Tidal vs Spotify

[knaithrover]

I've subscribed to and fully embraced Spotify for 2 or 3 years now and really enjoyed it whilst accepting that sound-wise it's not quite there...the ease of use for casual listening and discovering new music outweighed its limitations. This is why I've still been buying cd's and to a lesser extent vinyl (expensive luxury imo) for 'proper' listening. That is until I gave Tidal a try. It's twice as much to subscribe to as Spotty but to my ears it sounds at least twice as good!!! Its amazing, almost if not better than CD quality and the price hike is worth every farthing.

I'd be interested to hear your views

 

[MajorFubar]

It's lossless streaming so there's no reason the why it should not be on par with the very best of any other source, at least in terms of providing the right bits to your DAC at the right time. In common with all other downloads and streaming services (including Spotify and Apple music), the files given to Tidal from from some record labels and distributors are 'watermarked', which CDs are not. Other than that, Tidal should sound as good as CDs, assuming the CD and the Tidal master are one and the same.

But I've still got this obsession about actually owning physical copies of music, which is why I will continue to buy CDs as long as I can. That concept will be alien to the next generation.

 

[knaithrover]

It's lossless streaming so there's no reason the why it should not be on par with the very best of any other source, at least in terms of providing the right bits to your DAC at the right time. In common with all other downloads and streaming services (including Spotify and Apple music), the files given to Tidal from from some record labels and distributors are 'watermarked', which CDs are not. Other than that, Tidal should sound as good as CDs, assuming the CD and the Tidal master are one and the same.

But I've still got this obsession about actually owning physical copies of music, which is why I will continue to buy CDs as long as I can. That concept will be alien to the next generation.

I also like owning physical copies and in decades of being music obsessed I've accumulated a hell of a lot. I'm old enough to predate cd's and will always deep down prefer vinyl as an artefact. Cd's do sound damned good but now I've discovered Tidal I don't think i'll be buying many more (unless that's the only format available Joanna Newsome's releases for instance) Vinyl will still be bought for marquee releases. Exciting times.

 

[Leeps]

They each do different things well.

Spotify IS better at music discovery and making suggestions of other artists you're likely to be interested in. I particularly liked the regular emails giving a list of albums to check out. I tended to like most of them, so their version of a scrobbler is pretty good. As I use Tidal now, I also use the app "Discovr", which is a fun visual spidergram way of learning new artists. I also tend to learn new artists on YouTube channels like NPR Music (one of my favourites) and Sofar Sounds, and then look them up on Tidal. (Check out "Mariachi Flor De Toloache" on NPR Music - such fun!)

But I do prefer the layout of Tidal. I find it has a nicer simpler interface that's really easy and clear to use. Spotify's app seems a little busy in comparison. I also really like the way it stores your own albums, artists and playlists. And since I joined Tidal its catalogue seems to be plugging many gaps it had about a year ago - the special edition extended album of Interstellar for example was missing initially, but is now there in all its glory. Now there are much fewer albums and artists missing, although I would imagine Spotify still just has the edge there.

I do find Tidal a little buggy at times, but I'm willing to overlook its deficiencies for the really beautiful sound quality. I personally find it better than my CD player, because although there's no reason for the files themselves to be superior, my CD player, especially during quiet passages in music, would remind me of its presence by the constant whirr of the disc spinning. Tidal is just silent blackness which seems to add even more contrast to its sound quality.

One downside of Tidal (for me), is the prevalence of rap on its home page since Mr. Z's involvement. I'm into most genres of music, but not rap. Having said that some of their suggested playlists have been excellent. The Herbie Hancock playlist they had a few months ago was superb.

When I had Spotify I used to dart all over the place hopping from one artist to another, but with Tidal I tend to sit and enjoy the albums start to finish more.

 

[MajorFubar]

I'm into most genres of music, but not rap.

Don't worry, that's like saying you're into eating all different kinds of vegetables and fresh fruit but you can't stand eating horse sh*t. It doesn't count lol.

[Hides under bed waiting for the hate-mail from (c)rap fans]*new_russian*

 

[drummerman]

I am currently using Tidal lossless and Spotify Premium side by side.

The reason for this is simply that I had a good deal for a Tidal 4 months subscription.

Eventually, one will have to go.

I would say when casually comparing the two, perhaps in unfamiliar surroundings etc, it could be rather difficult to tell the them apart.

In a familiar system of half decent quality the differences are however audible. This mostly manifests itself at the frequency extremes ... tighter, more solid bass and more air higher up if that makes sense.

Still, it is perhaps not as simple as that. Spotify (Premium) sounds more punchy, bouncy or whatever you want to call it. Some may think it is even more 'musical'.

Tidal is more hifi ... you pays your money.

Tidal has announced high resolution streaming at no additional cost to the premium service (£20/month). Whilst the majority of 'normal' (non-hifi obsessed) people will be happy with MP3 quality and would cringe at paying twenty quid per month on cloud music (when you can have it free on youtube for nothing ... as my friends daughter which is probably more representative than you and I, said ). For audiophiles however this represents probably a very good deal, especially if you have a high quality system. I probably don't count myself as having one of those but must admit I am still very tempted to keep on using it if this HR streaming takes place. - Subscribers of this premium Tidal service will probably be a tiny minority but it will set new standards in price/performance which in turn perhaps will encourage the competition to catch up ... not a bad thing ... and perhaps even drive a nail into current 'high resolution' download sites, depending on quality of course.

We'll see.

But, as has been said, Spotify has to my mind a better user interface and suggestions.

 

[knaithrover]

I am currently using Tidal lossless and Spotify Premium side by side.

The reason for this is simply that I had a good deal for a Tidal 4 months subscription.

Eventually, one will have to go.

I would say when casually comparing the two, perhaps in unfamiliar surroundings etc, it could be rather difficult to tell the them apart.

In a familiar system of half decent quality the differences are however audible. This mostly manifests itself at the frequency extremes ... tighter, more solid bass and more air higher up if that makes sense.

Still, it is perhaps not as simple as that. Spotify (Premium) sounds more punchy, bouncy or whatever you want to call it. Some may think it is even more 'musical'.

Tidal is more hifi ... you pays your money.

Tidal has announced high resolution streaming at no additional cost to the premium service (£20/month). Whilst the majority of 'normal' (non-hifi obsessed) people will be happy with MP3 quality and would cringe at paying twenty quid per month on cloud music (when you can have it free on youtube for nothing ... as my friends daughter which is probably more representative than you and I, said ). For audiophiles however this represents probably a very good deal, especially if you have a high quality system. I probably don't count myself as having one of those but must admit I am still very tempted to keep on using it if this HR streaming takes place. - Subscribers of this premium Tidal service will probably be a tiny minority but it will set new standards in price/performance which in turn perhaps will encourage the competition to catch up ... not a bad thing ... and perhaps even drive a nail into current 'high resolution' download sites, depending on quality of course.

We'll see.

But, as has been said, Spotify has to my mind a better user interface and suggestions.

Tidal is definitely more hifi. Spotify always sounded a tad muffled/muddled and compressed to me like MP3 vs cd. That said Spotty is a brilliant discovery tool and I will keep it on just for that purpose.

 

[tonky]

I'm enjoying a 99p per month 3 month Spotify Premium trial . I am enjoying its ease of use and ability to revisit music from my youth etc. It's been great for the David Bowie catalogue just recently. Compared to cd and lossless streaming from my hard drive the difference in quality is easily noticeable. Would I pay 10£ a month when said trial is up? - Never tried Tidal . - Not sure I would pay 20£ a month - if there is a well priced trial I'd certainly give it a listen.

tonky

 

[Andrewjvt]

Im interested in testing tidal.now thanks guys
Its the quality and hires thing thats got me interested finally..

Is it best to use laptop and send files to the amp/dac or use the airplay usi g the ethernet cable to the amp? I would have thought just use the usb same as if im using the media player.

If i ever want to use airplay from phone then i realize id have to set up ethernet i suppose

 

[Andrewjvt]

And best quality for hifi service is only the same as cd 16bit / 44.1 KHz so does anyone know of a streaming/subscription service that can also play higher resolution sample rate:
192kHz/24bit & 96kHz/24bit.

I appreciate that many on here are experts in these services but ive only used ripped cds on a media center so now im keen to test higher than cd sample rate files to see if i can hear any difference from standard cd sample rate but i dont see the point of tidal unless its to try new music as id like to own it.

 

[DIB]

I'd be skinned alive by my wife and two kids if I even considered stopping my subscription to Spotify Premium.

At 30p a day what is there to consider, really?

.

 

[knaithrover]

I'd be skinned alive by my wife and two kids if I even considered stopping my subscription to Spotify Premium.

At 30p a day what is there to consider, really

.

60p a day for much better sound

 

[DIB]

I'd be skinned alive by my wife and two kids if I even considered stopping my subscription to Spotify Premium.

At 30p a day what is there to consider, really

.

60p a day for much better sound

Do you think I'm made of money?

.

 

[drummerman]

And best quality for hifi service is only the same as cd 16bit / 44.1 KHz so does anyone know of a streaming/subscription service that can also play higher resolution sample rate: 192kHz/24bit & 96kHz/24bit.

I appreciate that many on here are experts in these services but ive only used ripped cds on a media center so now im keen to test higher than cd sample rate files to see if i can hear any difference from standard cd sample rate but i dont see the point of tidal unless its to try new music as id like to own it.

Probably best stick to Spotify then but as has been said, Tidal will roll out HR streaming imminently.

Whether you'll hear much difference depends greatly on the recording quality of the original (and/or any simple upsampling that may have taken place to a cd quality file. Read PaulMillers RecordReview and measurement section in HifiNews).

 

[MajorFubar]

None of them offer a family subscription option except Apple Music. Or at least they didn't when I last checked. Only Apple saw that offering a family subscription was a killer USP for those of us with children and spouses who want their own playlists without having to pay separately for everyone. To give my family individual Spotify accounts would cost me £40 a month with Spotify, or an eye-watering £80 a month with Tidal. Ouch. For that reason, and really that reason only, I dropped Spotify the minute Apple Music came out. I don't think Tidal offers any similar plan. If it does I almost certainly can't afford it.

 

[lukam30]

No problems with tidal subscripsion my house as my wife likes the same music

 

[BigH]

The problem I have with Tidai is if you pay £20 pm instead of buying cds whats happens if it dissappears. One thing that does annoy me with streaming services is you go to play an album and its gone and then its back 6 months later, quite a few artists are not having their music on streaming services this seems to be becoming more common lately with either their most of their albums gone (Neil Young) or their latest albums not on there ( Natalie Merchant, Lucinda Williams and a few other I can't remember off hand). The other problem is you have no control over which version they play, most are recent versions so suffer from compression. Maybe Tidal seek out the best sounding masters?

 

[Andrewjvt]

And best quality for hifi service is only the same as cd 16bit / 44.1 KHz so does anyone know of a streaming/subscription service that can also play higher resolution sample rate: 192kHz/24bit & 96kHz/24bit.

I appreciate that many on here are experts in these services but ive only used ripped cds on a media center so now im keen to test higher than cd sample rate files to see if i can hear any difference from standard cd sample rate but i dont see the point of tidal unless its to try new music as id like to own it.

Probably best stick to Spotify then but as has been said, Tidal will roll out HR streaming imminently.

Whether you'll hear much difference depends greatly on the recording quality of the original (and/or any simple upsampling that may have taken place to a cd quality file. Read PaulMillers RecordReview and measurement section in HifiNews).

Will give that a read cheers

 

[MUSICRAFT]

That is until I gave Tidal a try. It's twice as much to subscribe to as Spotty but to my ears it sounds at least twice as good!!! Its amazing, almost if not better than CD quality and the price hike is worth every farthing.

Hi knaithover

I won't say that Tidal sounds twice as good as Spotify however ime the improvement is still enough to justify the premium.

All the best

Rick @ Musicraft

 

[Andrewjvt]

And best quality for hifi service is only the same as cd 16bit / 44.1 KHz so does anyone know of a streaming/subscription service that can also play higher resolution sample rate: 192kHz/24bit & 96kHz/24bit.

I appreciate that many on here are experts in these services but ive only used ripped cds on a media center so now im keen to test higher than cd sample rate files to see if i can hear any difference from standard cd sample rate but i dont see the point of tidal unless its to try new music as id like to own it.

Probably best stick to Spotify then but as has been said, Tidal will roll out HR streaming imminently.

Whether you'll hear much difference depends greatly on the recording quality of the original (and/or any simple upsampling that may have taken place to a cd quality file. Read PaulMillers RecordReview and measurement section in HifiNews).

Will give that a read cheers

Sorry to bug you again but ive searched google for a date for hd streaming on tidal and cant find. Do you know when this is expected?

An hd steaming service is something id be interested in

 

[Leeps]

There's no date yet.

You may find the interviews on Youtube / Whathifi with Bluesound, and "Interview with Bob Stuart, MQA" from CES 2016 interesting as both cover this topic.

It's quite insightful about MQA (which is what Tidal is investigating and trialling at present) not just about what it can do, but how it's also an approved authenticated process (rather like THX) that ensures a certain standard of quality. So MQA would exclude upsampled originally-CD-quality tracks as 'hi-res' for example. Its for this reason that MQA strikes me as being as interesting as the hi-res monicker itself, because MQA seems to be very much a part of the mastering, and even precisely copying the values of the room the music was originally recorded at, so the end result is supposed to reflect what the artists created at the studio as closely as possible.

However its this process that might be its Achilles heel in introducing hi-res streaming across Tidal's entire catalogue any time soon. Presumably this is a fairly laborious process.

My guess would be that in order for Tidal to introduce it as a selling point, which they'd obviously want to do ASAP, that they'd need to introduce MQA standard tracks piecemeal as and when new artists or studios sign up to its standard. Their tests at CES indicate that the tech is already in place. I would imagine it also needs the hardware manufacturers that stream Tidal natively to make their streamers MQA compatible. (Bluesound, Oppo and Naim come to mind, I guess there are others too).

 

[MrReaper182]

Qobuz is better than both of them as it has the best sound quality and the only one to offer hi-res audio.

 

[BigH]

Qobuz is better than both of them as it has the best sound quality and the only one to offer hi-res audio.

I thought it only streamed cd quality, unless you can buy the albums?

 

[knaithrover]

That is until I gave Tidal a try. It's twice as much to subscribe to as Spotty but to my ears it sounds at least twice as good!!! Its amazing, almost if not better than CD quality and the price hike is worth every farthing.

Hi knaithover

I won't say that Tidal sounds twice as good as Spotify however ime the improvement is still enough to justify the premium.

All the best

Rick @ Musicraft

Hi Rick.... A figure of speech, I've told myself a million times not to exaggerate.. ha. You are right it is better to such an extent that its worth switching. Spotify sounds quite muffled in comparison. Rgds Steve

 

[MrReaper182]

Qobuz is better than both of them as it has the best sound quality and the only one to offer hi-res audio.

I thought it only streamed cd quality, unless you can buy the albums?

You can only download the music in hi-res after you have brought it. The others don't have that yet.