Tidal: The Worst Music Service Online — Except for All the Others

What is your favorite music streaming service?

  • Apple Music

    Votes: 3 8.8%
  • Google Play

    Votes: 2 5.9%
  • Pandora

    Votes: 4 11.8%
  • Rhapsody

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Spotify

    Votes: 6 17.6%
  • Tidal

    Votes: 6 17.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 11.8%
  • None, I stream my own collection lossless via a media server or HDD.

    Votes: 9 26.5%

  • Total voters
    34
C

chris_w

Audiophyte
I coundn't agree more with the comment and sentiment that the music industry has been selling a 80's technology for far too long its inferior to even mass production stamping of vinyl quality that was often iffy due to the over use of the stamps.
And Ive never been a fan of the MP3 spec.
I hope we will see a return to mass marketed hi quality in this digital age it has to be easy and cheaper.
They owe us for the lie that a CD would last forever and charging 3-4 times the price of that damn lie.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
I couldn't agree more with the comment and sentiment that the music industry has been selling a 80's technology for far too long its inferior to even mass production stamping of vinyl quality that was often iffy due to the over use of the stamps.
And Ive never been a fan of the MP3 spec.
I hope we will see a return to mass marketed hi quality in this digital age it has to be easy and cheaper.
They owe us for the lie that a CD would last forever and charging 3-4 times the price of that damn lie.
Well, Chris, for a newbie you're getting off to a very poor start. Your CD versus vinyl argument is rubbish, and I don't know of anyone who has CDs from the 1980s that have degraded in any way, including hundreds of mine.

Leaving the rubbish aside, what is it, specifically, you don't like about the MP3 spec?
 
Ponzio

Ponzio

Audioholic Samurai
Your CD versus vinyl argument is rubbish, and I don't know of anyone who has CDs from the 1980s that have degraded in any way, including hundreds of mine.
same here Irv, unless he's keeping his cd's right next to a fireplace.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Well, Chris, for a newbie you're getting off to a very poor start. Your CD versus vinyl argument is rubbish, and I don't know of anyone who has CDs from the 1980s that have degraded in any way, including hundreds of mine.

Leaving the rubbish aside, what is it, specifically, you don't like about the MP3 spec?
I have had the odd commercial CD get the dreaded bronzing, were the metal turns a rusty gold and the edges of the metal layer become ragged.

As far as MP3 is concerned this is now an old codec and on its way out. It requires at least 320 kbs of bandwidth to be any good, and even then can have digital artifact, pre echo, twinking HF distortion. In addition it saves only 10% more bandwidth than loss less FLAC.

Because of cost, broadcasters need better codecs that can best mp3 at 320 Kbs with less than half the band width. I alluded to this on the previous post. The savings to broadcasters are in the hundred of thousands of dollars per year.

These new codecs are even better than Dolby digital and Dolby digital plus.

The best results come from AAC Plus which is MPEG-4 HE-AA v2. In addition any codec can be combined with MPEG DASH. This latter is a real game changer as it allows timing and gaming of the system. The upshot of this is that good DIY PCs with lots of RAM will work far better and sound much better than off the shelf commercial devices. I can confirm this.

The other issue is the encoder. Commercial options I understand have significant performance issues affecting audio quality. Both the BBC and Berlin Philharmonic Digital Concert Hall have designed and built their own custom encoders to improve quality. I understand the development of these advanced and improved encoders have resulted in enormous expense to both organizations. To me the results are impressive and result in much higher streaming quality.

The other issue is that these codecs undergo improvement all the time, without fanfare announcements.

iBiquity for HD radio use a proprietary Lucent codec. Lucent were one of the founding partners of iBiquity. It has been hard to get information on this. As I understand it, it is basically MPEG-4 HE-AA v2 with the addition of some ambiance and shaping features. It has pretty good quality at 48 kbs, but performs very well at 96 kbs. At 160 kbs it supports 5.1 audio.

The next issue is that pop and rock music is absolutely useless for evaluating any audio system and especially codecs. As I have stated before you really only can sort these codecs out with classical music, and especially choral music in ambient cathedral spaces, especially with high descant treble voices when accompanied with significant bass. This is the absolute torture test for lossy codecs and what I always use to evaluate them.

So what have I noticed.

MPR recently ditched mp3 streaming and have gone to AAC plus for live streaming and archive material, except for the Pipe Dreams archive, which often has the material I referenced above. That is streamed at 320 kbs. I can tell from my bit meter, they are not using MPEG DASH.

There sound is much better than when they used mp3, and the 96 kbs stream I think just bests analog FM. The HD radio stream is now sounds identical to their Internet stream now. That is a good thing as LED light bulbs have rendered the S/N of analog FM no longer a serious contender.

The BBC US iPlayer is AAC plus with MPEG DASH and is better than the MPR stream. Not quite good enough for the weekly Choral Evensong broadcasts, OK for pretty much everything else.

The Metropolitan Opera Met Player, does not state what they used. Sound used to be the weak feature but is now much better. I suspect it is AAC plus. The bit rate is higher than 90 kbs. It is hard to tell as they use MPEG DASH. I can be pretty certain the average bit rate is in the 160 to 190 kbs range, for their audio only steams and I suspect the same with there HD video streams. These latter sound better, but these are pretty much all later recordings.

BBC Radio 3 UK use AAC plus 320 kbs and MPEG DASH. With BBC first class engineering, the sound is better then most CDs and even BD. The weekly Choral Evensong form the Cathedral spaces around the UK are absolutely superb and atmospheric and to me are of the best if not the best engineering and sound of this sort of program. They should be good at this now, this program has gone out every week since 1923! Never missed a broadcast even during WW II.
I'm glad to report that the great British Choral Tradition remains at this time very much intact!

The BPO say they use AAC plus at 320 kbs. They are using MPEG DASH as do Meidici TV. Audio quality is excellent.

AAC plus can be combined with DTS for surround sound streaming.

These codecs have improved out of all recognition over the last three years I have been really interested in streaming technology. In my view native decoding by Windows 10 is also and advance. I have my FLASH player currently disabled in my HTPC.

I can't stress enough that for streaming with MPEG DASH, having a huge amount of RAM really improves quality. Off the shelf streaming devices are handy, but can not compete with the obsessional custom approach.

I think you would be just staggered by what I can now get out of Internet audio and video streams now.

I have attached a couple of papers for your consideration.

These are my views on where things stand right now, and yes, MP2 and MP3 are well past their sell by dates.
 

Attachments

Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Mark, I know that you know a lot about digital content compression schemes; I was asking Chris, frankly, to see if he knew what he was talking about, after that vinyl tirade.

As for me, I work in the networking and data storage industries at the moment, so understanding stuff like this is related to my profession. Personally, I think with current storage and wired networking prices, any lossy compression scheme has no place in audio where sound quality is any sort of consideration. For radio broadcasts, fine, FM was no picnic either, but over the internet and WiFi compressed lossless is sufficiently low cost, and DRAM is cheap enough for large buffers.

Lossy audio compression schemes can get pretty good, but optimize a CODEC for one issue and another still pops up. Video still needs lossy compression, audio doesn't.
 
Hi Ho

Hi Ho

Audioholic Samurai
I've been a Spotify subscriber for several years but I tried out Apple Music on the 3 month trial when it was released and I haven't looked back. The biggest plus for me? It integrates perfectly with the Mazda Connect infotainment system in my car. I can select virtually any song by voice or by navigating the menu with the command knob as the car sees the music just as if you loaded it on yourself. Spotify operates in it's own little world and the only way to select songs is from the phone itself other than skipping to the next or previous track.

The other thing Apple nailed is the "radio" stations. iTunes radio is better in nearly every conceivable way than the terrible Spotify radio. When I don't know what I want to listen too, iTunes radio finds something that satisfies me while Spotify radio is just a clickfest to skip to the next track over and over.

Sound quality is important to me but I do most of my music listening in my car where the difference between 256k AAC, 320k MP3, and lossless is all but lost. Listening at home, I can say that Apple Music seems to have the advantage in quality. I can't tell the Apple Music stream apart from the CD.

If Apple offered lossless audio for $5 more per month I would pay it. I think all these services are missing out on a market.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Mark, I know that you know a lot about digital content compression schemes; I was asking Chris, frankly, to see if he knew what he was talking about, after that vinyl tirade.

As for me, I work in the networking and data storage industries at the moment, so understanding stuff like this is related to my profession. Personally, I think with current storage and wired networking prices, any lossy compression scheme has no place in audio where sound quality is any sort of consideration. For radio broadcasts, fine, FM was no picnic either, but over the internet and WiFi compressed lossless is sufficiently low cost, and DRAM is cheap enough for large buffers.

Lossy audio compression schemes can get pretty good, but optimize a CODEC for one issue and another still pops up. Video still needs lossy compression, audio doesn't.
I agree if it is audio only. However a lot of streamed sources come with a picture. So the audio stream is part of the total package. The BBC 320 kbs AAC plus stream out of Salford is truly excellent. You what not know it was lossy. The quality is better than most loss less content, as the basic engineering is so good. However they are not saving much bandwidth over loss less FLAC.

There is however a practical problem. A lot of customers have dedicated Internet radio players, some like the Linns cost thousands of dollars. When the BBC changed codecs, these units were rendered useless at a stroke. The owners were very upset. The BBC had warned manufacturers and there was a huge lead time on this. Many, including Linn, continued manufacture long after being warned of the drop dead date. It seems they did not allow for firmware upgrades. To me it serves the Audiophools right, but that is not the way the public saw it.

MPR have had a similar issue in the last few months when they abandoned mp3 and Windows Media player. There were howls. I can't imagine what would happen if there was a transition to FLAC after all this.

It will be interesting to see how the new US iPlayer works out. The pay for download has started in the UK. However I have no means of paying for the download, and you have to be in the UK for download. I can beat the IP address, but not the out of UK payment. Incidentally the BBC have now blocked all VPN servers, but I use a cloud server, and so far that has not been blocked but VIPR VPN is, even though it shows a UK IP address. Also I would be much happier if I legitimately paid for the content and service I enjoy. Every UK resident who owns a TV or accesses the BBC by Internet has to pay a yearly license fee of about $200. Failure to pay gets you into criminal court.

The recent aggressive VPN blocking is a prelude to starting the paid subscription service sometime next year. According to the BBC about 60 million people have been accessing material for UK distribution only via third party VPN networks and other schemes.

I really hope that the new subscription BBC iPlayer will be a good service and have access to the content I want for streaming and programs to purchase.
 
Wayde Robson

Wayde Robson

Audioholics Anchorman
Wayde, I've re-read Gene's words a number of times. He states: "It’s nothing less than a crime that CD audio resolution is what the music industry now refers to as Hi-Fi". I can't see any way to read this other than as a statement that he believes there is some audio resolution that has better fidelity than CD, and that it is not a small difference.
Hey, Corey.
My intention is not to debate the virtues or lack thereof of hi-res (greater than 16/44 resolution).

The "crime" I am talking about is that we're being sold online music that is 'low-res', even lower than CD-quality. I'm fine with CD quality. But all the streaming services (except a Tidal hi-fi subscription) reduce it.

What if in 1977 vinyl record albums were produced with one small scratch randomly on every album. A majority of people wouldn't "hear" the scratch on the record for whatever reason.

Then in 1978 record companies started selling these new "scratch-free" albums at double the cost. Even though there was almost difference in their cost to produce scratched vs. scratch-free records.

Then sure enough, people would be debating how scratch-free is just a niche and that scratched records are fine for most people.

We're like prisoners arguing about which prison guard is less of a lord helmet because he beats us less.

Scratched records aren't cool! Neither is half the data in my digital music... I don't care who can or cannot hear the difference. I want the "whole" song at at least the CD-quality standard I enjoyed in 1985.
 
C

ChrisG

Audiophyte
I use Roon & Tidal, a seamless listening experience of my files & Tidal's. If you haven't tried Roon's 14 day trial, you should.
 
E

Eyewanders

Audiophyte
Very helpful review. I've been tempted to try Tidal out for a very long time.
Forgotten here is Deezer, and specifically Deezer Elite which also streams in FLAC.
I've been using it for the past year and it's quality is outstanding (comparison listening much like you described is what I've done with Deezer, at least in the first few months). Listening to something like Jeff Buckley "Grace" gives chills when listening on Deezer, something that never happens on other streaming services, though they do sound (as you note) casually very good.
I'm impressed with Deezer in the areas for which you've shot down Tidal. Give them a listen.
 
B

Billkmg

Audiophyte
Very helpful review. I've been tempted to try Tidal out for a very long time.
Forgotten here is Deezer, and specifically Deezer Elite which also streams in FLAC.
I've been using it for the past year and it's quality is outstanding (comparison listening much like you described is what I've done with Deezer, at least in the first few months). Listening to something like Jeff Buckley "Grace" gives chills when listening on Deezer, something that never happens on other streaming services, though they do sound (as you note) casually very good.
I'm impressed with Deezer in the areas for which you've shot down Tidal. Give them a listen.
I commented about really liking Deezer Elite about a month ago but we both forgot to mention that you need a Sonos Connect in order to subscribe. That probably limits the potential number of subscribers.
 
E

Eyewanders

Audiophyte
I commented about really liking Deezer Elite about a month ago but we both forgot to mention that you need a Sonos Connect in order to subscribe. That probably limits the potential number of subscribers.
Good point in terms of FLAC playback, but it isn't a Sonos Connect necessarily, you can get with Deezer Elite with any Sonos component or system. Deezer is still more specialized but seems their partnerships are growing, you can get the other two tiers (not Elite) with quite a few Bose products and they just partnered with Cricket wireless as well, so it's growing. No clue when they'll open up entirely... Anyhow - even so, I still really dig the service. Their radio functionality is better than the other I've tried (over the years that includes, Rdio, Pandora, Spotify, MOG, Grooveshark and a couple others) and the library is pretty dang huge. (Pandora, after all this time, is still my favorite radio for music discover and casual listening but everything other than that leaves a lot to be desired.)
 
Last edited:
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
I can't tell the difference between 320 kbs and CD quality so I don't need to go to a lossless media.
 
H

hankki

Junior Audioholic
I voted for, and use, spotify for the simple reason there's a windows phone app for it. Use it mostly at work. At home I use mostly cd's, vinyls and some hdtracks downloads and sometimes spotify if I look up something.
 
Y

Yorkie

Audiophyte
I'm just trialling TIDAL and Qobuz, and I think they're great. My system is fussy for quality, doesn't sound good with Spotify or mp3s or cheap disc transports. The lossless streamers offer me a huge range of music to explore, more than I could ever afford to buy on disc, AND saves me buying an expensive disc transport.

I don't know about Qobuz, but TIDAL is an artist owned coalition, which is important to me: music is dying to the rape by the labels and large corporations, so maybe services like this are a way back to music being profitable and attractive to artists. Without them, we have nothing to listen to.
 
Klipschhead302

Klipschhead302

Senior Audioholic
I'm on the TIDAL HiFi trial, I do notice the difference in quality, however at the subscription of $19 a month not sure how long I'll use it. If, like Pandora I could add this to my Marantz SR7009, I might be more likely to stick with them.
 
S

sterling shoote

Audioholic Field Marshall
Seems there's no apparent improvement coming to my ears in SACD releases of 50's, 60's, and 70's rock and jazz, case in point Miles Davis, Some Kind of Blue. I have that album on LP, CD, and Hybrid SACD. I like the CD the best, mostly because it's free of distracting pop's and some tracing error. At any rate, I think today's digitally produced music may offer the most rewarding listening experience from SACD but it's hardly a conclusion.'

With cheap amps, and really great low cost small speakers out there today, I think audio explorers would be wise to direct their attention to multi channel digital presentations. I'm talking about a channel for every performer in the musical cast. With such, we might have a very vivid musical experience. Today's surround sound experience has only touched the surface.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top