Tidal nonsense

manicm

Well-known member
All those who say Tidal is not lossless, well it's just nonsense.

My Wiim Mini is, at Hifi quality, reporting a 829kbps bitrate at 16/44. That's significantly higher than any compressed format, though I suspect it's FLAC compressed at a higher than usual setting.
 

Vincent Kars

Well-known member
I suspect it's FLAC compressed at a higher than usual setting.
FLAC is lossless compression
It uses linear prediction. As there is nothing linear about music, this prediction is inadequate by design hence there is a residue. On playback, calculate the linear prediction, add the residue and you have the original sample.
If you have a file filled with digital silence, the linear prediction is perfect, 1 horizontal line will do. This file will be extremely small.
If you have a file filled with noise, there is noting linear hence the residue is equal to the sample. This file will be as big as the original.
FLAC is VBR by design and you will find values as low as 600 (chamber music) to 1100 kbs (punk).

FLAC is lossless but Tidal uses MQA for the highres. MQA is a lossy format, it trade in dynamic range in favor of higher frequencies. This is what they call audio origami. They compress the 24-48 kHz range and store it below bit 17. By doing so, it overwrite all information below bit 17. That is the major reason why it is lossy compression. As space below bit 17 is limited, it is also gapped at 96 kHz sample rate.
 

Friesiansam

Well-known member
FLAC is lossless compression
It uses linear prediction. As there is nothing linear about music, this prediction is inadequate by design hence there is a residue. On playback, calculate the linear prediction, add the residue and you have the original sample.
If you have a file filled with digital silence, the linear prediction is perfect, 1 horizontal line will do. This file will be extremely small.
If you have a file filled with noise, there is noting linear hence the residue is equal to the sample. This file will be as big as the original.
FLAC is VBR by design and you will find values as low as 600 (chamber music) to 1100 kbs (punk).

FLAC is lossless but Tidal uses MQA for the highres. MQA is a lossy format, it trade in dynamic range in favor of higher frequencies. This is what they call audio origami. They compress the 24-48 kHz range and store it below bit 17. By doing so, it overwrite all information below bit 17. That is the major reason why it is lossy compression. As space below bit 17 is limited, it is also gapped at 96 kHz sample rate.
After reading this I took a quick look at some of my FLACs. Grieg: Peer Gynt Suite averages 530Kbps, Marillion: Season's End averages 904Kbps, both ripped using Exact Audio Converter (EAC).
 

manicm

Well-known member
MQA is a bit understood. Technically it's lossy, but it's shaped to discard unnecessary information at ultra frequencies, well according to Bob Stuart. It still ends up at a much higher resolution than MP3.
 

Lexxie

Active member
Feb 6, 2023
8
7
25
Visit site
"MQA is lossy, I'm so angry about it that I'm switching to lower quality!"

You have to wince at the illogical reaction.

Note that Tidal gives you the option of lossless FLAC, not just MQA. MQA is their attempt to improve on the lossless FLAC with "unfolding voodoo" to preserve a little more of the info from higher-than-CD-quality Mastering. You can A/B test the two and stick with HiFi FLAC if you so choose.

All stages of audio from performance to recording to all stages of playback and even your waxy ears, are lossy. Only the tiniest nano-fragment of all these stages can ever be called lossless -- the bits in the recording themselves. But even those are usually lossy during playback because synch/timing issues in the D-to-A manifestation. Do not be mistaken, however: all A-to-D recording and all D-to-A playback is lossy and hence ALL digital music is lossy. Close your eyes and say it 5 times so we can move on to the more important subject of how to make the best of it. NB: It requires work on your part.

So what matters is not if it's lossy. It's (1) how lossy, and (2) how high is the quality/fidelity of the output?

A much more relevant elephant in the room when it comes to streaming music on Tidal and all other services:

The crappy/cancerous treatment of the bits, whether on the lossless HiFi setting or the lossy MQA ("Master") setting. If you don't fiddle with your operating system for bit/sample-rate and playback-software settings for a clean dedicated output with 100% exclusive volume mode, here is what happens: your operating system is remixing and resampling and degrading everything it touches. Like a copy of a copy of a document, your prized "lossless" FLAC becomes a faded grainy bowl of pig slop.

I have Amazon HD and Tidal premium. When I first got Tidal I was really disgusted how much worse it sounded than Amazon HD. Then it turned out I got help doing all the settings and dedicating exclusive output at 100% through a USB-to-DAC. And voilà, they both sounded better and especially Tidal, which went from worse than Amazon to equal. The Tidal Master I ~sometimes~ even think sounds a little better, perhaps -3% on detail vs. Amazon HD but an equal or better improvement in reduced glare, reduced artificiality, and reduced "homogeneity of tonality." It's super subtle where some tracks will sound micro-better on one, some on the other, and others there is no perceivable difference to me. But any difference is so subtle as to not matter usually.

About me: as a classical musician with perfect pitch I have the hearing to tell you these things:

Tidal lossless HiFi (FLAC) and Tidal Master (MQA) compare well with Amazon HD but only after you take the pains to get that digital-out-signal OUT of the filthy hands of your operating system and exclusively, cleanly, 100% non-attenuated, into a USB-to-DAC setup. You can do it with even a super cheap dongle-dac. NOTE: By "exclusive" I mean: only your streaming software is using that output, and your OS is sending other sounds through a different output.

Hope this helps.

Cheers.
Lexxie
 

manicm

Well-known member
"MQA is lossy, I'm so angry about it that I'm switching to lower quality!"

You have to wince at the illogical reaction.

Note that Tidal gives you the option of lossless FLAC, not just MQA. MQA is their attempt to improve on the lossless FLAC with "unfolding voodoo" to preserve a little more of the info from higher-than-CD-quality Mastering. You can A/B test the two and stick with HiFi FLAC if you so choose.

All stages of audio from performance to recording to all stages of playback and even your waxy ears, are lossy. Only the tiniest nano-fragment of all these stages can ever be called lossless -- the bits in the recording themselves. But even those are usually lossy during playback because synch/timing issues in the D-to-A manifestation. Do not be mistaken, however: all A-to-D recording and all D-to-A playback is lossy and hence ALL digital music is lossy. Close your eyes and say it 5 times so we can move on to the more important subject of how to make the best of it. NB: It requires work on your part.

So what matters is not if it's lossy. It's (1) how lossy, and (2) how high is the quality/fidelity of the output?

A much more relevant elephant in the room when it comes to streaming music on Tidal and all other services:

The crappy/cancerous treatment of the bits, whether on the lossless HiFi setting or the lossy MQA ("Master") setting. If you don't fiddle with your operating system for bit/sample-rate and playback-software settings for a clean dedicated output with 100% exclusive volume mode, here is what happens: your operating system is remixing and resampling and degrading everything it touches. Like a copy of a copy of a document, your prized "lossless" FLAC becomes a faded grainy bowl of pig slop.

I have Amazon HD and Tidal premium. When I first got Tidal I was really disgusted how much worse it sounded than Amazon HD. Then it turned out I got help doing all the settings and dedicating exclusive output at 100% through a USB-to-DAC. And voilà, they both sounded better and especially Tidal, which went from worse than Amazon to equal. The Tidal Master I ~sometimes~ even think sounds a little better, perhaps -3% on detail vs. Amazon HD but an equal or better improvement in reduced glare, reduced artificiality, and reduced "homogeneity of tonality." It's super subtle where some tracks will sound micro-better on one, some on the other, and others there is no perceivable difference to me. But any difference is so subtle as to not matter usually.

About me: as a classical musician with perfect pitch I have the hearing to tell you these things:

Tidal lossless HiFi (FLAC) and Tidal Master (MQA) compare well with Amazon HD but only after you take the pains to get that digital-out-signal OUT of the filthy hands of your operating system and exclusively, cleanly, 100% non-attenuated, into a USB-to-DAC setup. You can do it with even a super cheap dongle-dac. NOTE: By "exclusive" I mean: only your streaming software is using that output, and your OS is sending other sounds through a different output.

Hope this helps.

Cheers.
Lexxie

So that's on PC playback, what about hifi streamers?
 

Lexxie

Active member
Feb 6, 2023
8
7
25
Visit site
I can't review or critique what I haven't used, but I'd be cautious about product selection and settings, just because I almost rage-quit Tidal and only turned out lucky to get it set up nicely. Then again you may not be as picky hearing as I am...but that's sad too because a great % of hearing is unconscious and I think everyone deserves to have it set up right to get the right quality out of their stuff.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts