Audiophile streaming

FWIW I haven't seen a dropout in Tidal yet.

Also thanks for the Room recommendation. It looks like it works with Linux too!

 

Satisfied Tidal user here. I don't seem to experience the delays that are referenced in some of the posts here or, maybe just don't notice them.

 

I have Tidal and while I haven't noticed it there are those who feel that Tidal is louder than Spotify which could give the impression of better sound quality. It may be that the Masters are louder to give the impression that MQA improves the sound quality.

 

That has been my impression too from what I have read online. And its why I don't bother with any of these services other than Pandora on occasion when I'm at work. I'm simply not convinced that the music streaming business is long-term viable yet, in addition to the fact that it most services (other than Tidal) sound bad. So I'm keeping all of my physical media.

 

This thread is filled with so much garbage.

 

There is no such thing as audiophile streaming. Many streaming tracks have a watermark that distorts the audio. If you can't listen to it or it doesn't bother you, you're not an audiophile. Digital downloads have them as well.

The only audiophile formats are physical ones.

 

Such as? Why not enlighten us?

 

You could start by reading the post directly above yours.

 

Is that a verified fact, that digital downloads have watermarks? I have never heard that attributed to HD Tracks, where I purchase most of my downloads.

 

Some Universal Music tracks are reported to be watermarked. Some claim the watermark is audible.

 

Qobuz fan here! Nice app, high quality streaming and the ability to download Hi Res albums at a good price!
Qobuz review

 

I wouldn't take those reports as accurate or true. And saying that some claim the watermark is audible makes it sound really dubious to say the least. Universal Music is one of the largest corporations in music business. A huge percentage of tracks available in streaming are Universal's. and yet I've never noticed any watermarking. Ever.
Which doesn't mean I'm saying there isn't watermarking. I'm just saying, without meaning to be disrespectful, that this is as far as the discussion can take you when it's a matter of "some claim".

 

Keep believing that mate.

 

Thank you for the Declaration of Purity.

 

That many streaming files are watermarked is a fact beyond questioning. It might not be audible to someone listening to hip-hop on an Iphone in a busy street, but it becomes immediately and obviously clear when auditioning a Schubert sonata on a dedicated system in a quiet room, and very soon becomes unbearable. There are sites out there with samples for comparison.

If you don't hear this artifact and it doesn't bother you, your listening skills are not well developed and you certainly don't qualify as an audiophile.

 

Tidal is good, but I probably wouldn't pay full price for it. I'm getting Tidal Hi-Fi for $9.99 through student discount. I've mainly been using it to discover new albums I haven't heard, before I buy them. If you're really into streaming though, it might be worth the full price. Sound quality is good (depending on the mastering they have) and I've never had it drop out on me.

 

First, I never said I was an audiophile, nor the opposite. I don't care much for that label. My listening skills are developed enough to identify a lossy audio file from a lossless audio file, and some hi res (not all, depending on the mastering) from lossless 16/44.
That's about it.
Again, I didn't say there isn't watermarking, just that it didn't affect my experience. As far as I've read in some threads here, watermarking accusations don't extend to every label anyway.
And I actually listen to classical quite often, not as background but dedicated listening. If you could tell me an example of a Schubert sonata, to use your example which I'm guessing was based on your past experience, I will try to find the CD or LP and compare the sound to see if my skills are developed enough.
Thanks.

 

This recording for instance:

Try the TIDAL Web Player

I decided to try Tidal out of frustration because many classical and jazz CDs are going out-of-print, but watermarking made the experience unbearable for me. I've been listening intensely to classical music for 25 years and this isn't how a piano or a proper recording sounds. Another defect of Tidal was that the tracks of an album are often presented in haphazard order, which for classical renders them unusable as works progress and are arranged in a particular sequence.

 

Great. I have the Mozart Edition in CD, so I'll make an A/B.
What you mention about the order in classical music records I found in Spotify too. In general, these streaming services are ok with tagging a couple of names: band, solo musician... But when it comes to tagging classical, where there are many more people involved (orchestra, director, soloist...), they go nuts. But I'm guessing they inherit metadata from the record labels.

 

Here are two versions of the same recording that you can compare on Tidal itself:

Try the TIDAL Web Player
Try the TIDAL Web Player

Which one is defective should be immediately clear. Listen for harmonic distortion, like a wave was traversing and interfering with the sound reproduction.

 

I've tried the links, but on my computer at work, through an ifi nano dsd with rha m750i headphones. I wouldn't consider that a very precise listening gear.
I only did this test with the first track on both albums, the ballade n.º 1.
Even if they're both the same mastering, and it certainly feels that way, the first link sounded worse, a bit harsher.
But, first, I don't know if that's the same version you're referring to. And second, I could listen to both without feeling specially annoyed by the harsher version.
One last thing: if both are from the same label, how come only one of them (if only one of them is watermarked, of course) is watermarked but not the other?
I will make a more detailed test at home, with a better equipment.
I still haven't had the time to do the A/B with the Mozart CD.

 

You identified it correctly. Though the first Zimerman album is not harsher, it is distorted - by a watermark. Why one and not the other? Labels don't seem to apply this watermark uniformly, only if at some point they see it in their interests.

You can read more here: Tidal and Watermarking (and MQA) ?

 

Classical sounds sub par on Spotify, its the only type of music I avoid on there.

IMHO Classical needs to be high quality to be enjoyed, not compressed to hell and back.

 

I listened to it at home and, you're right, there is obvious distortion from the first note.
But as far as I know, this watermark is kind of a lottery: you may find it, you may not.
In my experience, I've found some recordings which just didn't sound good on Tidal, but in most of those cases I couldn't compare with a CD or LP.
And anyway many releases these days sound really bad.

Absolutely. See the links CDCollector39 sent, to see that even in Tidal you can find terrible experiences. It's not a matter of bitrate only.

 

Not sure I trust Tidal!!!
Found an obscure album that was never released on CD and yet it came up on Tidal as 16Bit! And it sounded bad!
Surely that's plain wrong? It's like me scaling up my 256KBS iTunes files to 16Bit.