Tidal Alternative

[Deleted member 39414]

It’s worth mentioning that services might use different masterings of the source material. While the fidelity may be the same across services, one might hear differences in the content itself. Better/worse is up to you of course.

 

[Gio]

It is indisputable that Qobuz has many more file Hi-res. I had them both for 1 week and it was obvious. For example many "Harmonia Mundi" records (for classical listeners know what I mean) are in Hi-res on Qobuz and in CD quality on Tidal. Then I don't think we want to discuss whether the Hi-res file is superior to the CD file or not.

 

[Tom C]

In Ubuntu, set up Pulseaudio to avoid resampling. Then Pulseaudio will change the system sample rate to match the track you're playing. If the native sample rate changes from track to track, Pulseaudio automatically changes between tracks. It can do this only if no other apps are playing audio. Pulseaudio cannot change the sample rate while audio is playing.
Details here.

Thank you for the link. However, I am unable to get this to work. I'm using Google Chrome to access Qobuz on a Linux Ubutnu 20.04.3 LTS updated to latest as of today. I select up to 192kHz on the Qobuz web app, but Sabaj D5 reports receiving 44.1 over USB. If I use JRiver to play my own files from NAS, Sabaj reports receiving the native bit rate of the file.
I've tried a couple of different browsers, but same result. Also same result using web app on Windows 10. Maybe I'm not getting hi res from Qobuz through the web app?

 

[MRC01]

On Ubuntu, I found that Google Chrome always resamples everything to 44.1 or 48, no matter what Pulseaudio is configured to do. Firefox passes audio directly through to Pulseaudio, so it works as expected with Qobuz (and other services that stream lossless high def like Primephonic). If you are using PulseEffects, it will also lock the sampling rate, so make sure it's not running.

 

[Steve Rogers]

Suprised that no one has mentioned deezer hifi which provides cd level lossless streaming. I have been using it past couple years and am very satisfied, I can find whatever I want in jazz and 95++% in classics.

 

[MaxBuck]

Suprised that no one has mentioned deezer hifi which provides cd level lossless streaming. I have been using it past couple years and am very satisfied, I can find whatever I want in jazz and 95++% in classics.

I was pretty pleased with Deezer during my brief free trial. It wasn't worth the cost premium over Qobuz, though.

 

[Steve Rogers]

I was pretty pleased with Deezer during my brief free trial. It wasn't worth the cost premium over Qobuz, though.

In would fact check that, it looks like Deezer is now combining the standard sub with the hifi sub so it should be the same price more or less. I can't be sure because we don't have Qobuz here in Israel so I can't see their prices without some effort to hide my ip.

 

[ferrellms]

Currently have a Tidal Hifi Plus streaming service. Locked in discounted price through a Best Buy sale. Since it is relatively inexpensive, will plan to keep due to its convenience for downloading music on phone for car trips and sounds good enough for causal listening while working or having fun.

However, I just don't like the way it sounded on my very revealing critical listening system. It sounds off, and consider Tidal far more listenable and enjoyable when streamed through a Roku Ultra on a still good quality "midfi" Home Theater system (Marantz AV8802A, Parasound Halo A51). I thought something was wrong with my critical system and looked into Tidal.

There I discovered many issues with MQA being lossy and that Tidal is systematically getting rid of its true lossless bit perfect tracks and anh Hifi streaming of MQA tracks is even more lossy than MQA. They are effectively downgrading sound quality by removing the true lossless FLAC whether they know it or not. Tidal still sounds great to me on midfi home theater gear and a midfi car audio (Acura ELS) for non critical listening, but doesn't cut the mustard for true critical listening.

However I really like the concept of streaming and not having to purchase whole albums or individual tracks, as that would get ridiculously expensive, given the variety I like to listen to. Before Tidal I would play the same physical media tracks on a critical listening system because they sounded good but it got repetitive and wasn't actually enjoying the music. I do enjoy the Tidal music on lower tier gear. It sounds somewhat harsh and flat on the critical listening system vs. Redbook and SACDs.

Is there an alternative streaming service available that offers better sound quality than Tidal? Is Qobuz any good? Is it lossless and does it have a good selection? Amazon Music HD claims to be lossless, but I suspect it is lossy.

My 2 cents worth (and backed by various kinds of listening tests over the years) - 192 khz mp3 is completely transparent (the engineers at Fraunhofer have good, young ears and did a lot of A/B testing during mp3 development). Get a service based on the music and cost and convenience - the actual sound will be the same between the different ones.

Also, "lossy" is a total red herring as far as music reproduction is concerned. In the context of file size, there will be less content in the mp3, and thus a much smaller file size, so in the data and bit sense it is "lossy". But the trick is that the content removed is inaudible so from a listening point of view, the music is not "lossy". Thus the fact that in A/B testing of 192 khz mp3 and CD there is no audible difference as shown by listening tests. One could be concerned about "lossy" only if for some archival reason you need a bit-perfect copy.

 

[AudioStudies]

I had Tidal for a couple of years, but then decided I didn't need it since I have about a terabyte of music on wav files ripped from CDs. These are all in 16 bit 44.1 kHz. It took a bit of time and learning to develop such a local library but it is well worth it now. I have found dB Poweramp to be an excellent ripper and it searches for meta data. Plex is just wonderful for organizing and playing back this music collection, as well as handling my pics and videos. I have a lot of music videos. Plex is widely available, both on Roku, Smart TVs and Windows. From a Smart TV, Plex can find local music files on a computer on the same network if the computer is turned on. It also displays album art. As far as the cost goes of building up such a library, I took some shortcuts. I bought a lot of CDs at thrift stores, most in the $2 to $3 price range. I miss Tidal a little bit, but I was also frustrated with all the MQA confusion. I am quite happy now with my arrangement and would fully recommend it to others. Since Plex offered a lifetime membership, I know have no monthly fees whatsoeve after dumping Tidal.

 

[KeithPhantom]

I had Tidal for a couple of years, but then decided I didn't need it since I have about a terabyte of music on wav files ripped from CDs. These are all in 16 bit 44.1 kHz. It took a bit of time and learning to develop such a local library but it is well worth it now. I have found dB Poweramp to be an excellent ripper and it searches for meta data. Plex is just wonderful for organizing and playing back this music collection, as well as handling my pics and videos. I have a lot of music videos. Plex is widely available, both on Roku, Smart TVs and Windows. From a Smart TV, Plex can find local music files on a computer on the same network if the computer is turned on. It also displays album art. As far as the cost goes of building up such a library, I took some shortcuts. I bought a lot of CDs at thrift stores, most in the $2 to $3 price range. I miss Tidal a little bit, but I was also frustrated with all the MQA confusion. I am quite happy now with my arrangement and would fully recommend it to others. Since Plex offered a lifetime membership, I know have no monthly fees whatsoeve after dumping Tidal.

Me too. I stopped renting my library and just bought it up. I still use Roon due to metadata, library management, and convolution filters with ASIO. A lot of my library can’t be acquired in original CD, but the Qobuz store has a lot of the original lossless files. I don’t pay for streaming services anymore.

 

[AudioStudies]

Me too. I stopped renting my library and just bought it up.

Great !! I find that a terabyte of wav files in 16 bit 44.1 kHz is a helluva lot of music. However, I still go to the thrift store every Tue for the Senior Discount on CDs, and add a few more each week to my collection. I find this a lot more fun than streaming. If I want something really special, that I haven't been able to find used, I just go online and buy the physical disc(s). I did that recently for the Beatles Live at the BBC set.

 

[KeithPhantom]

Great !! I find that a terabyte of wav files in 16 bit 44.1 kHz is a helluva lot of music. However, I still go to the thrift store every Tue for the Senior Discount on CDs, and add a few more each week to my collection. I find this a lot more fun than streaming. If I want something really special, that I haven't been able to find used, I just go online and buy the physical disc(s). I did that recently for the Beatles Live at the BBC set.

Use lossless compression like FLAC to save on space and still have the original quality intact.

 

[AudioStudies]

Use lossless compression like FLAC to save on space and still have the original quality intact.

I thought about that, but I have some Tascam devices from the pro market that don't play FLAC. Although I have other devices that can play FLAC -- I just decided to keep everything consistent in wav.

 

[escape2]

192 khz mp3 is completely transparent (the engineers at Fraunhofer have good, young ears and did a lot of A/B testing during mp3 development).

There are certain edge cases where 192 kbps MP3 is not transparent, at least to the trained ear.

Best thing to do is to ABX your favorite tracks using quality headphones and determine for yourself which bitrate/codec is transparent to your own ears. My ears are not particularly picky.

 

[dfuller]

192 khz mp3 is completely transparent

Not if you know what to listen for it isn't. 320 the argument can be made. But 192? Things start getting weird. Drums in particular start sounding... weird. Mushy and phasey.

 

[ferrellms]

Not if you know what to listen for it isn't. 320 the argument can be made. But 192? Things start getting weird. Drums in particular start sounding... weird. Mushy and phasey.

I guess AB listening tests don't really work then. At any rate the services all stream (I believe) at 256 or better so the issue is moot. Don't buy a streaming service based on "sound quality".

 

[AudioStudies]

I guess AB listening tests don't really work then. At any rate the services all stream (I believe) at 256 or better so the issue is moot. Don't buy a streaming service based on "sound quality".

Or don't buy one at all . . .

 

[dfuller]

I guess AB listening tests don't really work then. At any rate the services all stream (I believe) at 256 or better so the issue is moot. Don't buy a streaming service based on "sound quality".

On this, I agree.

 

[MaxBuck]

I guess AB listening tests don't really work then. At any rate the services all stream (I believe) at 256 or better so the issue is moot. Don't buy a streaming service based on "sound quality".

Having listened to the crap signal Spotify produces, I can't wholly agree. But I think some of that likely results from their source material rather than Spotify technology itself.