have been to do with the MQA thing.

"I've not done that comparison but prior to Apple Music going lossless I found I got listening fatigue really quickly."

I'm also in a similar position. Last week got a really nice DAC, set up my Hi Fi properly in the front room, and have been listening on Audirvana / Tidal / Qobuz. It's the first time in years that I've been just listening to tracks for hours, all day, all genres, without getting fatigue. Obviously there are many factors here which have changed.

I can try some A / B testing as Jimbob proposed and see if there really is an audible difference.

Earlier today I read that Spotify, even if the streaming setting is "extreme", does not necessarily stream at this higher quality. Only if you download the tracks. This could also maybe explain why the difference seemed so clear a couple of weeks ago when I was comparing the same tracks on Spotify and Tidal.

 

[Jimbob54]

Thanks for the replies. Sorry I know it is an annoying question.

I suppose partly I wanted to try and make a simple thread on this reputable forum, so someone in a similar position could understand more at a glance what's going on.

I find that there are so many answers across various platforms, not to mention articles online that seem a bit like puff pieces, or some subjective things ("you can hear the difference if you have a good setup and know what to listen for.")

"Tidal is a bit sketchy in that they lie about offering "CD quality" lossless, even though that's not always the case."

Thanks, I guess this goes some way to explain the remark someone made about "Tidal is a rip off." I thought this might have just have been to do with the MQA thing.

"I've not done that comparison but prior to Apple Music going lossless I found I got listening fatigue really quickly."

I'm also in a similar position. Last week got a really nice DAC, set up my Hi Fi properly in the front room, and have been listening on Audirvana / Tidal / Qobuz. It's the first time in years that I've been just listening to tracks for hours, all day, all genres, without getting fatigue. Obviously there are many factors here which have changed.

I can try some A / B testing as Jimbob proposed and see if there really is an audible difference.

Earlier today I read that Spotify, even if the streaming setting is "extreme", does not necessarily stream at this higher quality. Only if you download the tracks. This could also maybe explain why the difference seemed so clear a couple of weeks ago when I was comparing the same tracks on Spotify and Tidal.

There may be edge cases where for whatever reason some people can truly discern if something is lossy streaming vs lossless but I would suggest once you put them all on a level playing field in terms of volume levelled etc, aint no one going to walk into a room with a favourite track of theirs playing on a good system and go, "urgh, get that 320kbps Spotify stream off and play it lossless" if they dont know which service is playing. A well recorded, mixed, mastered etc track is going to sound really good on any of the modern streaming platforms.

Worry about the headphone/ speaker/room first, then the amplifcation, then the DAC and (I would argue) the streaming service/ format last of all from a sound quality perspective.

Pick your streaming service based on price/library strength/ features-functionality etc etc

 

[Deleted member 46664]

I know this topic has come up a few times but I find the threads leave my head spinning.

This isn't audio specs or complicated testing ... Which music service you prefer is simply a personal choice. If you like one better than the other then so be it... don't worry about what anyone else says.

A good response would be "Hmm ... I've always preferred Tidal."

 

[DVDdoug]

MP3 is lossy but if you can hear a difference (with high-quality lossy compression) it's usually not as obvious as many people think. Some of the best-sounding music I have is on concert DVDs with 5.1 channel Dolby, and that's lossy. Sometimes there is an LPCM (lossless) stereo track and 5.1 Dolby or DTS, at I'll always choose the surround track.

The main thing about lossless (or high-resolution lossless) is that you don't have to give the storage/transmission format any thought... You know you have the accurate-original recording.

I can try some A / B testing as Jimbob proposed and see if there really is an audible difference.

Not A/B, blind, level matched, ABX. ABX is also statistical... If you can hear a difference 6 out of 10 times, you probably aren't really hearing a difference. If you can hear a difference 10 out of 10 you probably are hearing a difference.

The easiest way to do this it to rip a CD to FLAC & MP3 so you're starting with the same source.

You could record both Tidal and Spotify (with Audacity, etc.) and that makes it easy to switch between them but you might question if you've "captured" the stream accurately and you'd have to level-match them. And, you'd have to match the RMS or LUFS levels because MP3 usually changes the peak levels so if you do regular peak normalization, the loudness levels won't match.

For me the screaming difference is hi hats, cymbals etc.

Some sounds are easier to compress than others so if you're tying to hear a difference it does help to focus-on and repeat the parts where you think you're hearing a difference. . "They say" castanets generate compression artifacts. (I'm not sure if I have any recordings with castanets, and I don't really want to hear compression artifacts anyway.)

Headphones will make it easier to hear artifacts but you don't necessarily need high-end equipment.

 

[Jimbob54]

MP3 is lossy but if you can hear a difference (with high-quality lossy compression) it's usually not as obvious as many people think. Some of the best-sounding music I have is on concert DVDs with 5.1 channel Dolby, and that's lossy. Sometimes there is an LPCM (lossless) stereo track and 5.1 Dolby or DTS, at I'll always choose the surround track.

The main thing about lossless (or high-resolution lossless) is that you don't have to give the storage/transmission format any thought... You know you have the accurate-original recording.


Not A/B, blind, level matched, ABX. ABX is also statistical... If you can hear a difference 6 out of 10 times, you probably aren't really hearing a difference. If you can hear a difference 10 out of 10 you probably are hearing a difference.

The easiest way to do this it to rip a CD to FLAC & MP3 so you're starting with the same source.

You could record both Tidal and Spotify (with Audacity, etc.) and that makes it easy to switch between them but you might question if you've "captured" the stream accurately and you'd have to level-match them. And, you'd have to match the RMS or LUFS levels because MP3 usually changes the peak levels so if you do regular peak normalization, the loudness levels won't match.


Some sounds are easier to compress than others so if you're tying to hear a difference it does help to focus-on and repeat the parts where you think you're hearing a difference. . "They say" castanets generate compression artifacts. (I'm not sure if I have any recordings with castanets, and I don't really want to hear compression artifacts anyway.)

Headphones will make it easier to hear artifacts but you don't necessarily need high-end equipment.

Just to point out the obvious - Spotify isnt MP3- I think the higher quality is 320 Ogg/Vorbis but I will be proved wrong. But agree with everything you say

 

[danadam]

I think the higher quality is 320 Ogg/Vorbis but I will be proved wrong.

Have more faith in yourself From Audio file formats for Spotify:

When we get your audio files, we do the following:
...
* Transcode the file into different delivery formats for our audio quality options:
- Ogg/Vorbis (96, 160, 320 kbps)

From Audio quality:

Desktop, mobile, and tablet - Very high: Equivalent to approximately 320kbit/s