TIDAL: No EQ is a major oversight

[Jimbob54]

Regarding TIDAL for iOS & macOS:

First of all, I love the song selection and you simply can’t beat the sample rate (bravo there!), but how does an industry-leading hifi service like Tidal not include EQ natively? Someone hasn't done their homework regarding what audio enthusiasts really want. Equalization is mandatory.

It’s not uncommon for hobbyists, such as myself, to spend up to a $1000 or more on headphones. Not having EQ is like buying a top of the line TV without any ability to adjust the color, brightness, etc.

Basically, Tidal nailed the signal quality but missed the bigger picture. How the music is actually received changes with different gear. All headphones have unique sound signatures, which are biased to particular genres. One size fits all doesn’t work in the audio world. A hifi service that leaves out the user’s individual method of listening to the music and his/her particular tastes is half-baked.

I'm just hoping someone from Tidal reads this and includes this basic, ESSENTIAL feature somewhere in the near-future. My only prerogative is making this a better experience for audiophiles and that's a win-win. Hopefully, there are more people in my camp. Just wanted to spread the word.

No chance. What proportion of the user base of streaming services, even the premium ones, actually want EQ? I'd wager its tiny.

As a want from the likes of ourselves it makes sense, but bigger picture, it really doesn't.

The complexity of getting it right on just one platform would be significant. Across apple /android /Windows etc even more so. And it's completely a different direction from the Connect model recently implemented which is server to endpoint, not phone app to endpoint

 

[Bullwinkle J Moose]

Yes, indeed. Parametric EQ should be mandatory in any playback software.

COMPLETELY disagree

If every piece of software had it's own EQ, it would only add confusion and nothing more

What we need is a System-Wide Parametric EQ with memory support for every pair of headphones and speakers that you own

It should bypass ALL Windows control and work directly on the native Sample Rate

It should be easy to use

It is not to correct each and every song on your playlist
If you require EQ correction on a specific song, then EQ it and save it as a new file

FabFilter would be a great example of what Microsoft could do "System-Wide" if they had a clue....

But they don't

 

[Jimbob54]

Hell, every now and then I hide from here too!

*whispers* Emmmm kewwww ayyyyyyy

 

[Vincent Kars]

As I use various apps for audio, I prefer a systemwide EQ.
Bit of a ask to set each app to the same EQ if possible because often they use different bands.

EqualizerAPO is a good candidate
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nding-the-windows-audio-quality-debate.19438/

 

[Taddpole]

Third: Thank you! but I want to add - is it really a debate that Tidal is industry-leading as a marketed hifi streaming service? Whether they're the best is anyone's opinion I guess, but they have the largest library coupled with the highest sample rates. They also have the most users. Didn't think that was a controversial statement, but If there are better options out there, I would love to hear about it! My current setup is streaming Tidal through Audirvana (and I thought I tried them all) Hard to beat the MQA / Master bit rate.

Largest library, highest sample rates, most users? Citations please.

 

[BDWoody]

*whispers* Emmmm kewwww ayyyyyyy

 

[Chrise36]

Why not just use Roon to control Tidal? Roon has a wonderful EQ. That way Tidal can spend their time fixing their horrendous Android Auto interface.

That is going to be a very expensive eq on the long run

 

[Katji]

Largest library, highest sample rates, most users? Citations please.

Only from audiophile La-La Land.

 

[jhaider]

Yes, indeed. Parametric EQ should be mandatory in any playback software.

For another perspective, I don’t want, and would never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever use, EQ in a source. EQ is an obvious benefit, but in my view should be as close to the transducers as feasible. To put it higher up the chain requires the listener to unnecessarily waste time time messing with stupid software, when she just wants to listen to music reproduced well.

Here's a hypothetical to illustrate why EQ should be as far down the chain as possible. You have four content sources: a streaming audio service, vinyl, YouTube, and a streaming video source. You have four potential transducers: two pairs of headphones (Audeze iSine10, AKG K371), a 2.0-channel system with Revel Salon2, and an Atmos system with 7.1.4 channels. At east 75% of the transducers here require EQ for fidelity: iSine10 have terrible native FR (but sound great when equalized, as intended; now Adorama sells B-stock with analog cables but originally they shipped with a Lightning connector DAC/EQ/amp called "Cipher") and both speaker systems require modal correction for fidelity because they're in acoustically small rooms. Only AKG K371 would basically sound good on all sources without EQ.

Here, if the transducer EQ resided in the streaming audio source, it would not improve the fidelity of music or other content played from 75% of the potential sources. And even if source EQ were available in all four sources, one would have to mess with four different UIs to duplicate EQ settings for each listening environment in order to equalize the transducers.

But let's say you only care about fidelity for streaming audio, and the rest you're fine with a lesser reproduction. OK...what happens if you were listening to iSine yesterday then decide to fire up Salon2 today? The answer is PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!!!! So basically you've poisoned a listening session by putting your Salon2 in Lowther emulation mode because there's a stupid button you have to click on the software UI to change the EQ. However, you just wanted to listen so that slipped your mind.

By contrast, let's look at the optimum approach: the headphones are powered, with correction in their own hardware; the stereo system has room correction in its preamp or integrated amp, and the immersive system has room correction/bass management in the AVR or AVP. Then you can move from source to source and system to system, and experience each in the best fidelity it can offer you without having to remember to mess with software. You also only have to set an equalizer once per transducer. The downside is cost/complexity of integrating EQ into each AVR/AVP/headphone amp/integrated/preamp (unless the transducers are self-powered with onboard user editable EQ a la Dutch & Dutch or GGNTKT, which the ideal) but this stuff's already expensive so who cares? Convenience, predictability, and usability are all huge value adds.

Now, tone controls are different. It makes sense to have in the source, if you use them. The distinction is EQ is to correct linearity errors in the transducers, while tone controls exist to season the spectral balance of specific content to taste. As specific content is inherently source related rather than, if anything moving tone controls up the signal chain reduces one's required interaction with software, because if you change sources the tone controls used for the previous source are no longer active. That is IMO a good thing.

 

[DWPress]

I have a solution that might work. Check out my post here: Guide: Computer Active XO, multi channel (or not) and DRC/DSP (Mac & PC systemwide)

Skip to step 4 and you can use any, and there are some very good free ones, VST or AU type of EQ plugin you want and limit it to one app or systemwide. Despite the title it works just fine for stereo as well.

 

[Tks]

For another perspective, I don’t want, and would never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever use, EQ in a source. EQ is an obvious benefit, but in my view should be as close to the transducers as feasible. To put it higher up the chain requires the listener to unnecessarily waste time time messing with stupid software, when she just wants to listen to music reproduced well.

Here's a hypothetical to illustrate why EQ should be as far down the chain as possible. You have four content sources: a streaming audio service, vinyl, YouTube, and a streaming video source. You have four potential transducers: two pairs of headphones (Audeze iSine10, AKG K371), a 2.0-channel system with Revel Salon2, and an Atmos system with 7.1.4 channels. At east 75% of the transducers here require EQ for fidelity: iSine10 have terrible native FR (but sound great when equalized, as intended; now Adorama sells B-stock with analog cables but originally they shipped with a Lightning connector DAC/EQ/amp called "Cipher") and both speaker systems require modal correction for fidelity because they're in acoustically small rooms. Only AKG K371 would basically sound good on all sources without EQ.

Here, if the transducer EQ resided in the streaming audio source, it would not improve the fidelity of music or other content played from 75% of the potential sources. And even if source EQ were available in all four sources, one would have to mess with four different UIs to duplicate EQ settings for each listening environment in order to equalize the transducers.

But let's say you only care about fidelity for streaming audio, and the rest you're fine with a lesser reproduction. OK...what happens if you were listening to iSine yesterday then decide to fire up Salon2 today? The answer is PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!!!! So basically you've poisoned a listening session by putting your Salon2 in Lowther emulation mode because there's a stupid button you have to click on the software UI to change the EQ. However, you just wanted to listen so that slipped your mind.

By contrast, let's look at the optimum approach: the headphones are powered, with correction in their own hardware; the stereo system has room correction in its preamp or integrated amp, and the immersive system has room correction/bass management in the AVR or AVP. Then you can move from source to source and system to system, and experience each in the best fidelity it can offer you without having to remember to mess with software. You also only have to set an equalizer once per transducer. The downside is cost of adding EQ to each AVR/AVP/headphone amp/integrated/preamp (unless the transducers are powered with onboard user editable EQ, the ideal) but this stuff's already expensive so who cares? Convenience, predictability, and usability are all huge value adds.

Now, tone controls are different. It makes sense to have in the source, if you use them. The distinction is EQ is to correct linearity errors in the transducers, while tone controls exist to season the spectral balance of specific content to taste. As specific content is inherently source related rather than, if anything moving tone controls up the signal chain reduces one's required interaction with software, because if you change sources the tone controls used for the previous source are no longer active. That is IMO a good thing.

What's the reason one would assume EQ possibility equals having it always-active and thus requiring management?

COMPLETELY disagree

If every piece of software had it's own EQ, it would only add confusion and nothing more

What we need is a System-Wide Parametric EQ with memory support for every pair of headphones and speakers that you own

It should bypass ALL Windows control and work directly on the native Sample Rate

It should be easy to use

It is not to correct each and every song on your playlist
If you require EQ correction on a specific song, then EQ it and save it as a new file

FabFilter would be a great example of what Microsoft could do "System-Wide" if they had a clue....

But they don't

This makes no sense for a few reasons. The first by implying that EQ adds confusion, because any new option OF ANYTHING - would add confusion since you don't actually explain what the mechanism is that contributes to confusion, I'll simply assume added functionality always increases confusion.

The second, you say we need PEQ "with memory support for every pair of headphones and speakers you own". This is problematic as it would require technology that doesn't actually exist. "with memory support" is just magical wand waving away of issues present within the entailment of the proposition. Also, when you say "system wide", we already have that, it's called Equalizer-APO. Obviously it doesn't bypass the Windows audio layer, so I guess this is a valid critique (but this is why having native EQ in every playback software allows one to get by this limitation if it's needed, though anyone needing this sort of function, isn't the type of person who gets "confused" as you mentioned in your opening, they know exactly what they're doing if they need to bypass Windows audio layer). As for memory we have savable profiles. Unless you mean memory where somehow the source hardware interface needs to something know what device is connected, which is fine for a DAC, but how would a general purpose OS know precisely which set of speakers your AMP is driving? This would be perhaps possible currently only with basic functionality (where you connect your devices on the motherboard using the native audio hardware that detects the impedance load, and then guesses what the device is in a general sense, asking you plugged in a speaker, or a headphone). But currently, the standard of making something that will detect what passive speaker is connected to your power amp which is being fed from some computer simply doesn't exist.

The third issue is, you say "it should be easy to use". This isn't elaborated, and it's not quite clear why this couldn't be applied to a playback software's own EQ also being made "easy to use".

Fourth issue, you speak about not having to correct each and every song. Well, EQ doesn't even do that (at least no one uses EQ in this manner that I know), I don't know of a single person that EQ's their own individual tracks. The closest I've seen to this is applying volume leveling using R128 on the fly for a playlist or album. But no one EQ's "each and every song".

Lastly, this is just a Windows critique.. it seems their approach to audio handling is done to create a no-fuss operability for devices to be quickly plugged in and used without people having to wonder why they're not getting audio output. I don't think you have have "system wide" audio control (with full control over sample rate switching and outputs) without inducing confusion, having less operability between third party devices especially once driver concerns start cropping up over standardization. Let's say Windows, Apple and such come out and tell you, no they won't be allowing for such, because it can break basic audio handling for many things like other non-playback software such as video games or something. Now you're left with the current situation we have presently. And your answer to the EQ per playback device is a resounding NO to this? How can a 'no' make sense if this is the practical reality you find yourself? Mircosoft could say "yeah maybe we could give you what you're asking for, but why would we waste our time and risk breaking anything that functions currently - we have enough crap we have to keep from spilling over due to our desire to keep long term backward compatilbility with most software on our platform". You're still going to say "no" to EQ from each playback software company at that point... And for what? Because of "confusion" that may create?

 

[jhaider]

What's the reason one would assume EQ possibility equals having it always-active and thus requiring management?

If you don't care about fidelity then no need for EQ. If you do, there is. I like to listen to music, not room modes! @amirm is systematically showing us how bad most unfiltered single-driver speakers ("headphones") are without EQ as well, and how marked a fidelity increase one can gain by applying well tailored EQ.

If you have more than one set of transducers to play content, management of said EQ is required.

Furthermore, manually selecting active or inactive is itself management.

 

[vavan]

Fourth issue, you speak about not having to correct each and every song. Well, EQ doesn't even do that (at least no one uses EQ in this manner that I know), I don't know of a single person that EQ's their own individual tracks. The closest I've seen to this is applying volume leveling using R128 on the fly for a playlist or album. But no one EQ's "each and every song"

some actually use auto-eq tools such as say stereotool

 

[Ata]

Regarding TIDAL for iOS & macOS:

First of all, I love the song selection and you simply can’t beat the sample rate (bravo there!), but how does an industry-leading hifi service like Tidal not include EQ natively? Someone hasn't done their homework regarding what audio enthusiasts really want. Equalization is mandatory.

It’s not uncommon for hobbyists, such as myself, to spend up to a $1000 or more on headphones. Not having EQ is like buying a top of the line TV without any ability to adjust the color, brightness, etc.

Basically, Tidal nailed the signal quality but missed the bigger picture. How the music is actually received changes with different gear. All headphones have unique sound signatures, which are biased to particular genres. One size fits all doesn’t work in the audio world. A hifi service that leaves out the user’s individual method of listening to the music and his/her particular tastes is half-baked.

I'm just hoping someone from Tidal reads this and includes this basic, ESSENTIAL feature somewhere in the near-future. My only prerogative is making this a better experience for audiophiles and that's a win-win. Hopefully, there are more people in my camp. Just wanted to spread the word.

Ditto for all other music streaming apps on iOS.

On macOS, the EQ/PEQ capability is there, in the form of the AU plugins that come with the OS, but not accessible via the TIDAL app.

 

[Tks]

If you don't care about fidelity then no need for EQ. If you do, there is. I like to listen to music, not room modes! @amirm is systematically showing us how bad most unfiltered single-driver speakers ("headphones") are without EQ as well, and how marked a fidelity increase one can gain by applying well tailored EQ.

If you have more than one set of transducers to play content, management of said EQ is required.

Furthermore, manually selecting active or inactive is itself management.

I just don't understand..

Why would I need to care about fidelity? I'd wager there are more people out their that EQ to taste rather than EQ'ing to a preference target. Especially since most devices do have some form of preset EQ, or graphical EQ. I've never once heard anyone make the claim that because their listening device has some form of EQ available, that they've had to contend with that function if they don't care for it. It's not like they're receiving these devices with these settings set to ON, and then somehow after every bootup of their device, they have to battle the EQ functionality trying their hardest to hack their way in turning it OFF or something as you alluded to as "management". But this idea of who cares for fidelity or not is actually besides the point I wanted to make.

I guess I'm just not understanding why it would be the case that if someone wants to EQ their headphones for instance (but doesn't bother with speakers since they're basic bluetooth or soundbar nonsense, or simply aren't equipped or care about learning how to have their room measured) why it would be a negative to have such capability come standard on all playback software to use?

Like what would be the difference for the hypothetical person you talk about that has let's say 5 different listening devices (speakers, IEMs, headphones, etc..) if such person used TIDAL of the current variety that doesn't have EQ -- V.S. -- the same person using TIDAL, but because they have so many listening devices, they don't want to bother to use it due to the reason you stated (too much management, AND they also don't care AT ALL about fidelity). What problem is this person now having imposed upon them just for a function existing within a playback software they have, but said function goes unused by them personally as opposed to simply not having such a function at all in the playback software?

And this is all before getting into the obvious positives most people would reap from having the option to use such EQ, or the cost-benefit one would be free to engage with simple toggles of already-set-up EQ profiles. It's pretty funny to say that the hassle of turning EQ on and OFF in-software of an app you're actively engaging with outweighs the benefits of having such EQ functionality. Like, try to imagine every company on Earth using that logic: "Sorry customers, we don't want to hassle you, but if you want to be hassled, feel free to buy a hardware device that you can add in each of your listening device chains so you can use EQ if you truly wish to be hassled with having to manage EQ which we don't find useful to offer in our playback software due it causing so much confusion". It would be pretty comedic just thinking about such a scenario.

If I were to apply this logic elsewhere, it would also produce hilarious results. "Sorry fellow DAC buyers, we found it's a hassle, and too much management to offer volume control on our DACs, customers were getting confused and had too much work trying to figure out and manage their Windows Volume, on top of having to put up with adjusting our volume offered on our DACs we sell". Or perhaps amps would be more funny: "Sorry headphone listeners, our headphone amps don't need volume control, nor do our DACs. Thinking more closely, the way people control their speakers volume made more sense, from now, please buy a pre-amp for volume control, as we don't want anyone to have to manage multiple volume controls". Or to make the analogy to EQ more apt: "Sorry, we here at Microsoft don't want to offer volume control FROM SOURCE, so please buy your own device where you can control volume on a hardware level".

 

[voodooless]

COMPLETELY disagree

If every piece of software had it's own EQ, it would only add confusion and nothing more

What we need is a System-Wide Parametric EQ with memory support for every pair of headphones and speakers that you own

By the same logic, we could argue that the EQ should be in the DAC always

 

[jhaider]

I just don't understand..

That's because, no offense, I think you need to re-read because your reactions don't correlate very well to what you're responding to. Briefly, key points.

• @amirm writes that EQ should be mandatory in a playback software (here, Tidal). I replied with my opinion streaming audio sources are the wrong place to put (P)EQ, for reasons spelled out above. However, I merely took the opposite position from Amir, i.e. "not mandatory." I never went beyond that to "should not be included." Lots of features in various software are stupid and useless to most users, but if those features don't actively hurt the user experience who cares? The same applies here: not mandatory, but who cares if it's there, so long doesn't muck up the UI for people who apply their PEQ in more sensible locations on the signal chain,
• Whether an individual cares about fidelity or not is not a key point. The key points are
  • Parametric EQ, regardless of the target curve, is a tool used to tune listening environments such as interactions between a room and a specific set of loudspeakers in a given placement with a given listening position, or headphones. That is distinguished from tone or tilt controls, which are used (by people who use them) to adjust the tonality of specific content.
  • EQ in the streaming player software is underinclusive (not in the signal chain for other sources)
  • EQ in the streaming player is inconvenient (a pain to have to mess with EQ in the playback software when switching to different listening environments)
    • Point taken that if one only listens to one source in one listening environment, the playback software is as good a place to any to put PEQ. But does "one source, one listening environment" describe many members here?
• I realize this place is gaga for separate DACs for reasons I don't quite fathom, as separate DACs are superfluous for most people. Regardless there is an obvious functional reason to include a volume control on the back or deep in a menu (not prominent, where someone can screw with it) of a separate DAC for systems in which they are actually useful - gain staging/level matching. Admittedly, "why don't amps have gain controls?" is a sore spot but the sad fact remains that most amps marketed as home hifi products do not. So gain staging has to happen upstage of the amp in the rare system where a separate DAC is a relevant component if you use 'hifi' amps. (Pro amps usually have attenuators.)
• Funny you mention volume control from source. I actually find that annoying compared to having a master volume control for each listening environment, so that each listening environment has its own control and the playback software doesn't muck with it. A few times I've wondered why something's so quiet despite a nominally high playback level, or why the system was cranked up so loud, only to find the expected relationship between master volume level and output level was broken because somebody messed with the volume control in their Music nee iTunes instead of more sensibly using master volume. I don't know how other companies' products do it because I don't have the time or inclination to use them, but Apple manages system-wide volume control for multiple listening environments over AirPlay and BT very well. Basically it remembers your last master volume level for each listening environment.

 

[Jose Hidalgo]

What we need is a System-Wide Parametric EQ with memory support for every pair of headphones and speakers that you own

Done.

 

[gvl]

On Windows you can "insert" JRiver between the player and the DAC and use its rich DSP subsystem. Not sure if there's parity on MacOS.

 

[Phorize]

Apple Music gonna be spacial what you have to say about that

I bought an iPhone, discovered that Apple had paid developers to break the downloading of music files from services such as Bandcamp, leaving me with mp3 Bandcamp streaming only from my phone despite Bandcamp making flac available. Will never buy an Apple product again.