The content and information that you so eloquently provide waaaaay more than makes up for any camera issues. Thank you, Gene, and all of Audioholics for what you all do.
@@PoesAcoustics Bruh please! Thank you...that's useless knowledge compared to what you drop. You guys are awesome. Just make sure James does that Monolith 215 REVIEW!! Also. I posted a question on the forum of this video asking if you compared, or would consider comparing the Hi-Rez streams of TIDAL and Qobuz, to 24bit downloads from HDTracks, ProStudioMasters, 2L, nativeDSD. I would really love to see what you discover.
This is quite seriously one of the best RU-vid videos I have seen. I really appreciate the new format for this channel, and I whole heartedly appreciate both the length of the videos, and the refreshingly in depth discussion. Please keep posting these videos. Can we have a video on how to use the Audyssey editor app?
I A/B tested Tidal and Qobuz a few years back, and Qobuz sounded cleaner hands down. Tidal has noticeable noise and sounds almost bloated, as if someone put in a slight bass hump. Qobuz always sounded clean and proper, and I like that I'm getting a no-nonsense FLAC file instead of MQA. MQA is definitely not a lossless format, and whatever "folding" nonsense they do absolutely creates audible noise.
I guess I am very lucky at 52 I can still hear up to 17. Tidal I was enjoying when I first got it finding new music but once I started playing tunes I knew inside out, there was something off with them, things where out of place. It was so off putting I finally cancelled the service, Qubuz seems to be very neutral and I am loving it.
If Tidal would stop shoving rap/R&B/hip-hop suggestions in my face, despite that in the past year I've listened to almost none of those genres... that would be great. I appreciate your consideration in this matter, Tidal.
I had Tidal and Qobuz and dropped Tidal. I never had any steaming issues with either service but I was using Roon as my interface. I would be happy with either service for streaming. I do buy a fair number of albums from Qobuz and I receive discounts on some of them based on my subscription. I'm waiting on Amazon but will try it out at some point in the future. . .
You're lucky, indeed. Instead, my experience with Qobuz downloads has been quite disappointing, since It seems (to me, at least) they use poorly mastered originals.
@@venturarodriguezvallejo9777 Are you sure you choose FLAC, WAV or AIFF lossless formats when downloading? I've done bit comparisons with validated rips and if you digitally subtract one from the other you end up with all zeros meaning they're identical. Some of the masters used by Tidal are different though.
Hi Gene, I can confirm that Tidal launched a Dolby Atmos Playlists and it works well on my Nvidia shield pro 2015 and it's a great update from Tidal! Cheers
Speaking of hearing loss when older; I had a pair of Dynaco A-25 I used as desktop monitors and they sounded, to me, just as good as any of the newer, "higher-fidelity" speakers. My hearing was tested and I can hear up to nearly 15khtz, which is pretty good for a 60yo. The a-25's tweeters were known to only go to about 15khtz, just as many of the popular speakers of that era performed. It proved to me that a tweeter's quality is due to more than just being able to reach stratospheric levels of high frequencies.
John Atencio as noted, Tidal does that. Even Qobuz to some extent. If you want surround, Amazon HD is adding Atmos and may be adding video as well. We shall see.
I've tried both Tidal and Qobuz. I dropped Tidal because I couldn't find Rock en español, Classical guitar and best classics. I think Tidal is more geared towards rap and hip-hop. Qobuz has improved a lot lately. I highly recommend it!
Tidal does a little something to the sound. I’ve tested this from my MacBook Pro into my DAC. I’ve played the exact same mastering and tidal is noticeably more punchy and has a bit more narrowness in the soundstage. Would like to hear others views on this. I have both tidal and Qobuz. Qobuz is closer to a CD than tidal. I do like that extra punch from tidal though a lot of the time.
I think Tidal is a little more bass heavy. Wish they did not use proprietary codec for their masters. Does not work on my Denon heos app. Qobuz not supported on heos either. Amazon hi resolution sounds really good on the denon. But the heo's app is trash.
"more punchy and has a bit more narrowness in the soundstage" is putting it perfectly. I've noticed this on several different occasions and with several songs. qobuz always sounds natural like a direct cd rip. idk if it's the mqa or there's eq being applied but tidal needs to stop. i wanted to stick to tidal so bad and was even in denial because their library setup is so organized and i love their UI. i'm with qobuz now because i'd rather listen to untouched cd quality files that sound great. qobuz is getting better but there's still a lot to be done with their UI and library arrangement because we shoudn't be seeing singles on the albums page.
What you are hearing with high res music is all the spaces between the audible notes. When you have a limited range, all frequencies get hammered together at that limit creating a noise wall. When you extend that range, the notes are allowed to breathe and you get the spaces between the notes. A.K.A. the notes are allowed to be played where they are supposed to be. So even though you cannot hear them, the track is cleaner as the empty spaces are more defined. This is a similar case with high frequency speakers. A speaker that can do 35-45Khz will not be audible in that range, but the audible range will be handles with much more confidence and clarity because it is not the maximum of the range being used. Same with woofers, no one can hear sub 15Hz, but a woofer that can play that low will handle 30-50Hz much more cleanly.
For classical music Qobuz is just in another league, I dropped tidal, also i am not a fan of deliberately missing high frequencies when I am paying a "hi-res" something
I am not a fan of paying for something and being simply fooled into something else, just angry about this whole MQA situation. I'm about to drop my Tidal subscription and go to Qobuz. I'm also tired of their rap/hip hop repertoire
@@petermartin9494 I've just pulled the trigger, I've subscribed to Qobuz today. Spent the day re listening to my playlists on it and oh, boy. It's like night and day compared to Tidal. Very flat, very neutral, no colouring, just perfect. The first page suggestions are also actually super interesting and relevant stuff. My account is Swedish and I've got some Scandinavian jazz recommendations. Tidal still insists on throwing hundreds of rap and hip hop on my daily feed every day even though I literally never hear these genres 🤦🏻♀️
29:30 "if there are harmonics it must be musical, basically" Or, you know, ringing, leaking? MQA introduces those artefacts, it's just a lossy codec marketed as something it's not. See the video by GoldenSound, he sneaked in test tones in the music he published and concluded that MQA marketing claims are mostly false. (well, not allowing you to do any independent testing should already be a huge red flag, but alas...)
coffee and kfc the results were too unusual to not. I was confident I hadn’t made a mistake. Everything I did made sense to me but digital systems theory isn’t my area of expertise. I initially checked with folks like John Atkinson because they are quite knowledgeable and had already done a similar analysis. John found the results possible but surprising. Gene put me in touch with a researcher who has been investigating the concept of the nyquist frequency as it pertains to things like radar and he offered to help me further. Once he replicated my results he wrote back with a big “WOW!” And that was when I decided to contact a few other people I knew with at least good FFT expertise. I also had a mastering engineer in England that I know take a look. He didn’t replicate my work as that was beyond his ability but did indicate that the results jived with his beliefs and understanding. I really held this article up a long time because I wanted to be sure I didn’t publish any analysis that could later be shown to be an error on my part. Given that programs written into Mathcad/Octave, MusicScope, and Audacity all confirmed basically the same thing, I felt like it was worth publishing. I have way more findings than shown here or in the article. Just didn’t seem necessary.
I’m an asperger and I’m extreme sensitive to noises, I can’t enjoy concerts, I hear my freezer, my TV, can’t sleep without NC, I don’t leave my home except for work, my friends have to come to my apartment, because I could have a stimulus satiation and a seizure. So I’m really really sensitive, and I can only listen to 1 instrument, I’d have a stimulus satiation, and I can only concentrate to 1 instrument with hi-fi, it doesn’t overlap, as soon as it overlaps I can’t concentrate on the instrument and hop from one instrument to another, what gives me a stimulus satiation, but music is the only thing that can keep me away from the outside noise, I know it’s paradox :’D But that didn’t just happen from one day to anoher, that’s since I was born.
There is something wrong with your equipment/hearing if you can't hear the difference between Qobuz and Tidal. Even If you can't hear a difference, I sure can, then Qobuz has an advantage because they are honest about the resolution they are streaming and they are not using lossy processing. There is no need for any lossy processing, MQA, so one must wonder why Tidal uses it. My take on Tidal. Pros: Big library Looks nice works well. Cons: Could sound better. I am an audiophile, and is it too much to ask that I can stream hi rez audio without it being corrupted by processing? MQA. No, just no. Qobuz. Pros: It sounds great. Cons: It does not work as smoothly as Tidal. The library is smaller than Tidal. Conclusion. Qobuz wins because I can forgive the fact that they are still developing their software but I can not forgive Tidal for having clearly poorer sound quality than Qobuz and the lossy processing they use which to me is unnecessary and shady.
I'm just getting into this, and have had Tidal HiFi Plus for a couple weeks. Still in the trial period. I have noticed that a few of my favorite artists- Porcupine Tree as an example- have limited or no offerings on high-quality. Was just at a local hi-fi shop yesterday and mentioned the same to the owner. He brought up Qobuz and there multiple options in hi-res. That will prompt me to get the Qobuz trial and see how it goes. And, it's cheaper than Tidal HiFi Plus. May consider keeping just the HiFi plan and adding Qobuz- which is roughly the same price/ mo. as HiFi Plus (if paying 12 mo. up front for Qobuz).
Great video Gene and Matt! Nice analysis with good discussion. A few thoughts. 1) Definitely need to hear about Amazon HD Music. 2). Need to discuss when "HD" quality is actually available. Many of these will not send High Resolution over a "phone connection" and require Wi-Fi or physical network connection. 2) In regards to hearing and hearing loss. When people ask me about what speakers to buy for music, I always tell them to focus more on the 30 to 50 Hz range than the 15kHz to 20kHZ range because for most users, the bass is much more noticeable than extreme highs. Especially if they are not going to use a sub or subs. So glad to hear you mention this in your video.
Considering how awful Amazon's normal music download and streaming services are, it's hard to get too excited about Amazon HD. Especially with the recent price drop over at Qobuz.
Back in the day I instantly cancelled my Spotify subscription and went to Tidal HIFI. Highly disappointed. I'm about to pull the trigger on Qobuz, but I hear there's a Spotify HIFI coming...
Great video. Two questions. Do two clean DACs (often one say Cheap Chinese like the SMSL M500 and another day Chord Hugo 2 or Qutest) sound the same or do really expensive DACs (similarly clean) sound the same? Second, does Tidal or Qobuzz sound better than Deezer HiFi or Amazon HiFi? Thanks
Both Deezer and Spotify offer a free tranche (with limited features). Spotify manages to snag more people to sign up. Their 'ginormous' catalogue, including minority genres and artists, detailed artist profiles, best, friendliest interface, incredible algorithms to offer playlists catering to your tastes (and customer service that is pretty incredible) puts them on a league of their own. Maybe Deezer would be my option if Spotify didn't exist, but currently Spotify offers all that Deezer does (except HR) and far more. What Deezer should now be pushing HARD is High Res to be perceived as part of the Tidal-Qobuz cluster, and not as an 'also ran' Spotify. Spotify doesn't have HR, at least not yet. But with my very broad range of musical interests Spotify (together with others) seems a better mix for me. Newcomer Amazon has an excellent interface, High Res is a major selling point, minority 'audiophile' tracks are included... All in all, satisfactory so far. Tidal perhaps should perhaps broaden their catalog a bit. Tidal will be my next experiment. :-) MQA is a question mark. It's not universal and patent holders charge hefty fees for the (still dubious) privilege. PCM 24/96 audio (in non lossy FLAC) is just as good, free and universally supported. Free (or symbolic $4) trials of High Res and a good overall user experience are the best policy to build up user base and a stable following.
Regarding DACs: The thing is: what is "better"? "High Fidelity" means "accurate reproduction". The proverbial "wire with gain". But some people *like* coloration. It sounds "better" to them. There are nuances and flavors, such as "warm". But there are €130 dacs that are as "faithful" as €1000 dacs. Critics call them "overly analytical". Whatever. The extra money goes into features and "intangibles" (interface, esthetics, warranty, brand name recognition, and sometimes "colour" of sound) Of course, there are "trusted" basic dacs and there are "unknowns" E.g: the Topping E30 is rated highly by the ASR webpage. (Amir) I have one and can vouch for it. My RME can do a lot more things, but the minimalist E30 does the job and is 'faithful to source'.
I think the quality of your system, your hearing ability, and the differing qualities of both high and low-res offerings and the mastering of each really blows big holes in the which-is-better discussion.
Discussing the problems with mqa isn't something that needs to be held for a later date. This is the exact thing that needs to be talked about. Mqa is lower quality with larger file sizes. They are NOT master 100% reproductions. All of that is fine, but the company lies and is actively hostile toward dissent. If this channel exists according to past videos it would be to call them out on this. The MASTER quality is not transparent enough on Tidal. I don't want MQA versions. I want to select which I'm paying for and I want to know which is being played. Tidal is hiding all of this at the behest of mqa. It is a money grab. I'll go to deezer.
I switched from tidal to qobuz. My speakers are super sensitive and a lot of the songs on tidal were harsh on the high end and too forward. Other songs were totally fine. I added room treatments to my walls, I changed my speaker tow in and I couldn't figure out what was going on. I tried qobuz just to see, and it had none of the high end harshness and forwardness. From what I understand, it is not the actual files in tidal but the player that is messing stuff up. I'm not a high end audiophile who is a super listener and it was pissing me off so..... There is something going on there.
Wish I would have seen this comment sooner. Was driving me nuts. My ears were hurting so bad listening to tidal on my avr using nvidiashield tv. Qobuz sounds so good, I have hour sessions.
I think Tidal is boosting bass and treble (at least on some album versions) a bit. There is software that let's you download music from Tidal. To my ears it sounds the same normally. But on some remasters (master versions) i prefer the normal FLAC or even AAC version, because there seems to be less added bass and treble. You can see minor differences in spectrograms and other graphs you can get with audacity or foobar2000. As a noob it is hard to say if you could here this visible differnces on the graphs, since there are no frequenzy values. At least i have not been able to locate them. Another nice thing you can do with foobar is to look at the spectrogram while changed EQ settings. If you set everything to low and just boost one frequenzy, you can hear and see minor differences between two versions of a song, mostly in high and low frequenzies. At least that is what my brain suggests to me :D But the most annoing thing to me is that the Hifi/FLAC content on Tidal is always boosted up in volume.
just a thought. i am not an audiophile. i am 60 years old, some extra hearing loss in the left ear, like the classic klipsch sound, more of a mid-fi, home theater guy. on older audiophiles being able to hear high frequency differences, or differences in general. i suspect this may come from audio memory of the individual. after years of high end audio "training" of music a person has heard over years of listening to the same music, the brain may be "filling in" what it does not actually hear with what it was able to hear before. this makes me wonder if you could test people with music they have never heard before, if they could really detect differences in the music with differences in ultra high frequency content. just a thought.
I think people are getting a little too hung up on hearing "frequency" range, ultrasonics beyond 20KHz, and jumping to conclusions about the need to use sample rates higher than 44 KHz (Nyquist). There's a common misunderstanding about that. Yes, the human ear cannot hear frequencies beyond around 20KHz. That has more to do with the mechanical limitations within the ears and aging thereof. However, the human ear is VERY SENSITIVE to the TIMING between each frequency in the hearing range. We can detect differences in timing down to around 10 us. I think that has more to do with the speed of the nerves connecting the ear to the brain. This is how humans can hear where in the woods a predator stepped on a stick. This is how humans can hear accurate timing of instrument overtones, imaging and positions of instruments on stage, things that make for great sound quality. Higher bit depths and especially, higher sample rates, help remove timing errors that kill that "temporal" aspect of sound quality. Keep that in mind when explaining the need for higher bandwidth equipment and higher res audio. The Hans Beekhuyzen Channel had a great vid about sample rates, explaining some of this, was very enlightening...
I have Tidal. I’m using a Yamaha AVR (using music cast) and the app on my Apple TV HD. The volume level is very low on the Apple TV compared to music cast. There’s no hi res or master obtain on the music cast. What can I do ?
I've heard nothing good about MQA: it adds a huge amount of distortion even in silent passages and it changes files that have been uploaded up to it meaning it's not a lossless file. It also takes regular master files and up samples them so you're not getting higher rez files and much more. In other words it's not what it purports to be. Here's a video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pRjsu9-Vznc.html&ab_channel=GoldenSound
@@Darrylizer1 Hahahaha yeah... The beauty about the internet. I can believe that purple elephants are real, and I am sure somewhere somehow there is page or post for this... I have not done any scientific testing. But testing the same songs by listening between . Tidal, Deezer and Qobuz. And both myself and my wife heard difference between Tidal/Qobuz and Deezer that latter being more "closed" for lack of a better. When it came to TIdal and Qobuz it was splitting hairs and I could be with both. However I miss the track radio on Qobuz and the overall experience is less smooth than from Tidal. Going from Tidal CD to Tidal MQA I sometimes hear differences and other times it is the same. Some like Tears for Fears Woman in Chains or Bad Man Song (Which is incredibly well recorded) I am more aware of the room around an instrument, the separation seems better and everything is more open and instruments just sit in mix better (to me). Full disclosure for signal path -> Bluesound Node2i (hardwired to router) -> Rega Brio-R -> decent cables (lets not get into that one either hehe) -> the weak link Monitor Audio 'Monitor 200'. The speakers will be upgraded to something around a Focal Chora 826/ KEF Q750 or similar once we are allowed out of lockdown in Australia. Lastly.... As I tell my guitar students when asked about gear: "It is all undies and socks... Just because I find Under Armour comfortable, does not mean they wont ride up on you and be as uncomfortable as can be" I say whatever works in the sum of things :) Cheers and enjoy the music :)
About the older men's hearing diminish of hf. I my self experienced hf loss and found certain things did help. I was a salesmen at Tweeter/New England Audio. When an older man would come in and request Polk...JBL ect, I would demo them and Then, I pulled out the Focal's. I called Focal's the "old man's speakers" They would sell every time. I had some men actually cried upon hearing them. Even the low end line had frequency response above 22k. I do not know why, but somehow it made a big difference for hearing impaired.
Al Allan Focal Speakers have a fairly bright voicing. Little to do with response past 20khz. Most hearing loss in the high frequencies also caused a loss of sensitivity in the sensitive lower treble region known as the presence region. Focal speakers have more energy there. If you measure a speaker with an enhanced presence region and then use that to calculate the STI (a measure of voice clarity in a room) without changing the acoustics at all, you will find that the STI goes up. Further, Focal speakers have a very inclined directivity index in the tweeter region. That’s what an inverted dome does. Narrows dispersion.
I love science, thank you both for being honest and confirming mostly what I would expect from bits and computer science. The interview comes across a lot more clear and favorable than my impression of the article for some reason, but now we're all on the same page.
I’m an ex Tidal user , having had it for 2 years before switching to Qobuz . Watched your video yesterday and then I Spent all night doing back to back track tests to see if I needed to reconsider Tidal again....and after hours of listening to my fave tracks and also some new stuff I have never heard before , I would *just* say Qobuz Studio sounds better on my system than Tidal Hifi. There was just a smidge extra bass in Tidal which I liked in some tracks , and some maybe extra metallic transition on cymbals , throughout each crash you can kind of hear what the cymbal is doing in space, if that makes sense , but the imaging in qobuz was superior really showing where singers and instruments were stood , and overall it just felt like with tidal I was listening with a damp dishcloth hung in front of my speaker . Wouldn’t notice it until take it away and then it’s like ‘oh - yeah ok I sense a change now, the sound is just a tad more open’ Just a tad though! My system doesn’t have an MQA capable dac, but I’m not convinced having MQA would give any benefit for the tiny percentage of music recorded at the top sampling rate. My streamer is a pi using picoreplayer / LMS and both Tidal and Qobuz have a seamless app integration , the API’s have been available for years now . Amazon HD by comparison isn’t available on my system so is immediately binned. Music choices , Tidal is defo the one if you like your trap music and Qobuz if you like your french Jazz , but both will bring you the latest releases of the pop world . Disappointingly Qobuz doesn’t have such an in depth catalogue of rock/indie bands and likewise Tidal suffers in classical depth . So it’s up to you , but for me , I’m happy to take the slightly better *sounding* music (on my system). Is this better quality music ? Tricky . Tidal talk about better time domain smearing control etc etc . What does any of that mean ? I loved your video you went into tons of depth of so many aspects - keep it up 🙌🏻
I find the music collection on Tidal fits my needs. Jazz Fusion. Sept 2020. April 2, 2021. Can’t believe I’ve been using Tidal 6 months. Also started Spotify for a better UI and more music. Also got Sundara with a Tone Pro 2 DAC/Amp
At approximately the 14 minute mark, you talk about the upper frequency limit of human hearing and cite an example in the article along with the formula, and say that a 45 year old person can only hear up to ~13.45 KHz. I am 42, and I can hear tones up to 18.9 KHz. Clearly this formula cannot be applied to everyone, and I think that should have been made abundantly clear in the article and this video.
The difference between flac and mp3 level files is measured in the emotion that my Band of Horses album evoked. With high level audiotechnica headphones I tried this massive file and the difference was intense. For rap, it will bring out the buzzes in your vehicle’s construction
@@Ihateduckface157 it was a poorly thought out jab at bass heavy rap music. I was picturing a junk car going down the road with absurd levels of bass shaking panels and buzzing.
I have a question: In my car I have a dsp, top sampling is @ 24-bit/48 kHz. If for example I play 24 bit/ 192khz from qobuz, will this mess up quality? Tia Ps, at this time playing iphone through 3.4mm jack
TIDAL MQA goes up to 24bit/384kHz that streams slightly more bandwidth than 16bit/44.1kHz file. Click my icon to see TIDAL Hi-Fi and MQA HD Demo videos on my Mid-Fi stereo.
my issue with tidal though i enjoy using it I notice that some songs indicate hifi playback sometimes some songs sound like mp3's that were made into a hifi stream file. i hear weird mp3 like artifacting in some of the hifi files
I'm getting lots of noise on Tidal. Too much that I had to turn on dnr on my avr to reduce it. Qobuz sounds so clean that I just set it to pure direct. I couldn't stand the noise, it was driving me nuts.
Just because you can’t hear it doesn’t mean it’s not part a larger spectrum of frequencies that integrate with harmonics. Subwoofers below 20hz are a good example of this. Blows my mind people still have limited understanding of this stuff.
Took me years of research to try to explain this. Let me try a different idea on you for explaining the experimental result differences. There are audible increases is information in 24/96 kHz recordings well into the ultrasonic range. Impulses are like square waves. To reproduce a sharp clean square wave you need all/most of the spectral harmonics 1,3,5,7 .... etc to define the edge and rise time. Our ears/brain can process temporal information at higher rates then the corresponding audio cw frequency. What say ye?
Just found your channel. I like this discussion. For me, the decision tree was which streaming services are on Roon, which means it was a coin flip between Tidal and Qobuz. They both have the music performers and genres that I like, so the last issue for me was whether MQA on Tidal was “worth it”. Decided it wasn’t, so went with Qobuz linked with Roon. Happy for now, but as you say, I’d love for more competition to come up. If Roon adds Amazon HD, I’d definitely try it.
Times have changed. I just cancelled Tidal after a few years of sub. Just wasn’t using it much. Amazon is taking over. I remember how cool I felt subbing 7 or 8 years ago. Maybe 10. Then they bought whole foods and they cancelled a deal with a vendor that saved me 6-800 a year. And now they’re taking over music. I’ll give it some thought. Will probably cancel Amazon and go back to tidal soon. I like going to track radio to discover new music. Super important.
Wayne McDermott I think that is what makes app modern streaming services so amazing. It just wasn’t possible to amass a collection of music that compares to what a streaming service can now offer. For real music lovers, streaming provides such a rich way of exploring music. With classical, what I love is the ability to easily and quickly compare different renditions of the same song. I always struggled to hear differences that I could assert were the conductor vs a different symphony or performance. Now I can listen to the same symphony and same song with different conductor. I can switch quickly to different symphonies with the same conductor. It lets me begin to hear the signature style of a composer, conductor, and symphony as distinct. It lets me appreciate these performances all the better. Same for mic techniques. It’s hard for me, as someone who knows very little about mic techniques used in recordings, to appreciate the extent of differences. But this way I can look at the musical provenance and compare. It’s great. It’s helped me build stronger preferences.
At an AES talk by a Michigan Recording Engineer/Professor he noticed some differences and ran an original older CD versus the file version. He subtracted the two files. He found and had verified that Universal marked the download files and that at that time Tidal verified that they were trying to get Universal to quit adding the security information which caused an audible artifact. And they are one of the largest Recording companies in the world.
Yes this is a known issue. Watermarks are in all the downloads. Not just Tidal. I didn’t have the Cd’s to check of the recordings i used for this. These were recent HD recordings. I didn’t bring it up, but I did find evidence of ultrasonic watermarking. Or at least that was our hypothesis. I don’t know if it’s audible. I was unable to compare to an unmarked version. For non HD recordings the watermark is placed in the audible range. Again, bad research was done to suggest it isn’t audible. It was based on perceptual encoding. There seems to be a lot of disagreement over how audible this is. Certainly not something we want.
Ted Timmis basically the same selection of music, lower sound quality (uses a lost compression method), and much more robust integration into various products. For folks like Gene and I, the sound quality issues take it out of the running.
@@tedtimmis8135 While most people may be too daft to not value the differences if you can't hear the differences between the 160 or 320 Ogg/Vorbis streams on Spotify and a decent 16/44.1 or higher res signal you are pretty close to deaf. 320 Kbps Ogg/Vorbis is tolerable but why settle for less detail? Even using Bluetooth resampling and cpmpressing the audio stream to 320 AAC the better source resolution from Tidal is clearly distinguishable on my Sony WH-1000XM3s. This is because AAC i superior to Ogg/Vorbis. So in short the only "bullshit" is people arguing against differences that can be easily demonstrated. Whether people value it is a whole other issue though and frankly, when playing lot of the shit people listen to resolution is completely irrelevant.
@@MovieViking With critical listening, one can hear a marginal improvement. However, for most people, the vast majority of their music listening is while doing other activities such as driving, working out, walking, doing the dishes, etc. Under these conditions, I would say that even Golden Ears couldn’t tell. Moreover, even during critical listening, 320 mbps can sound fantastic and its half the price of “high res” streaming.
Started out with Spotify (ofcourse) then tried Tidal because of the high res library. Then tried Qobuz and never looked back since then. Where Tidal sounds flat, Qobuz gives a real soundstage. I life in Europe so maybe that makes a diffrence since al Americans prefer Tidal over Qobuz, maybe longer distance causes more interference?.I blind tested it with friends and all of them unanimously agreed.
Tidal sounds like garbage. Don't know what's going on with their compressions. It's so noisy and makes me want to stop listening immediately. Qobuz sounds exactly how the music should be heard. I'm in the US and I love Qobuz so much.
Most music sounds better at 16/44. Hi Res music doesn't mean better audio quality, in fact more often than not the result is exactly the opposite. And don't even start me on MQA, the "scam" that music industry is slowly trying to impose to consumers as the future standard of the best audio quality ever.
I found Tidal MQA and Tidal non-MQA tracks to have very very little difference. It seems to sound different but I can’t really put my finger on it. But I’m pretty happy with Tidal Hifi. Better than Spotify for sure.
Yes I’ve tested tidal mqa vs tidal hi fi vs amazon ultra HD vs Apple store. Also have several blu ray audio, HQCD, and SACD for comparison. SACD is usually the winner on my main stereo system. But all the high definition streams sound really really good compared to MP3/Apple store quality/CD, especially on my car stereo.
Chris D ... maybe the SACD etc are better because streaming still needs the expensive units to get the same quality as SACDs etc would our if a CD player. Moving up to that level will set me back around $4,000 and am not so willing to spend that much. Currently am using the Mytek Brooklyn Bridge. It’s pretty good. No need to buy so many CDs.
Mike Glavin ... I read an article as to how people like John Atkinson and the Stereophile gang was so amazed by MQA at a audio show. These are seasoned guys. I wonder what the MQA guys did there. Maybe certain tracks that shows vast improvement is used? 🤔
if you only use bluetooth headphones there is no point in getting anything other than spotify or youtube. It sounds better if you have the headphones to make it sound good
well let me change your life then samsung phones since the s9 have a high res capable second bluetooth codec called ldac which supposedly can shoot 24 bit to only another ldac capable product like fiio dac/dap specifily fiio btr 5 headphone amp i have quite a few ways to use ldac its above cd quality sound over bt which is incredible mind blowing actualy and to really blow minds there are alot of bluetooth codecs like aptx,aptx hd,aptx ll,apple aac does pretty well also now jump in but beware you wont be able to go backwards with music mp3 will sound terrible
Gene, maybe a tad off topic but I also have Tidal through Control 4. But I only use it for whole-house listing. When I sit for “critical” listening I stream through Roku or through the web client on my AudioControl M9. I prefer the M9 but the web client is not the best user experience so I use Roku. I can also stream through my Oppo player to the M9 but I don’t use Ctrl4 anymore. I would be curious to know what you may have experienced.
Just signed up with Qobuz and already have BAD EXPERIECES. I created a Qobuz user name and password, provided a credit card, received a confirmation email from Qobuz, but then was unable to sign in to Qobuz. When I tried, Qobuz asked for my email address & password. It did not say if it wanted my Qobuz password or my email password (which would have made no sense). So I tried my Qobuz PW, but that didn't work. More strangely, there was no way to sign in using my QOBUZ user name & password - why the heck not? Also, looks like there is no customer support, not even in the Philippines or India (though those are usually worthless). No phone number for customer support, and the responses I received to my posts (clearly computer generated) were worthless. Look, I'm not asking anything complicated ,just how do I sign into the freaking service. Qobuz isn't responding to my questions, so I guess I'll post them on YoutTube videos that mention or review them..
Norris Kasey that is a good idea. My own setup for the best sound quality is a bit clunky, but we can talk options. Gene has the good stuff with Control4. I primarily use my laptop as a source connected to my receiver or DAC. In the receiver I use an HDMI connector and with my Dac I use a USB to SPDIF converter. I use Wasapi exclusive in Qobuz in case it matters. That gives you access to the best sound. BluOS also offers access to the HD streams of these services. It’s my favorite of these systems. NAD offers lots of devices that include BluOS. Of course there is Rune with Rune ends. I’ve not used it but that seems like a good option.
@@PoesAcoustics yeah my setup was using play-fi streaming qobuz on my anthnem mrx720. I have changed it to use my oppo 203 and using BubbleUPnP to get a more stable connection up too 24/192. Maybe you guys could review affordable stand alone dedicated streamers. Maybe also why a person would want too look into roon or roon endpoints.
Norris Kasey I also have the Anthem MRX 720 paired with the Bluesound Node2i for my high resolution audio. The Bluesound has Tidal and Qbouz available along with others
James Turner the objective technical analysis took place digitally within a software environment. As such it is limited to just the first fold. I do have an MQA dac that can render the second fold. However none of the music I found was 192khz so I am not sure what additional versions edit it would offer. My Cherry Dac Dac is a much better dac than the AQ dac.
@@jamesturner9858 Actually, to fully answer your question, yes I have used Tidal with an MQA DAC. I personally own an AQ Dragonfly Cobalt, but I also have had in my system two products from NAD. A master series M12 with BluOS Module and a C 368 with BluOS. These are both MQA certified and provide two unfolds. The parts quality, measured performance, and sound of both were excellent. I've certainly heard Tidal through other MQA dac's in the past as well, but those would be the ones I spent the most time on. The current DAC I'm using is not MQA certified. The DAC chips are the same as what are found in the NAD's, but the output stage is different.
There are so many other fundamental principles that people overlook when discussing "audible" frequencies... harmonics, foldover frequencies, Nyquist, etc., etc., etc. Music is not a constant isolated tone or frequency. Whether you're listening in a set of headphones or using the most expensive reference monitors, the waveforms created by "inaudible" frequencies will absolutely impact other waves that already exist in the same space. So, while, yes, human hearing changes over time... and, yes, not everyone can hear 20-20k... there IS an ABSOLUTE impact on the frequencies that are audible to EVERY human once the energy from the "inaudible" frequencies are folded into the same space. What matters is the sum of what has been produced at the same moment.
How wide the bandwidth is NOT THE ISSUE. How loud the dynamics are is NOT THE ISSUE. Wider frequency response means more processing headroom and less digital manipulation. More dynamic range means more dynamic contrast at LOWER VOLUMES and more processing headroom.
4 года назад
Qobuz is not available in Sweden, but I really like Tidal and it sounds great on my Dali Opticon 8 and Nad amplifier.
Thank you for being one of the few HONEST leaders in this industry, who provide us with genuine honest opinion about what is really worth it and what is not... We are really lucky that we have you and that you are sharing this with us... Can I ask you about a few things that I cannot find an honest unbiased opinion on? - Is DSD is worth the effort and money over 44.1k/16 or 192k/24? - If yes, do you think we can hear the difference between DSD64 and DSD256? - Do you think expensive computers/music servers that promise cleaner usb audio quality, with less "digital noise" or jitter, are worth it? Because I thought that once the DAC is able to decode it, it doesn't matter if it originally had digital noise or not...
Great work! I'm wondering what the differences are on a particular monitorspeaker setup in a midrange class even the other equipment as well.... Did the problems with Qobuz resolve? Is it possible to make an overlay between the analysis between Tidal en Qobuz, I can't see which software it is :) And do you know if the integrated support with hardware is improved?
I've had Spotify's family plan for a few years a we like it. I subscribed to Tidal last year and while I didn't like it at the start, it grew on me. Spotify's ease of use and interface is so much easier to use. Tidal does sound better and the difference while not huge is noticeable. I agree with Gene's points. I tried Qobuz for a few weeks and just didn't like it. It was expensive and extremely cumbersome. While it sounded better than Spotify, I had issues when skipping songs. I experienced weird popping and static on several occasions. I canceled my trial a week in. My range in music is all over the place and they just didn't have what I was looking for.
I agree that Spotify is the absolute best platform out there in terms of user interface. If they can do what Tidal has done they will take over. For now I use the free version of Spotify because I want the high resolution of Tidal.
make sure your computer isnt turning your usb device off. this can be changed in your computer control panel. there are power saving features in the usb properties. issue around 45:00 min.
I find that in some tracks, but perhaps it is a subliminal impression, Qobuz has a wider, deeper Soundstage than Tidal That said, Qobuz’s app is awful!
Vinyl is my go to music at home and Apple Music streaming is my go to for driving , I had tidal in home for awhile but didn’t want to spend 20 a month .
As nice as having higher quality streaming services you still can't beat having the actual file. I use streaming services to find new music. I don't however use it to sit down and listen. I still prefer call me old school is disc's or my Computer ripped and High rez file system. As a musician myself I notice the small things non musician people don't pay attention to like the cymbal ringing out after the hit, the guitar string squeaks, the sound of a singer taking breathes and so on. These sounds are a part of the experience especially as a musician your use to hearing these things live. Dynamic range in real life is only limited to the instrument abilities. I'd rather have the ability to hear and feel everything the instrument can do then compress it and lose the small things. One other thing to think about is frequencies above and below the human hearing range effect the frequencies that you can hear and how you are supposed to hear them. The world doesn't filter out frequencies that you can't hear, they are they as pressure which is what sound waves are.
@@jkairi4 Sure if that's what us older Audiophiles are called these days. But you don't have to be a Golden ear to hear the difference between streaming and actual Files or Disc's. It's pretty clear especially when you have a very good system to listen on. Even if you don't, there is still compression on streaming and not on actual files and Discs.
@@jkairi4 You don't need to trust any claims. Go listen for yourself and make up your own mind. I don't listen or trust anyone else ears. I trust my own.
@@danielhunsinger8017 Double blind level matched listening test forces you to trust only ears. It doesn't allow any biases you might have. I didn't see where those testing was even blind or level matched.
What software are you using in your computer? so that it outputs the sound exactly as the data in the music is. the guy on PC audio said that a certain computer from apple was best at audio and and that one would use a software called bite perfect
I just signed up for Amazon Music HD because it was offered for free and TBH I didn't expect to hear much of a difference but I immediately noticed the sound stage opened up on the ultra HD files (24bit 48K or 96K etc.) and things got clearer. On some songs I felt like I was IN the music instead of hearing a wall of sound coming at me...even if that lesser quality file was still clear. So psycho acoustics were better. I had Spotify premium and it was good enough..but this is better. I have looked at tidal and others but never tried any of them. The reviews I've seen have shown some software problems with them and a lack of selection. So...Amazon HD is good enough for now. Thing is...I mix tracks for a living and while I didn't think I was....I'm KIND OF an audio snob. I can't use Bluetooth unless I'm doing the gym thing....and NEVER in my car when I'm in my musical cocoon. I bought the LG v40 for the Quad DAC and legit amp to get a strong AUX out and It works good. In all truth though... lots of times it's the personality of the equipment...the amps etc. that can change the experience more dramatically assuming the quality of the tracks are there. A perfect example is studio engineers run the Pultec EQ in their chain without even touching the dials because it changes the personality of the sound so awesomely. So, while you guys already know this, everything in the sound chain can add or subtract from the recipe of a great system or sound experience. On the front end when putting it down and finalizing mixing AND on the back end when listening.....not to mention these lossy compression algorithms when streaming and the rest. Amps...speakers...mics...pre amps...its like cooking. There are a LOT of stops along the way and any of them can change the experience. The bigger issue I want to share here is that what's really crazy is that sometimes a song at a lesser quality (16:44) will sound BETTER to me than the Ultra HD 24-96k because it was mastered better and just gels better so it has this cool groove or personality that made the experience...more...musical. This is opposed to a clearer track that isn't grooving..or pumping and blending as well together. I've seen compilation records that I don't listen to because the remastered songs are just not ....the same. The energy is wrong. The remastered version might make a vocal push too far forward sometimes due to a compressor...or some EQ work....and that gain change ..then changes the way it hits the compressor...which then changes the levels of the tracks and the way things crunch together to make this cohesive sound signature Or it might bury something to make headroom for other stuff like a bass line.....which totally changes the expression of the song...the vocalist. Almost like playing musical chairs to try and take the focus...or use the amount of headroom to the highest level possible so you have to give up something to allow something else to be louder. I've heard remasters turn a phat round and clear transparent track and vocal into a muddy or tiny..lifeless sounding mess just by running it through a brickwall limiter trying to get more gain out of an older track. Listen to the remastered and crunched Whitney Houston songs like "I will always love you" to catch my drift. Those amazing records would have NEVER been made today due to the dynamic laziness of engineers these days. So sad. The sound stage in the best analog records of all time had that magic. Sound City Studios anyone? Michael Jackson records? They had THAT sound. The point is that while you always want the best quality master..and all things being equal...the better quality file will sound better......the different mastering process can change the quality of the sound just like adjusting the focus of a lens on a camera. It's a weird thing. I've also heard files that were HD but they sounded like someone accidentally upscaled a 96k mp3 into a "higher bit rate file" which makes you wonder if you're REALLY hearing the better sound file, where the files came from down the line, when, how they were mastered etc. So...I've gone on damn near as long as this video....and this isn't really what you're talking about I guess but I thought I'd add my $1.50. It's so late here that it's hella early so forgive my rambling. I do that when I'm exhausted. So let me close by saying I appreciate what you guys are putting down. GREAT video.
I have amazon hd and have experienced the same. Sometimes the 24bit version sounds no better than the 16bit. Its all about the mix. While almost all the tracks ive heard certainly benifit from being cd quality, i can count on one hand the albums ive heard (so far just a week) at ultra hd that actually sounded better. I just listened to Radiohead's In Rainbows (on of my fav of all time) in ultra and i was floored by what i was hearing!
@@ryanchristopher2810 Man that was a long comment I wrote. But you're right...like "Weird Fishes" on SD would give you that distorted mid range guitar part and that would kinda smear everything together into a wall of sound....the HD version opens up the sound stage and lets you hear all of the details individually. The vocal spreads way out on the high notes with reverb etc. It's gelling together, but not in a way that keeps you from distinguishing all of the parts and where they sit. It's very cool.
when listening with speakers i can't tell the difference between Tidal and Qobuz but when i use headphones (Sennheiser HD 660s with a nice portable dac/amp ifi idsd nano black label) i can hear the difference between high res flac and high res mqa. After 1 year using both i decided to keep Tidal. The software is more mature and the hip hop selection is better. Plus i can have Tidal hi-fi for half the price as a student.
yannick930 when I did my ABX comparison I used my iPhone with an outboard 24/192 dac connected via the camera kit and a pair of headphones. I used HD600’s and a pair of headphones with electrostat tweeters. I also used some IEM’s but forget which model. In any case, I couldn’t pass the ABX test between Tidal and Qobuz this way. I’ve used this technique before and had passing results so the test method seems fine.
@@PoesAcoustics I do believe your results are accurate for you. We don't use the same system. I use Audirvana with asio drivers to get around windows and access directly the dac/amp. In general the sound is better that way than the Tidal or Qobuz app. The 660s can retrieve more details than the 600. (i use them balanced too) I use also the Hifiman he 400i and a beyerdynamic dt1990. When i did my tests i don't listen to 10 sec of each to compare but the entire songs. I listen to a lot of hip hop and most of the time i found the low end is better, texture and male vocals, with a true 24bit track than the mqa ones. I don't know if i need a better dac to unfold mqa but even that means it's a pain in the a***. I already went out of my way to find this one. But in the end i chose Tidal because the 24bit tracks are very rare and Qobuz is too expensive for me. I already gave it a year.
@@PoesAcoustics then i don't know why Tidal sounds better with audirvana ? to me. I believe : it's because Audirvana cache is bigger than the Tidal one, it's like the file is on the computer. I noticed a big difference between streaming and listening to local files. Am i dreaming or am i in the right ? I don't have any certitude. By the way i respect your work and you taking the time to tchat a little bit.
Then you should perhaps have compared with hi-res on discs such as SACD, DVD audio, Blu-ray audio. and perhaps also the purchase of downloading Hi-res files on eg such as HD Tracks
Statistics with musical equipment don’t always tell you wether a system will sound good. Your ears are the best judge. I have my system because of the way it sounds not because of statistics
Exactly, I use both Tidal and Qobuz. Depends on artist and equipment used. I qualified for a discount on Tidal at $11.99 a month. I got a great one year deal on qobuz. I don't enjoy or listen to rap or hiphop music so I don't like having to sift thru the tidal home screen to get to my content.
Deezer would be a real contender if the app were less buggy. Also, I think that out of the "CD quality" services, it is the only one that can be voice-controlled via a Google Home device. Although, I do think that the Amazon service can be controlled via Alexa. Voice control is often overlooked, but in the case of my dad, who is in his upper nineties, it is a godsend, as he is pretty much unable to control music to his KEF LSX's through an iPad or Smart Phone. "Hey Google, play Frank Sinatra, Fly me to the moon".......BINGO!!
Yes I really enjoy trying aspect of my google mini, I listen to my local digital radio stations. I can’t wait until I can afford the Yamaha receiver that has google and Alexa built in.
so glad i stuck with amazon. its honestly good enough with their HD service. I personally cant tell the difference between that and tidal or any of these high end streaming services.
well, Amazon HD streams full bit rate FLAC, just like Tidal, so you shouldnt notice any difference except the price. I only pay for Tidal because it allows "exclusive mode" for a DAC, and on Android I can run it through UAPP (USB Audio Player PRO), so I can output directly do a DAC on android as well.
I’ve found a couple of songs on Tidal that are let’s say ‘glitchy’ at the beginning - Aja and The Boston Rag by Steely Dan, which sound fine on Qobuz. I can’t always find what I want on Qobuz. And maybe it’s just me, the live Allison Krauss/Union Station CD-quality sounds more dynamic on Qobuz. I just bought a new non-MQA DAC and I’m hesitant to dump it to buy the new MQA version just for Tidal. I don’t remember if Matt or Gene said they were using MQA-certified DACs?
Sorry to say that my limited knowledge on this stuff didn't allow me to access some of the technical elements you were talking about but wow, it's been an absolute education! I stayed riveted for the entire hour..... Thank you so much for posting. With my own experience, as a lifelong fan of HiFi, I am blown away by the current hi res services. I have had Tidal for several years and have been happy yet after trying Qubuz I switched..... On my own system, the soundstage just sounds broader with slightly more detail and a more punchy midrange! Yes their library isn't as big and yes the software is a little glitchy but what an exciting time for audiophiles. As with everything else, improvements will follow and things will become more reliable and upgrades to my current system will need to be made, I can already feel my wallet weeping! Thanks guys, John, Sheffield, UK.
As a senior citizen, hearing above 11k, is a fantasy. My true cutoff is hard to depict because of tinnitus. In your proposed hear loss video, have you thought of a way to take it out of the equation? Thanks for the information you deliver.
Lawrence V. Athill there really is no way to fix hearing loss in a system. If you knew the degree of insensitivity that you have, you could attempt to counter-Eq. Honestly, it is for your enjoyment. Just adjust the system until you enjoy it. Don’t worry about anything else. There isn’t a lot of music up there. I’ve low passed recordings before to see what you miss. 11khz is noticeable, 15khz much less so. Gene recently shared with me a link to a drug at the phase 2 level that has shown positive efficacy in restoring hearing loss. Maybe in the near future your hearing can be restored with medicine. Tinnitus is another issue. I really am not an expert. There may be some things you can do to enjoy music and avoid the ringing associated with tinnitus.
Why is MQA better? B/c they say it is... with nothing but corpo double speak to back it up. Bigger stats is better even if the format is actually lossy... right?
