Best music streaming services: free streams to hi-res audio

[What Hi-Fi?]

The best streaming services offer slick interfaces, high-quality audio and access to millions of tracks.

Best music streaming services: free streams to hi-res audio : Read more

 

[Mindflayer]

Deezer does have HiFi steaming, and it is in the mobile app. It is 16-bit, 1,411 Kbps FLAC, so not 24/XXX, it still solid.

 

[JPH]

The best streaming services offer slick interfaces, high-quality audio and access to millions of tracks.

Best music streaming services: free streams to hi-res audio : Read more
I don't understand the comment about Qobus being more expensive than Tidal. So Tidal is £19.99 for their HIFI service and the equivalent Qobus is £15. Also the comment about quality, is this what you have measured or is it based on marketing information?

 

[Brantome]

Amazon Music does have a free tier , and surprised you didn’t mention Prime Music and its 2m track catalogue that comes as part of being a Prime member. Also, the price for an HD family subscription wipes the floor compared to the other hires options
https://blog.aboutamazon.com/entertainment/free-streaming-now-available-on-amazon-music

 

[The Dodge]

I would like to try Amazon music HD but cannot seem to find anyway of benefiting from the HD quality on my AV receiver.
I have a Yamaha RX-A860 which hasn't got an in built app , it has Qobuz , Tidal & Deezer and wondered if anyone could assist and tell me if it is possible to get this?

Thanks

 

[fredphoesh]

One thing I believe is missed from this review is the fact that with YouTube music you can upload your flac files and then take a look at the kbps when playing the files back. I suspect the files are not compressed. They are available immediately after uploading... so as far as I can tell, this is the only service on the planet that allows you to upload vast quantities of music, for free, and then allow you to play back WITHOUT adverts FOR FREE! I'm busy doing that, track 6, no adverts! It has on screen lyrics too, so this makes the perfect companion for an Android TV box connected to your TV and your DAC and HiFi... LOVE IT!!! (I don't have tools to verify the stream is lossless)

 

[spizzlo]

As sad as it is to say, I think Amazon is the best choice for hi-fi streaming (assuming you have prime). At $13, it's the cheapest option, and it has a lot of hi-fi music. I like Tidal the best, but $20 is just too much to pay per month on music streaming.

 

[Brantome]

As sad as it is to say, I think Amazon is the best choice for hi-fi streaming (assuming you have prime). At $13, it's the cheapest option, and it has a lot of hi-fi music. I like Tidal the best, but $20 is just too much to pay per month on music streaming.

You don’t need to be a Prime customer to use Amazon Music, they’re separate services - all that being a Prime customer offers you is a discount on some tiers.

 

[spizzlo]

You don’t need to be a Prime customer to use Amazon Music, they’re separate services - all that being a Prime customer offers you is a discount on some tiers.

Right, I was basically saying it's the best option if you have Prime because it's cheaper. If you don't have Prime, it's the same price as Qobuz, so it makes it a harder decision, at least for me.

 

[Hifiman]

As sad as it is to say, I think Amazon is the best choice for hi-fi streaming (assuming you have prime). At $13, it's the cheapest option, and it has a lot of hi-fi music. I like Tidal the best, but $20 is just too much to pay per month on music streaming.

I agree, with the U.K. costs of Amazon Music Unlimited HD being about the same in £ as it is in $. Like others have mentioned about the Amazon Prime free tier, I am surprised this hi-res service does not get a mention either.

 

[Konchog]

I would shift to Tidal if they brought their premium price down to £9.99 - but until then I have no motive to migrate at twice my current subscription for the small number of masters currently available. If I was a hip-hop fan, well then maybe. But I’m not.

 

[medicine_man]

One thing I believe is missed from this review is the fact that with YouTube music you can upload your flac files

I uploaded some FLAC files and then played back via the YouTube music windows client that has a 'nerd' option to display the current file being played. It reports the file Codec as 0 / mp4a.40.2 (141). This is beyond me except the mp4a which means the FLAC file has been compressed via the upload process. I will try to do some back to back comparisons later...

 

[awakenedmachine]

I wonder why Napster (formerly Rhapsody) gets so little attention? They've been in the top tier of bitrate quality, at their base price, for years! Currently 320 kbps. And the selection is great. I've always preferred their ability to select albums and individual tracks, but I've found that their "radio" feature works really well now too, beats the pants off of Spotify and Pandora, imo.

 

[Maks]

I found Moodzon, free and can create lists of new songs to your liking

 

[Hwrd]

In view of the fact that WhatHiFi reviews and promotes quality equipment and services, surely the benefit for, or impact upon the artist or artists should be factored into any discussion of streaming services.

Just how much do the artists get paid for each download? If Tidal et al. paid the artists as much for streamed work as the artists get for a CD or vinyl sale, then I would be happy. However, we all know they don’t.

I am reminded of the ways in which record companies ripped-off the early blues artists, and indeed some of the bands in the 60s. If WhatHiFi is genuinely interested in the music, then surely it should score such products against how well they support artists!

I have stepped away from streaming for this reason.

 

[Maks]

In view of the fact that WhatHiFi reviews and promotes quality equipment and services, surely the benefit for, or impact upon the artist or artists should be factored into any discussion of streaming services.

Just how much do the artists get paid for each download? If Tidal et al. paid the artists as much for streamed work as the artists get for a CD or vinyl sale, then I would be happy. However, we all know they don’t.

I am reminded of the ways in which record companies ripped-off the early blues artists, and indeed some of the bands in the 60s. If WhatHiFi is genuinely interested in the music, then surely it should score such products against how well they support artists!

I have stepped away from streaming for this reason.

We have to understand that streaming is advertising as revenue (I hope so) should be distributed to the performer and the service. It's another matter if they don't.
As far as I know that Youtube pays for watching videos (users who posted videos) - so everything is legal here.

 

[Wes Mason]

I am currently on the free month of the highest level of Tidal and I think it's pathetic to be honest.

I will not be proceeding to payment next month. Yes, the quality isn't too bad but the interface is rubbish through Apple CarPlay....

Tracks start on an album downloaded and then when the first track ends, the second one starts playing but the interface display on the car screen stays at the end of the first track... you have to hit skip to get it to show the second track and then sometimes that doesn't even work.

No thanks, I'll just stick with my podcasts and occasional iTunes Library rather than pay the best part of $40 AUD per month for this dysfunctional rubbish.......

 

[botrytis]

Tidal is number 1? It has the most inaccurate SQ because more of the tracks are MQA, even the ones that aren't Identified as MQA. That is bait and switch. Even the CD quality level is all MQA tacks.

MQA max resolution is 96/17 not 96/24 and then if the MQA is supposedly higher resolution, it is all upsampling.

I wish writers for these magazines would do their homework instead of just regurgitating the same nonsense over and over. Very disappointed in this article.

 

[BrianRostron]

Stating that Tidal has the best SQ is equivalent to stating MQA has better SQ than FLAC or similar. Some may subjectively prefer MQA, but many do not and listening tests have not shown any preference for MQA.

In addition, many will not be using MQA hardware, in which case options like Qobuz and all the others will be fine, but running Tidal with un-decoded MQA would be even worse even worse than mentioned above.

 

[BrianRostron]

Plus one other point, you cannot use software DSP / room correction or similar with MQA. Which is another reason why Tidal might be best avoided for some.

 

[erbasically]

I'd like to see some more in-depth reviews of the music recommendation aspects of these services. It's often claimed in online discussions that one particular service always recommends hiphop even if you never listen to it; I haven't seen that myself but on the other hand I've found that after listening to prog rock and contemporary jazz for a few weeks my current streaming service thinks that what I really need to hear is Simply Red! So it would be nice to see some research into which services are best at finding new music that you like and which just seem to pick any old stuff regardless of your listening habits.

 

[dave64k]

Been on Tidal for a while and this review caused me to give Qobuz a try to understand why the ratings so different.

Early observations is I can't for the life of me see why the difference especially as Qobuz is cheaper!

The 10 million title difference could be a factor but I have only found 1 EP so far that is on Tidal that isn't on Qobuz.

I think at this rate I will move from Tidal to Qobuz when the renewals come up and see what develops over the next 12 months

 

[johnfryett]

Tidal is always overhyped (including by WHF). Expensive and MQA is not really hi-res IMO. I would go with Qobuz - cheaper and better quality. But, of course, Cambridge don't support it so you'll never see WHF recommend it...

 

[Yogi1066]

Your pricing for Spotify is out of date. (UK pricing)

 

[Stiimpoo]

if you guys could inform yourselves on the internet, some dudes just want to hate on better things, so to say something back, here is a video of somebody exposing Tidal's quality

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRjsu9-Vznc
btw, im not promoting this guy, just so you know...