[waynes world]

Exactly. It would just unnecessarily complicate things and would just lead to confusion from prospective subscribers. I think it's a great value to get any album I could desire in FLAC quality, but mainly because music is important to me and I used to spend $30-40 on music a month anyway. Now I spend $20 and can listen to anything I want not just what I own.

Although tidal's lossless could very well be worth $20/month, for me it's still too much. Maybe that will change for me with time. But if they charged $10/month, I'd be in in a heartbeat and they would take over the world!

 

[goldendarko]

Although tidal's lossless could very well be worth $20/month, for me it's still too much. Maybe that will change for me with time. But if they charged $10/month, I'd be in in a heartbeat and they would take over the world!

Yeah, I would certainly be cool with it being priced lower too, in fact I think $12-15 would be perfect. With Spotify, Apple Music & Others being $10/month I don't see them matching that as they have the premium "CD Quality" factor going for them, but I also think $20/month is a bit high considering it's twice the cost of Spotify.
 
But until someone else offers CD Quality streaming, it's still worth $20 to me. Hopefully we will see some competition eventually, I actually preferred Spotify's user interface but ulitmately I can't stand listening to lossy streams on my high end setup. 

 

[TheTrap]

Imagine the complications involved. Half the people would say hey, why is A in my metal genre, they're stoner rock and don't belong. And the other half would complain that baroque composer were missing from romantic/classical genre.

 
That's true, what about an alternative of paying for X amount of songs added to your library? You could trial the music but for say, blocks in $2, you could get 50 albums every $2 or something along the lines added permanently into your library. I honestly don't have that many songs I listen to so I assume I am in the minority.

Exactly. It would just unnecessarily complicate things and would just lead to confusion from prospective subscribers. I think it's a great value to get any album I could desire in FLAC quality, but mainly because music is important to me and I used to spend $30-40 on music a month anyway. Now I spend $20 and can listen to anything I want not just what I own.

If TIDAL adds hi-res streaming too as some have speculated, and keeps the price the same, that would only increase the value factor too.

 
I guess it's not that great for people that are spending less than $20 average per month. For my case I spend only $40-50 average per year.

 

[TheTrap]

  Yeah, I would certainly be cool with it being priced lower too, in fact I think $12-15 would be perfect. With Spotify, Apple Music & Others being $10/month I don't see them matching that as they have the premium "CD Quality" factor going for them, but I also think $20/month is a bit high considering it's twice the cost of Spotify.
 
But until someone else offers CD Quality streaming, it's still worth $20 to me. Hopefully we will see some competition eventually, I actually preferred Spotify's user interface but ulitmately I can't stand listening to lossy streams on my high end setup. 

 
To side track a little, what DAC were you using before the Yggdrasil if you don't mind me asking? Care to share your thoughts if you have not already done so somewhere else on the forum?

 

[goldendarko]

   
To side track a little, what DAC were you using before the Yggdrasil if you don't mind me asking? Care to share your thoughts if you have not already done so somewhere else on the forum?

I've had a few, my current desktop amp is Oppo HA-1 which has a built-in DAC, and my previous hi-fi setup I was using the Auralic VEGA DAC, which was also a great DAC, but I actually prefer the Yggy and it was over a Grand less too.
 
As far as differences, I hate trying to describe sound differences because putting it into words can be difficult, but if anything I would say the Yggy has more of an "analog" sound if that's something you'd prefer. The VEGA had more "attack" but it seems to have a smaller soundstage and more of a digital sound to it. It could be more compelling in short bursts but for extended listening sessions I definately prefer the Yggy.

 

[swannie007]

At the moment I have Apple music as well as Tidal and enjoy both immensely. I prefer the UI of Apple music but it may just be because I am familiar with it and not so familiar with the Tidal UI. I have discovered a bunch of new artists with these services and I think streaming is great!
Where was this stuff 20 years ago, I could have saved a fortune!
Happy camper here and would be pleased with the status quo as far as quality and features goes, but time does not stand still and technology marches forward, and with it our expectations. I think this stuff is awesome! Cheers from Oz.

 

[goldendarko]

  Where was this stuff 20 years ago, I could have saved a fortune!

No kidding! I was thinking the same thing the other day, I've got over 1000 CD's, which at an average of about $15 per CD I've probably spent $15,000 of just CD's alone (not including hi-res downloads, vinyl, SACD, etc.)
 
At $20/month, it would take me 750 months or 62 and a half years of streaming to equal what I've already spent on CD's, and that's just what I've spent in about 15 years! Better late than never I guess.

 

[swannie007]

  No kidding! I was thinking the same thing the other day, I've got over 1000 CD's, which at an average of about $15 per CD I've probably spent $15,000 of just CD's alone (not including hi-res downloads, vinyl, SACD, etc.)
 
At $20/month, it would take me 750 months or 62 and a half years of streaming to equal what I've already spent on CD's, and that's just what I've spent in about 15 years! Better late than never I guess.

Yep, better late than never. Technology is awesome(for the most part). Hate fussy UI's though, most software programmers/writers seem to think we are all bloody computer gurus. Aside from that, I love modern music "systems".

 

[TheTrap]

  No kidding! I was thinking the same thing the other day, I've got over 1000 CD's, which at an average of about $15 per CD I've probably spent $15,000 of just CD's alone (not including hi-res downloads, vinyl, SACD, etc.)
 
At $20/month, it would take me 750 months or 62 and a half years of streaming to equal what I've already spent on CD's, and that's just what I've spent in about 15 years! Better late than never I guess.

 
I'm sure Tidal works out amazing if you are already spending tons on music CDs every month
 
I just wish they would charge lesser for people who don't really listen to all that many songs...

 

[goldendarko]

   
I'm sure Tidal works out amazing if you are already spending tons on music CDs every month
 
I just wish they would charge lesser for people who don't really listen to all that many songs...

Yeah it's the same thing with cable TV, why do I need to pay $200/month when all I'm watching are sports.

 

[Sonic Defender]

I think people who complain about $10 or $20 per month are really not taking the whole situation into account, sorry, not trying to be inflammatory or rude. My best guess is quite a few people in that camp (not meaning anybody in particular or recent posters) have become used to not having to pay for music and think it is their right to have as much music as they want for almost nothing. I have been buying music since the 80s and have spent thousands of dollars on music, thousands. A service like this is a steal, and absolute god send. I have saved so much money and had such amazing access to a MASSIVE collection of music I could never have afforded before. Try this, don't try to get music for free, and don't pay for a streaming service. Try buying your music for a year and see how much you missed out on or how much you spent to have access to what you liked. Or, of course you can always use free services, which I understand for some are fine, whatever the compromises are.
 
But to complain about having unfettered access to such an array of music, on multiple devices, including offline on your phone for about the cost of two McDonald's value meals is a little odd. Seriously, this is the musical equivalent of having access to every video game, productivity software package, OS for one low price. All this music is made by people, not that many are the filthy rich artists we see in the tabloids. There are many people who rely on the money that comes from people who pay for their music, not unlike those who make money for software, or what ever it is any of us do for a living. I know I'm being a bit of a preachy ****** here and I am sorry about that, really I am, but how people don't see the value they get for such a tiny sum of money is really hard to understand.

 

[Wildcatsare1]

, preaching with the choir, but Tidal is an incredible bargin, a fantastic tool for reviewing. I am able to check out recomendations without buying the CD or album, only to find out I don't care for it.

 

[yay101]

For me personally they were missing a lot of music, whether I be whole artists or just important albums AND their api's had not been pulled apart and used for devices I actually have. I plan on trying it again one day.

 

[johangrb]

Although tidal's lossless could very well be worth $20/month, for me it's still too much. Maybe that will change for me with time. But if they charged $10/month, I'd be in in a heartbeat and they would take over the world!

You can always go with Tidal Premium ($10/month) at 320 kbps.

 

[Sonic Defender]

  You can always go with Tidal Premium ($10/month) at 320 kbps.

And I'm not sure you would hear a difference. At first I paid for the $20 service, but after trying the $10 service I just couldn't hear a difference no matter how hard I tried. Now that is just me and I have no way of knowing if that will be the experience of others. Either way, even $20 is reasonable in my mind.