Tidal

[manicm]

This is interesting https://www.whathifi.com/features/tidal-is-definitely-lossless-and-my-mate-can-prove-it

If Tidal goes down, streaming may well end as a source of serious listening for me. Because for all the Qobuz mania - it's a niche service that's only available in 26 countries - and notably absent in India for example. I'm not keen on Apple Music because I don't want to be tied to one platform - and only Sonos (or one of the extremely few) does Apple 'Connect'. Amazon HD is also a niche service with no 'Connect'.

It's also telling that Sonos does not do Tidal Connect - you have to use it through the Sonos app. Also, Sonos does not support Tidal Atmos - whoever is to blame for that too.

And the abhorrent Spotify CEO continues a running joke on subscribers.

 

[podknocker]

I'm in my 3rd year of Spotify and it's still a great interface and does offer me really good tunes. I've sacrificed ultimate sound quality for ease of use and convenience, but I do wish they would get on with the HIFI tier. I've had Tidal on free trial and I hate it. I wish I didn't, but I'm staying with Spotify, high res or not.

 

[Revolutions]

I’m a couple of months into Tidal & still running Spotify alongside.

Tidal is clearly modelled on the Spotify UI so it’s easy to use. I don’t love it though. There’s loads of niggles & bugs, although only one that really annoys me: the search is not great. It doesn’t return near matches & sometimes won’t even find albums when you’ve spelt them word perfect.

I might go go back to Spotify on phone & just use Tidal for the hifi & not worry about having an up to date list of saved albums etc.

Spotify is becoming unusable though. The layers of stuff I have no interest in is making it harder to quickly find music. One thing that pushed me to Tidal is Spotify constantly recommending tracks & artists that I’ve never heard of, and not really similar to what I listen to - seems like some kind of paid promotion model.

 

[Rodolfo]

WHF compares a hi-res service to a NON-hi-res service to examine losslessness: DUH!

Amazon Music Unlimited has offered HD music for several years, and stopped charging more for it > two years ago which is when I moved over from Spotify. It also coincided with Spotify choosing to invest millions in podcast rather than music offerings. But WHF continues to pitch/"study" Tidal only.

BTW, I don't need Amazon "connect" like I did with Spotify, because Amazon apps installed on my computing devices, DAPs, and phones connect directly, automatically, and flawlessly with any bluetooth device at home, in my car, or internationally, just as my other music apps do. Spotify, instead, required "connect" devices probably because it billed for licences for such equipment. I have an internet radio which I bought for its special "connect" feature which now serves only as a secondary internet radio.

 

[Minkey1]

….Amazon Music Unlimited has offered HD music for several years, and stopped charging more for it > two years ago which is when I moved over from Spotify. ….

Exact same here. I’ve subscribed - or trialled - them all, and cannot understand why anyone would want to pay Spotify more to get less 🤷🏼

Was happy with Amazon. and the saving paying annually, but in Jan this year we made, for us, a momentous decision to switch from Google phones and smart stuff to iPhones, Apple TV, and Alexa smarts.

On Apple Music now, and delighted with it. Now stream it from the ATV into the amp and out via my CA Minx sat/sub set up. Might not be “hi fi” to the purist, but to us it sounds amazing. Also works well in the car via CarPlay.

How Spotify gets away with it is a mystery to me.

 

[abacus]

The reason people stick with Spotify is that it is the most universal, the most user friendly and comprehensive service, with nothing else coming close.
So long as you have set your Apple for HD playback, just sit back and enjoy, as you have CD quality playback.

Bill

 

[Minkey1]

….The reason people stick with Spotify is that it is the most universal, the most user friendly and comprehensive service, with nothing else coming close…..

Other opinions are available. If you want to pay more for less, good luck.

 

[abacus]

Other opinions are available. If you want to pay more for less, good luck.

You get less sound quality yes, but most users couldn't care less about HD or UHD, but do want something that is friendly and comprehensive, with the ones that do require HD & UHD being a very niche market.
I use Amazon HD and Spotify as many of the podcasts I listen too are only on Spotify.

Bill

 

[Minkey1]

Forget HD/Atmos/spatial - whatever. I’m still
paying less for a service which works with my ATV/phones/car (obvs) but also Sonos, Alexa/Fire in the way I want. That’s everything I have. But my very best wishes to the pay-more-for-less fans who don’t care about sound quality. What a business model they’re supporting 🤷🏼

 

[Rodolfo]

You're both right: Spotify is a lame option for those who prioritize, care about sound quality; and, most streaming types do not prioritize or do not care enough or at all about SQ. Heck, most don't know that there are differences or don't understand them, and WHF and other media's priorities are part of the explanation.

The number one way that people consume music (in the US, and beyond perhaps?) is through youtube, where SQ is largely or totally irrelevant. That preference is even evident in the music threads on WHF and other fora.

Spotify will also always benefit from being first to the market, and universally (like Apple with smartphones, especially in the US), plus -and partly because of that, Spotify also has a social component that others lack or don't/can't prioritize. Experience and their data banks also are reflected in its ease of use and probably still superior UI, algorithms, etc.. The latter have little to do with SQ, but much about how Spotify "gets away with it".

Personally, politics also affects my choice, and Spotify's investment/political choices with their podcast initiatives launched years ago, including/especially their exclusives which @abacus notes, was/were the tipping point for me. I'm sure it lost and won/kept many subscribers with those choices, through those non-music priorities. SQ is irrelevant there too, regardless.

 

[jjbomber]

Other opinions are available.

But not on this forum!

 

[twinkletoes]

Im with Minkey1 why pay the same for less of a service. I could understand when Tidal was 20 quid and was using MQA but it's a 10er now and they have removed all the MQA bull now as well. Financially it makes no sense and the general consumer will eventually cotton on.

I mean you don't do it with your utility bills or car insurance or whatever it might be do you?

People moan like sin how LP's sounds rubbish, cassestts sound rubbish but your all willing to except spotify! go figure! I'd rather listen to those legacy formats than shove 320hz (250hz if using cromecast) Ogg Vorbis through my system in 2024.

 

[Minkey1]

Im with Minkey1 why pay the same for less of a service. I could understand when Tidal was 20 quid and was using MQA but it's a 10er now and they have removed all the MQA bull now as well. Financially it makes no sense and the general consumer will eventually cotton on.

I mean you don't do it with your utility bills or car insurance or whatever it might be do you?

People moan like sin how LP's sounds rubbish, cassestts sound rubbish but your all willing to except spotify! go figure! I'd rather listen to those legacy formats than shove 320hz (250hz if using cromecast) Ogg Vorbis through my system in 2024.

I take the point about its ubiquity, but not much else. I’ve tried ‘em all. My Apple Music works with everything I have so I’m covered. It has a social thing but I’m not interested, and I only go on YouTube for plumbing videos. YT, like everything to do with Google is ad driven, and one of the reasons why we junked a house full of Google kit last New Year.

Each to their own, but I remain a Yorkshireman, and paying more for less remains puzzling to me 🤷🏼

 

[twinkletoes]

I take the point about its ubiquity, but not much else. I’ve tried ‘em all. My Apple Music works with everything I have so I’m covered. It has a social thing but I’m not interested, and I only go on YouTube for plumbing videos. YT, like everything to do with Google is ad driven, and one of the reasons why we junked a house full of Google kit last New Year.

Each to their own, but I remain a Yorkshireman, and paying more for less remains puzzling to me 🤷🏼

Yeah Apple Music offers way more sound quality wise even through airplay compared to Spotifys connect service. It’s a much more convenient service for many as well due to the market share of Apple. And much to dismay here Sonos has a massive install base.

Im a Suffolk man and completely get it. As you say each to their own.

 

[Minkey1]

Forget the sound quality. If it was like for like, the conundrum remains. Why pay more?

 

[Minkey1]

Forget the sound quality. If it was like for like, the conundrum remains. Why pay more?

Oh. Missed the Sonos reference. I only have a Roam - for garden & hol use. I rarely use BT on it, as Apple Music is set as my supplier over WiFi and I can browse/play my account direct from the Sonos app. I must be the only Sonos user who finds the new app preferable 🤷🏼

I feel I’m ploughing a lonely furrow sometimes 😉

 

[Revolutions]

@Rodolfo - concerned about politics & you give Bezos your money?

Spotify UX is leagues ahead of Apple Music & Qobuz. Amazon was unusable when I last tried it. Tidal is cloned from Spotify so not bad.

SQ: from lots of listening, once levels are equal, all I can discern from lossless streaming is more sparkle in the high end. It really isn’t night & day. I pay for Tidal & use it on my hifi over Spotify, but if someone randomly switched without telling me, there’s virtually zero chance I’d do a double-take & ask why the sound is so much worse than normal.

 

[Minkey1]

Spotify UX is leagues ahead of Apple Music & Qobuz. Amazon was unusable when I last tried it. Tidal is cloned from Spotify so not bad.

I’ve subscribed to, or trialled, all 4.

My use experience differs. Amazon was fine. But once I’d made the decision to jump ship on mobile, the choice was clearer.

SQ: from lots of listening, once levels are equal, all I can discern from lossless streaming is more sparkle in the high end. It really isn’t night & day. I pay for Tidal & use it on my hifi over Spotify, but if someone randomly switched without telling me, there’s virtually zero chance I’d do a double-take & ask why the sound is so much worse than normal.

Ignore SQ. You’re still left with a higher price. For what?

Curious why people are *so* dogmatic. I suppose none of us like to have our choices questioned.

 

[Revolutions]

I’ve subscribed to, or trialled, all 4.

My use experience differs. Amazon was fine. But once I’d made the decision to jump ship on mobile, the choice was clearer.

Ignore SQ. You’re still left with a higher price. For what?

Curious why people are *so* dogmatic. I suppose none of us like to have our choices questioned.

Am I being dogmatic?

To answer your question, if I ignore SQ, what have I got - a better user experience:
- intuitive to use (vs Apple Music that makes no sense)
- excellent search (vs Qobuz & Tidal that can’t find albums even when spelt correctly)
- streams well on mobile data (none of the other platforms managed that for me)
- not buggy (Amazon, Tidal & Qobuz have so many glitches

I’m lucky that a few £ a month doesn’t make much difference to me, so I’m not looking for value in a cost sense.

 

[Minkey1]

Again, my experience - and opinion - differs.

AM works fine for me. Its search works fine, even when I miskey. Streaming works fine, at home (Fibre 900) and mobile (5/4G). No glitches.

I’m delighted Spotify works well for you. I get everything I need on the kit I have in better quality for less money, so we’re all happy.

 

[Minkey1]

“Spotify UX is leagues ahead of Apple Music & Qobuz. Amazon was unusable when I last tried it”

Sounded pretty dogmatic to me🤷🏼

 

[Revolutions]

“Spotify UX is leagues ahead of Apple Music & Qobuz. Amazon was unusable when I last tried it”

Sounded pretty dogmatic to me🤷🏼

touché. I could level the same criticism at your anti-Spotify rhetoric, though.

 

[Minkey1]

touché. I could level the same criticism at your anti-Spotify rhetoric, though.

Really? My only Spotify comments concerned its cost and quality. They’re facts, not rhetoric.

Cheerio.

 

[Revolutions]

Really? My only Spotify comments concerned its cost and quality. They’re facts, not rhetoric.

Cheerio.

“Pay more for less” is quite definitely rhetoric. And it’s been repeated multiple times in this thread. But if you say it’s facts, I’ll just have to believe your opinion.

 

[Rodolfo]

@Rodolfo - concerned about politics & you give Bezos your money?

Spotify UX is leagues ahead of Apple Music & Qobuz. Amazon was unusable when I last tried it. Tidal is cloned from Spotify so not bad.

SQ: from lots of listening, once levels are equal, all I can discern from lossless streaming is more sparkle in the high end. It really isn’t night & day. I pay for Tidal & use it on my hifi over Spotify, but if someone randomly switched without telling me, there’s virtually zero chance I’d do a double-take & ask why the sound is so much worse than normal.

Yes @Revolutions: my politics, I am biased, and I did write "Personally". I was mostly acknowledging that I didn't leave Spotify purely for SQ, on which I sort-of-agree, differences are often minor even when detectable.

I compromise and hedge every day, on lots, including SQ, streaming options, and politics.