Tidal lossless listening test, what's going on here?

[stv014]

  Just for the heck of it, and a bit as an excuse to sharpen my R-chops, I did a little analysis myself.
I did not make difference files, but rather captured the frequency response of three files: the lossless version, Tidal's lossy version, and a lossy version I made myself from the supplied lossless file. I then subtracted and compared these spectrums, giving this result:

 
It seems to match my graph from post #20, except I used some octave band smoothing to remove the high frequency noise.

 

[limpidglitch]

   
It seems to match my graph from post #20, except I used some octave band smoothing to remove the high frequency noise.

 
Yup.
I just wanted to see if I could replicate it using a slightly different method (I also used the Blake sample).
 
If anyone want to give the same treatment to the other samples, it could be done by only slightly modifying the code I included in the link up there.

 

[stv014]

  I just wanted to see if I could replicate it using a slightly different method

 
Actually, I also used a frequency response difference method, or, more precisely, a small program I wrote that calculates (from large FFTs of the entire files) the impulse response that is needed to convolve the first file with to get the second file. The lossy compression makes the extracted response noisy, so I used smoothing on the graph to make the average EQ curve easier to see.

 

[ajreynol]

I'm glad you guys can hear a difference.  I certainly can't with any of my equipment and I tried.  Either my ears suck or they've updated their files to not be so questionable.  

 

[RRod]

  Just for the heck of it, and a bit as an excuse to sharpen my R-chops, I did a little analysis myself.
I did not make difference files, but rather captured the frequency response of three files: the lossless version, Tidal's lossy version, and a lossy version I made myself from the supplied lossless file. I then subtracted and compared these spectrums, giving this result:
 

 
Stuff. (no audio files, seems to have erased those)

 
 

   
It seems to match my graph from post #20, except I used some octave band smoothing to remove the high frequency noise.

 
Wow that's some skeezy stuff right there. Thanks to you guys for making these comparisons.

 

[miandnan]

Though not totally related Tidal HIFI was notcably better than Spotify at extreme quality.

My wife and I both had zero issues hearing the better detail, dynamic range etc... Spotify was similarly better than Rhapsody at its highest quality setting... Though not related to this test, it was an important comparison as competing streaming services.

We used a note 3 to fiio e18 to a rendition 1 amp to 8.A, 6.A and V6stage.

I was not blind in testing but my wife had no idea which was which and I changed the order often, she picked it out every time and very quickly to boot.

We tried a range of songs ... Though on tracks on tidal that did not have the HIFI option spotify was noticeably better.

If too off topic I can remove post

 

[sonitus mirus]

Though not totally related Tidal HIFI was notcably better than Spotify at extreme quality.

My wife and I both had zero issues hearing the better detail, dynamic range etc... Spotify was similarly better than Rhapsody at its highest quality setting... Though not related to this test, it was an important comparison as competing streaming services.

We used a note 3 to fiio e18 to a rendition 1 amp to 8.A, 6.A and V6stage.

I was not blind in testing but my wife had no idea which was which and I changed the order often, she picked it out every time and very quickly to boot.

We tried a range of songs ... Though on tracks on tidal that did not have the HIFI option spotify was noticeably better.

If too off topic I can remove post

 
How did you manage volume matching?  If you were just switching from one to the other, it could be that the Tidal versions were slightly louder, creating the perception that these files sounded better.  I'm not too familiar with the Vorbis codec with regards to volume level or the method that Spotify uses to build their library, but chances are that the volume is slightly lower than a FLAC made from the same source.

 

[miandnan]

   
How did you manage volume matching?  If you were just switching from one to the other, it could be that the Tidal versions were slightly louder, creating the perception that these files sounded better.  I'm not too familiar with the Vorbis codec with regards to volume level or the method that Spotify uses to build their library, but chances are that the volume is slightly lower than a FLAC made from the same source.

Tidal did feel louder, but when we for example raised the volume on Spotify it was just lowder mushy mud.
 
The characteristic differences remained regardless of volume.
 
So the bass was more defined, full and pronounced , the treble was NOTICALLY more extended and voices more clear like a veil was removed so of course I thought maybe volume miss matches between programs, so I raised the volume on Spotify and it got louder but no change to characteristics, the dynamics, clarity and extention were all still missing there was louder mush. Lowering the volume on Tidal just lowered the volume not the quality.
 
If you notice details and your equipment can pick up the resolution there is zero comparison , none, not even close. As long as Tidal has the hifi version, tracks without were utter crap on tidal and were far better on spotify.

 

[sonitus mirus]

It seems odd to have such noticeable differences.  Personally, I have not been able to identify any audible difference between FLAC and AAC 320.  The Tidal FLAC files should sound identical to their AAC 320 versions.  To have Spotify's "extreme quality" sound worse than FLAC but better than AAC 320 seems very odd.  These formats should all sound identical to the CD version.  Any differences should be quite rare and extremely difficult for almost anyone to hear.

 

[miandnan]

well I notice the difference between flac and 320kb stuff as at home as well.
 
Just sharing the experience my wife and I both had. To be clear I notice details very well as does my wife, I notice pixels on screens for phones, games and movies (4k is not enough depending on distance and resolution for me even when many find 720p - 1080p to be minimal, textures in games, and of course changes in audio and my wife has a golden musical ear and can sing, play a song she hears a single time even in a foreign language (if not too hard to pronounce LOL) she and I came to the same conclusions and made sure not to hint to eachother what they were till listening was finished.  (I am picky) and our headphones are great at deltails, I can try on my AD700's if I feel up to it it is possible lower resolution cans might fair differently.
 
Besides the relevancy here has nothing to do with flac vs AAC, it is one streaming service vs another .... both spotify and rhapsody should be the same 320hm at max quality settings and there was a difference in spotifies favor and tidal was better that spotify though by a smaller margin (still noticeable)...
 
Simple ears are different, brains, equipment ... make the comparison you want ... a buddy of mine last night tested Pandora vs Tidal and was blown away, for me it was Rhapsody vs Spotify then the winner of that went against Tidal as I stream ... if you are comparing your own mp3 etc files to Tidal that is fine if you are deciding between the two of those ...
 
Get a trial to each or just pay for a month to each service you are interested in, make a playlist of different types of songs you want to listen to and compare , if a great enough difference go with Tidal and if not Spotify (or service of choosing). 
 
I am not here to debate who can and can not pick up differences and whether they are minute or not, just that I am reporting 2 people with very noticeable differences, and of course YMMV
 
 
EDIT:
To decribe the differences in general:
 
Tidal had more air and ease in treble in comparison spotify felt rolled off, cymbals, female vocals and sense of air around instruments and in space
Adjusting volume did not affect the relative differences.
 
Bass had more detail , my 8.A's can really tell the difference more dynamic lows more defined (fealt like more information)
 
Mids and in general felt like more resolution (voices)
 
Tidal was over all more comfortable to listen to and also felt clearer in comparison Spotify felt muddy or veiled.
Tidal also felt somehow louder  I assumed that is why it felt more clear and dynamic, but in raising the volume on spotify it was the same sound as before just louder , no more dynamic or clear.
 
At this point I am sold on the SQ of Tidal but wish they had more selection and as I mentioned some songs did not have hifi and were bloated and undefined compared to spotify, so I may have to give Tidal some time to fill out its offerings or not as I like quality LOL

 

[bigshot]

Try AAC at 256 VBR or above. You won't hear a difference any more. MP3 is old technology. MP4 is MUCH better.

 

[limpidglitch]

 
EDIT:
To decribe the differences in general:
 
Tidal had more air and ease in treble in comparison spotify felt rolled off, cymbals, female vocals and sense of air around instruments and in space
Adjusting volume did not affect the relative differences.
 
Bass had more detail , my 8.A's can really tell the difference more dynamic lows more defined (fealt like more information)
 
Mids and in general felt like more resolution (voices)
 
Tidal was over all more comfortable to listen to and also felt clearer in comparison Spotify felt muddy or veiled.
Tidal also felt somehow louder  I assumed that is why it felt more clear and dynamic, but in raising the volume on spotify it was the same sound as before just louder , no more dynamic or clear.
 
At this point I am sold on the SQ of Tidal but wish they had more selection and as I mentioned some songs did not have hifi and were bloated and undefined compared to spotify, so I may have to give Tidal some time to fill out its offerings or not as I like quality LOL

 
You might for all I know actually hear these differences, but if you are it's not the difference between lossy and lossless. Something else is at play.

 

[miandnan]

O have heard a difference in the past, not a large one but a diff none the less between lossless and AAC 320 ...

In this case again I was comparing two services, Tidal when not HIFI (have no idea what those tracks default to was noticeably worse than spotify, just calling it how it's heard.

BTW the difference is detail , and though that could be lossless and my vet it is, and I know this thread seems to be focused on that so I will head out now, my tangent post was (comparing services )


You silly guys do sound like those 720p and 1080p look the same all while I see 4k diff, or 30fps is fine while I see 120-144 diff LOL


Edit:

Was just sharing info at a data point.
Hope some find it useful, if not let me know i can take it down if it does not fit the threads focus.

Just noticed the main tidal thread I probably should have posted there, will probably move the post there, cheers.

 

[castleofargh]

You silly guys do sound like those 720p and 1080p look the same all while I see 4k diff, or 30fps is fine while I see 120-144 diff LOL
 

using 720 to 1080p or the fps on the screen as an analogy for lossy format is the silly part here. what could be the relation between screen resolution and music compression? same with FPS. maybe if you had tried talking about a video compression format it might have made sense? BTW how often do you check the sound format on your favorite videos?^_^
 
 
 
 
 I should have nothing against tidal in particular as I don't use any streaming service, so I couldn't tell much about them. but they opened their new name's business with a fake lossy vs lossless test, and to me it says a great deal about customer respect. maybe the service is cool and that was just some disrespectful marketing guy who tried to be slick with the lossy vs lossless game(I hope he's fired)? IDK but what's done is done and I'll remember the name as a cheating one now.

 

[miandnan]

I agree from what I have read about the test I am not liking what they seem to have done!

My post would have been better in the other thread but did not know but exhisted till this morning. Have they given any statements regarding the test?



As for resolution makes total sense for,games and movies, not in comparison to the lossless vs lossy but in respect to how many people argue the difference is not apperent between different resolutions (often argued in PC enthusiast circles), I did not clarify which I meant.

Edit: I have not listened to their test so I will refrain from commenting unless I do, I will make my posts in other thread if I post further

Cheers guys !