[Strangelove424]

Lastly in closing another interesting theory I read recently was that lossless may be less stressful to listen to as with compressed files your brain fills in the gaps that you may not notice. Initially this sounded like a nonsense but it is an intriguing point, music interpolation on the fly?????

I'm more inclined to believe that compression artifacts would cause fatigue due to added content, rather than any missing content. All the audible frequencies are accounted for during compression, nothing goes missing, and the idea that compression leaves "gaps" is a Pono sales line or a myth, depending on how you view the intentions of the people portraying it that way. However, unwanted things do show up in digital artifacts, and that is usually the tell. There seems to be very little evidence that anything higher than 320kbps can be reliably differentiated, and Spotify vs. Tidal proves that I think. However, it could still be argued (though extremely difficult to prove) that digital artifacts could cause fatigue over long periods. Our brains like mathematically organized relationships in sound and frequency. It's that mathematical order that's responsible for things like musical chords. Artifacting can arguably make our brain's interpretation of the mathematical order in a song more difficult, and perhaps lead to long term fatigue or stress. Proving this would be difficult though, and they'd need to find a reliable way to measure fatigue, while also removing other control variables like frequency response imbalances or low quality source material. I can tell you this: if I play the difference files I made at a reasonable volume, they are very unpleasant to listen to and would probably lead to fatigue if I did that for an extended period (like anything more than 3 minutes). The question is, once that -30db noise get overlayed with the content of an actual music signal, and I can't hear it anymore, does it still fatigue me? This issue gets at the heart of the difference between sensation and perception, or what our brains can sense and what we are conscious they can sense. That is an iceberg.

 

[castleofargh]

I'm more inclined to believe that compression artifacts would cause fatigue due to added content, rather than any missing content. All the audible frequencies are accounted for during compression, nothing goes missing, and the idea that compression leaves "gaps" is a Pono sales line or a myth, depending on how you view the intentions of the people portraying it that way. However, unwanted things do show up in digital artifacts, and that is usually the tell. There seems to be very little evidence that anything higher than 320kbps can be reliably differentiated, and Spotify vs. Tidal proves that I think. However, it could still be argued (though extremely difficult to prove) that digital artifacts could cause fatigue over long periods. Our brains like mathematically organized relationships in sound and frequency. It's that mathematical order that's responsible for things like musical chords. Artifacting can arguably make our brain's interpretation of the mathematical order in a song more difficult, and perhaps lead to long term fatigue or stress. Proving this would be difficult though, and they'd need to find a reliable way to measure fatigue, while also removing other control variables like frequency response imbalances or low quality source material. I can tell you this: if I play the difference files I made at a reasonable volume, they are very unpleasant to listen to and would probably lead to fatigue if I did that for an extended period (like anything more than 3 minutes). The question is, once that -30db noise get overlayed with the content of an actual music signal, and I can't hear it anymore, does it still fatigue me? This issue gets at the heart of the difference between sensation and perception, or what our brains can sense and what we are conscious they can sense. That is an iceberg.

the famous fatigue caused by really quiet sounds. ^_^ an almost homeopathic approach to sound waves.

 

[blackrain139]

I've always preferred Spotify's UI and music recommendations but I signed up for Tidal as well primary because of lossless playback.

If Spotify does offer lossless in future, I would cancel Tidal in a heartbeat.

 

[King CATalyst]

i actually did an A/B of spotify vs tidal and found that tidal seemed to have more body and somehow more soundstage, so i decided to stick with tidal. Side note though i have found that tidal DOES NOT sound bettter when streamed through jriver and its very glitchy with lots of delay.

 

[Tim Le]

i actually did an A/B of spotify vs tidal and found that tidal seemed to have more body and somehow more soundstage, so i decided to stick with tidal. Side note though i have found that tidal DOES NOT sound bettter when streamed through jriver and its very glitchy with lots of delay.

I've A/B'd between spotify and tidal, and I also notice the differences you mentioned. The very first thing I noticed for all of my EDM tracks is that the bass reaches deeper (more rumble) and hits harder in Tidal. However, because I've been a user of Spotify for so long and have a bunch of playlists on Spotify, I got suckered and currently have a subscription for both. On one of my days off this week though, I plan to convert all of my Spotify playlists to Tidal playlists. I will say, Spotify seems to have a wider selection of music, but this may change in the future

 

[bigshot]

Your descriptions sound like it might be a slight volume level difference between the two.

 

[King CATalyst]

I've A/B'd between spotify and tidal, and I also notice the differences you mentioned. The very first thing I noticed for all of my EDM tracks is that the bass reaches deeper (more rumble) and hits harder in Tidal. However, because I've been a user of Spotify for so long and have a bunch of playlists on Spotify, I got suckered and currently have a subscription for both. On one of my days off this week though, I plan to convert all of my Spotify playlists to Tidal playlists. I will say, Spotify seems to have a wider selection of music, but this may change in the future

I was previously a napster/rhapsody subscriber for years but decided to either switch to spotify or tidal and although i feel spotify is better in most ways it just simply didnt sound as good as tidal my ears. if spotify would go lossless or maybe just refine their sound quality somehow i would switch back in a heart beat.

 

[krismusic]

Your descriptions sound like it might be a slight volume level difference between the two.

I make you right on that bigshot. I initially thought that there was a worthwhile difference between the two and was very excited. Once I realised that Tidal plays slightly louder than Spotify, even crude volume matching makes them indistinguishable to me.

 

[neil74]

After my post on the last page I did cancel Tidal but a few months on I am thinking of going back. Mainly the sound quality for me on Spotify is just too inconsistent, I do listen to a lot of playlists so with songs from different albums and artists it is really obvious even to my non-expert ears. It is not even old stuff either, compared Coldplay adventure of a lifetime this week and it sounded terrible on spotify vs apple music and even amazon unlimited too. Apple Music though continues to be a glitchy mess on Android, I just canot use it.

Actually thinking that Tidal premium with it's 320 kbps AACs may be a good compromise as AAC is generally regarded as being better than mp3. Thinking it through. I also really like how Tidal handles the saving of albums, with both spotify and apple music my albums view is pretty useless as each playlist also adds the asscociated album so I end up with lots and lots of albums with just 1 or 2 songs

 

[trellus]

I would also like to point out the obvious: Spotify is ten times greater as to point you to potential new music to listen to. For ordinary people, with ordinary gear, I would point them to Spotify for that reason alone. Compared to Spotify, the Tidal App is lacking on all fronts but SQ. I actually used Spotify to find new music, then added that to my Tidal playlist, just prior to writing this.

That’s precisely what I do often, spot on that Spotify is so much better at pointing me to new music. I love the Discovery and Daily mixes that it autogenerates.

 

[Niouke]

Actually thinking that Tidal premium with it's 320 kbps AACs may be a good compromise as AAC is generally regarded as being better than mp3. Thinking it through. I also really like how Tidal handles the saving of albums, with both spotify and apple music my albums view is pretty useless as each playlist also adds the asscociated album so I end up with lots and lots of albums with just 1 or 2 songs

just so you know Spotify is not mp3, it's Vorbis, which is arguably better. Comparing streaming service's sound quality is a tricky business, besides the loudness issues, they often use different masters...

I find that the best benchmark for compression are the cymbals, at lower bitrates the artefacts are easily noticeable with a revealing equipment (balanced armatures come to mind), although compression can lead to similar effects.

I have my doubts on a specific album on spotify, even in premium I'd bet it's only in 160kbps. The album is Paradise & Saints from Thee S.T.P

.

 

[neil74]

Yeah, I know that spotify is Vorbis, as I understand it vorbis is maybe slightly better than mp3 but not as good as AAC?

 

[FinHifi]

I have both installed currently, I really can't tell Spotify And Tidal apart, when volume matched. Using Stealth and Elite. I'm in my 30.

 

[BS5711]

I have both installed currently, I really can't tell Spotify And Tidal apart, when volume matched. Using Stealth and Elite. I'm in my 30.

I haven’t done detailed comparisons and I use Tidal and Apple Music CD and Hi Res because I like the UI of Tidal and I get Apple Music for free.

But comparing either of the above versus Spotify on a friend’s phone we couldn’t tell the difference between highest quality MP3 and even 24/192 high res and even at a casual listen MP3 over AAC and LDAC sounded the same as wired 24/192.

People absolutely insist they can hear benefits with hi res versus CD quality which I am certain is all in their heads.

I think what is amazing is not how good hi res music sounds but how good lossy music is and how good when the file is so much smaller and such a relatively high quantity of information is missing yet we can’t easily distinguish between them.

 

[bigshot]

The people who hear differences in everything are the people who don’t do careful listening tests.