TIDAL Lossless Streaming--Thoughts?

jmathers said:

I don't care about the Windows sounds; I care about the fact that I'm not getting bit-perfect sound with Tidal. There's a significant, IMO, sound quality difference - I can hear it clearly if I compare the same tracks played through Tidal vs. Foobar with WASAPI output: Tidal sounds like crap in comparison.

Click to expand...

I never said you had to care about them. The point I'm making is if you go set that default rate to 16/44.1, you will basically be getting bit-perfect. No resampling is occurring because the default rate will be the same as what Tidal is sending out. That is, in essence, what "bit-perfect" playback actually is...it's making sure your output device is running at the same sampling rate as your source material and that no sample rate conversion occurs. Tidal's source material is 16/44.1, set your default rate on your sound device to that....you will have bit-perfect.

This is how mine is set up right now; default the card to 16/44.1 and the playback is exactly the same as it is from local files using ASIO. Most of my playback of local files doesn't occur in bit-perfect unless I'm playing 24/96 content...but I use a high-quality resampler, so the loss of quality is inaudible.

Thanks for the history lesson and details about Windows sound. I know that changing Foobar to WASAPI or ASIO fromthe old DirectSound made a huge difference for computer audio in sound quality in my system a few years ago when I woke up and smelled the computer audio coffee.

Click to expand...

It's small things that make the most impact; but there's also a lot of garbage out there. Our little issue with the Windows Mixer....that leads a lot of people to just assume "oh, the mixer is bad and it needs to be bypassed at all costs"....it's not, as long as you grasp the concept that damage only happens when doing sample-rate conversion; and as long as you're running your mixer at that rate...then you're removing the only negative impact it can have.

Things were much different years ago, back when Sound Blaster ruled the market and it's internally locked 48khz DSP and lousy hardware sample-rate conversion was what really started this entire mess. I remember if I wanted optimium output from my Audigy 2; I had to bypass the DSP entirely and upconvert all my content to 24/96 with SSRC. I do it on my current DAC for the reason of laziness and it not being able to go from 44.1/48khz to 88.2/96khz functions without me changing settings.

dewdude said:

I never said you had to care about them. The point I'm making is if you go set that default rate to 16/44.1, you will basically be getting bit-perfect. No resampling is occurring because the default rate will be the same as what Tidal is sending out. That is, in essence, what "bit-perfect" playback actually is...it's making sure your output device is running at the same sampling rate as your source material and that no sample rate conversion occurs. Tidal's source material is 16/44.1, set your default rate on your sound device to that....you will have bit-perfect.

This is how mine is set up right now; default the card to 16/44.1 and the playback is exactly the same as it is from local files using ASIO. Most of my playback of local files doesn't occur in bit-perfect unless I'm playing 24/96 content...but I use a high-quality resampler, so the loss of quality is inaudible.

Click to expand...

I would have to disagree. Loss of quality is markedly noticeable in my system between playing Tidal vs. playing WASAPI exclusive mode hard drive files if the sampling rate on the output is identical. I don't resample anything since I found sound quality to suffer, but that's another topic.

And damage to an audio stream can indeed be inflicted by things other than sample-rate conversion in Win7. Ever noticed a difference in quality between ASIO, KS, and WASAPI? Ever optimized latency on a PC and noticed a change in sound? Hear a difference between FLAC and WAV files?

The term "bit-perfect" as you're using it only focuses on whether or not resampling occurs. Shared mode in Win7 routes everything through DSP which re-dithers the source - this "damages" the sound IMO, since it impacts the timing of the digital stream to the DAC. So shared mode is not truly "bit-perfect" - you may say it's near bit-perfect since it's not resampling but it's not bit-perfect. And IME that "small thing" makes a substantial difference in sound quality.

I wish Tidal would simply include an exclusive WASAPI output option in their desktop player. This would preserve the quality of the "hifi" stream they are purporting to deliver. Until they do, I can't justify using their service in my main system at home since it sounds noticeably worse than hard drive file playback.

And damage to an audio stream can indeed be inflicted by things other than sample-rate conversion in Win7.

Click to expand...

I'd like to know where this is; because that goes against everything I've read in the WASAPI documentation. Maybe you've got some OEM sound drivers/software that are doing it without you realizing it.

Ever noticed a difference in quality between ASIO, KS, and WASAPI? Ever optimized latency on a PC and noticed a change in sound?

Click to expand...

Not when the sample rates are configured correctly. I use ASIO; but I hear no difference between ASIO and WASAPI. I never used KS, that was always a gross hack that never worked on my systems.

Latency is a different matter all together and shouldn't count in our discussion on this. The latency can occur either in the card, or in software; but it's effects on quality are an entirely different level of discussion.

Hear a difference between FLAC and WAV files?

Click to expand...

No. Because THERE IS NONE. And if you're going to throw that in to the mix; I'm going to walk away from this thread because claims like that are where I draw the line.

There is no difference between FLAC and WAV files after decompression; NONE. I don't know who came up with that pile of bologna; but that's all it is. If the output wasn't the same that means the math is incorrect; which would mean a LOT of things on a PC shouldn't work.

Shared mode in Win7 routes everything through DSP which re-dithers the source - this "damages" the sound IMO, since it impacts the timing of the digital stream to the DAC.

Click to expand...

It only redithers if you select a 24-bit default format rate and are playing 16-bit content, or vise-versa.

Dithering does not do what you claim it does...the only way you'd have timing issues is if your PC was so underpowered it couldn't dither in real time. But that's not the real problem there....dithering usually doesn't occur in Windows; it just truncates the last few bits from a file.

All we're going to agree on is that Tidal needs exclusive or ASIO output. Other than that....I'm not buying half of what you say unless I had the chance to look at your sound configuration. This is not how the science works; this is not what the documentation is. I'm tired of people making up "excuses" for digital that aren't there.

A lot of people using Mac's have said "I plug it in and it just works and already sounds great".....Core Audio uses a similar shared mode as Windows by default. Just goes to prove how blind you can be to the actual process; they don't know about how Core Audio works...so they assume it's "done right"...it's no better than Windows when it comes to sound.

Sounds great here...much better than Spotify. My only quibble is no gap-less playback.

Urizen said:

Sounds great here...much better than Spotify.

Click to expand...

My first impressions of Tidal were the same....somewhat. Then I started comparing them. Same song, back and forth from Tidal to Spotify. It didn't take long at all to come to the realization that they were so similar in sq that I'd give Tidal the nod....but not by much, not much at all.

I'm not deaf, not yet anyway but to my surprise I'm leaning towards sticking with Spotify. More songs/albums that suit my taste and half the price.

I had high hopes for Tidal....not saying it's bad in any way but I'm surprised at how close the 320 files are to my ears in terms of actual sound quality.:scratch2:

Oh, and another thing I forgot to mention was that recently I made an adjustment in my DEQ2496 that took away the 'bloated' bass that many have commented on with Spotify. A significant cut in the 200 hz range did wonders taking away the bloat and restoring clarity in the overall sound.

I was pretty shocked at the improvement.....had I not of done this I'm certain Tidal would be sounding better by a large margin.

Going to really try to take advantage of the free 30 day trial on TIDAL and try not to come to any hasty conclusions on it. My bias going in was toward TIDAL. I really want it to sound a ton better, blow me away, etc. In what little time I have had to A/B with Spotify, I give a definite edge to TIDAL. All things being equal. But, since I am currently pay nothing for ad supported, play anything at anytime Spotify and TIDAL costs $20, all things ain't equal. Plus, while I'm actually pretty pleasantly surprised by the breadth of TIDAL's selection, Spotify still has more. I am increasingly bothered by the pay model and ripping off of artists. But TIDAL's pay model really isn't drastically different from Spotify's. A little better yes, but not fundamentally different. We'll see at the end of the the 30 days. Hopefully, I will get a chance to really sit and listen this weekend...

I have done some more comparisons using my most unforgiving headphones (Shure SRH940s). While some songs sound nearly identical, I came away feeling that the Tidal songs have a cleaner sound. When comparing Dylan's "it's not dark yet" it is more obvious than on other songs I have tried.

The interesting thing is that when we were comparing the other night, my girlfriend said that the Rdio version was more lively (which she liked). I think that the extra noise actually may be preferable for some people on some music because it makes some tracks sound less sterile.

I am still leaning toward sticking with Rdio because it is barely or not noticeable unless you listen to the same song back to back with a lossless version..and even then, you still may not notice it (it will probably depend on your speakers). I personally don't usually listen to music with a hypercritical ear, so there just isn't enough difference to live with the many trade offs that will affect the way I use the service on a daily basis.

I still have a while before my free month is over, so I could still change my mind, but I doubt it. Rdio just kills Tidal when it comes to features.

Good news. JRiver MC out in Tidal sounds better than playing straight to the DAC through the Windows crappy mixer. I downloaded the JRMC trial last night and ran some comparisons. Definitely more spacious and open sound through the JRMC output. Still not quite as good as hard drive wav files played through Foobar but closer.

If you have a sufficiently resolving system and can trust your ears it may be worth your time to download the JRMC trial and check it out.

uofmtiger said:

I am still leaning toward sticking with Rdio because it is barely or not noticeable unless you listen to the same song back to back with a lossless version..and even then, you still may not notice it (it will probably depend on your speakers). I personally don't usually listen to music with a hypercritical ear, so there just isn't enough difference to live with the many trade offs that will affect the way I use the service on a daily basis.

I still have a while before my free month is over, so I could still change my mind, but I doubt it. Rdio just kills Tidal when it comes to features.

Click to expand...

My thoughts/observations as well.

jmathers said:

Good news. JRiver MC out in Tidal sounds better than playing straight to the DAC through the Windows crappy mixer. I downloaded the JRMC trial last night and ran some comparisons. Definitely more spacious and open sound through the JRMC output. Still not quite as good as hard drive wav files played through Foobar but closer.

If you have a sufficiently resolving system and can trust your ears it may be worth your time to download the JRMC trial and check it out.

Click to expand...

can you list the steps on how to do this. I downloaded JR yesterday but do not know what steps or where to go to make this work

Thanks

Anyone know if there's a way to change 'skins' on a PC? (Tidal)

evan said:

can you list the steps on how to do this. I downloaded JR yesterday but do not know what steps or where to go to make this work

Thanks

Click to expand...

Make sure the JRiver Media Center speakers option is enabled (does not have to be default - you want your USB dac as default) in Playback Devices in Win7. Open JRiver (JRiver has to be running since Tidal routes through JRiver to get the benefit of bypassing Windows audio stack). Open Tidal. In Tidal settings select the Sound Output option for Speakers (JRiver Media Center 20).

Urizen said:

Sounds great here...much better than Spotify. My only quibble is no gap-less playback.

Click to expand...

Aye! This is one area where Spotify is a smidgen ahead of the pack feature wise. They're the only ones I'm aware of that offer this tweak. It's a crude track time based hack as opposed to a seamless db level handoff-- so it borks on some tracks.

Nevertheless....Sure wish my blessid rdio would clean up their wish list and engage at least some form of gapless playback on the desktop and iOS. Fire up your torches!

TIDAL is the real deal

I've been a Spotify subscriber for two years. Today I began my TIDAL trial and I'm quite impressed. I hear a noticeable improvement in sound quality (over Spotify Premium) via the following set-up:

TIDAL App + MacBook Pro Retina ----> 9 to 5 Ultra Toslink Mini Cable ----> Onkyo A-9050 Integrated Amp ----> Infinity RS-5001 Speakers + Yamaha YST-SW005 Powered-Sub

I've also downloaded the mobile app to my phone, which provides access to my playlists, etc., but TIDAL mostly feels like a solution best suited to dedicated audio listening at home. It really does deliver CD quality, IMHO.

So is it worth $240 year? I'll continue to enjoy the free trial, but I'm leaning towards ending my Spotify subscription and switching to TIDAL full-time. The streaming quality is superior, the library is quite large, and the interface is clean.

The only annoyance is the lack of gapless playback. In fact, any manual switch to another track results in a momentary pause (while the next track buffers?). I suppose it's caused by some combination of bandwidth issues and the larger sizes of the lossless files.

Overall, however, the experience is a good one and I'm happy to have access to a massive amount of great music at 1411 kbps.

I definitely prefer Tidal to Spotify. I would switch if those were the only two options. Tidal, for one thing works properly with Bluetooth in my car and Spotify doesn't, so that alone would push me that direction. Also, neither has much in the way of curation or allows me to use the iOS app to control the desktop app. I think they are very similar for my use and I would just go with the best sounding in the situation. Tidal really needs a way to set bit rates independently for wifi and cellular, though.

Also, has anyone figured out why some albums light up the "hifi" icon on tidal and others don't? Are we getting lossless when it doesn't light up?

Something can't be right here. I'm listening through the desktop app and this is what I've come up with since Thursday when I first installed Tidal....

1. When I first installed Tidal, it sounded clearer and more crisp without a doubt. To the point where it may have even sounded thin, like some had mentioned on other forums. I thought "Ok, it's just because I've been listening to so many 320 files...I'll get used to it".

2. Friday....came home with the intention of rolling off the high end on my digital eq because of the way it sounded the day before. Didn't need it. In fact it sounded just like my 320 files.

3. Saturday...Ok, no work today so I'm gonna do some real comparisons with Spotify....Back to back, same songs over and over. They sound almost exactly the same. What's going on here?

4. Sunday....same comparison methods but now I'm in the Tidal 'settings' and I'm comparing 'HiFi'.....'High'....and 'Normal'. They all sound the same!
Only thing different is the HIFI logo is lit up when in the HiFi mode and off when it's not.

I've got very sensitive/efficient speakers that are very revealing and this isn't my first critical listening session, you dig? What could be going wrong here? Could I have something set wrong somewhere? Like I said, the first day the difference in soung quality was obvious.....

but since then I was screwing around in my laptop's sound settings. Is there something I could have done to come to this conclusion? The settings aren't very complicated. I don't have a wooden ear and when I switch to my cd player the difference is obvious as well.:scratch2:

uofmtiger said:

Also, has anyone figured out why some albums light up the "hifi" icon on tidal and others don't? Are we getting lossless when it doesn't light up?

Click to expand...

I hadn't noticed until you mentioned it. :scratch2:

uofmtiger said:

I definitely prefer Tidal to Spotify. I would switch if those were the only two options. Tidal, for one thing works properly with Bluetooth in my car and Spotify doesn't, so that alone would push me that direction. Also, neither has much in the way of curation or allows me to use the iOS app to control the desktop app. I think they are very similar for my use and I would just go with the best sounding in the situation. Tidal really needs a way to set bit rates independently for wifi and cellular, though.

Also, has anyone figured out why some albums light up the "hifi" icon on tidal and others don't? Are we getting lossless when it doesn't light up?

Click to expand...

I venture to say that Tidal's library is not 100% lossless. So that icon may be telling.

dewdude said:

It only redithers if you select a 24-bit default format rate and are playing 16-bit content, or vise-versa.

Dithering does not do what you claim it does...the only way you'd have timing issues is if your PC was so underpowered it couldn't dither in real time. But that's not the real problem there....dithering usually doesn't occur in Windows; it just truncates the last few bits from a file.

Click to expand...

Just to add, if there is ANY change in gain, IE, a Windows volume slider not all the way up, then there will be an increase in word length, and a subsequent re-dithering or truncation.

But if Windows' sound properties are set to the exact sample rate of the source material, and bit depth the same or higher, AND if all "windows mixer" sliders are all the way up (other than devices you want muted), that is probably "close enough" to "Bit-perfect". It's not being resampled, and not being re-dithered, not going thru any mystery DSP.

I use, and have had tremendous success with, foobar2000/wasapi (event), HRT Music Streamer, but also sometimes just use windows system sound when my normal hardware is not available.