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

[limpidglitch]

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.

 
I understand you're comparing the services, and that makes sense. They look different, are based on different libraries, work on different platforms, and just simply work differently. Of course all that matters when choosing which to go with.
It's just that the second you start talking about differences in sound quality we expect a bit more rigour, like blinding and level matching. With things like that left unchecked your (or anyone else's) impressions aren't all that interesting, I'm afraid. 
 
Imagine a computer magazine comparing different CPUs by how one 'feels' quicker than the other, no benchmarking involved. How serious would you take their results?

 

[miandnan]

Sound is subjective, I simply gave my impressions, not a comprehensive review of the services or details on measured sq differences LOL (not claiming to be a magazine) though yes we could feel lag in games or frame time varience long before there were good tests to objectively measure such things.Feel is the end all in such situations actually and in audio as well as a listener (non industry person).

More data including n=1 is useful, not to all people in all situations for example yours and this thread. But I am choosing between those services and don't want to doubley cost so others who are not willing to subscribe to both and test and have detailed iem/cans might find what my ears hear useful.

Again I know its not the point of this thread.
You and I simply have differing frameworks for judging tidal.

I find yours very useful in a greater context of SQ, value and "company values/ethics" . I also find great value in objective measurements if someone else takes the time and $$$ to invest in the sampling equipment and testing

Edit:
Will do some more AB today open to suggestions ... If I post my observations will be on other thread

 

[Head Injury]

Will do some more AB today open to suggestions ... If I post my observations will be on other thread

Why don't you do some ABX tests between 320 kbps and lossless instead?

 

[chadbang]

I took this test. In my book a smooth, refined treble equates with "high fidelity." Consequently, I failed their test miserably as I could hear the treble boost on most of the "hi-rez" tracks. I guess I was supposed to pick those as "high fidelity," I chose the opposite. The compressed tracks were more pleasant to my ear without the elevated treble.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Technically, the treble and bass were "weakened" with the lossy formats as has been demonstrated earlier in this thread with the frequency response graph.  The treble was not boosted.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/743658/tidal-lossless-listening-test-whats-going-on-here/15#post_11077298

 

[stv014]

  Technically, the treble and bass were "weakened" with the lossy formats as has been demonstrated earlier in this thread with the frequency response graph.  The treble was not boosted.

 
Actually, without having access to the original samples (for example, if someone has the exact same tracks in a lossless format), there is no clear evidence which method was used. It just makes more sense to process the lossy version, and keep the lossless file unchanged. Also, the Killers and Daft Punk samples seem to be dynamically compressed with many possibly clipped samples. At least that does suggest that the lossless samples were not processed (because after the EQ the peaks would no longer be perfectly "flattened"), but it is also not impossible that they were just clipped after the EQ, rather than normalized with a lower gain to avoid clipping.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Thanks for the clarification.  I was merely making an assumption based on what I could see in your graphs and the claims made by Tidal about how the AAC files would sound compared to the FLAC verisons.  What has me concerned in the movement to market and sell "higher quality" music is if the files are purposefully degraded to achieve the results they are claiming.  If the major music labels create and distribute degraded versions of files that would otherwise be audibly transparent, only to try and force people to purchase more expensive options (Tidal or PONO and others to follow, I'm sure), it would be a huge step in the wrong direction.
 
I'm in musical bliss now with Google Play.  I have access to millions of songs that I can take with me practically everywhere I want to be.
 
I can hear a difference between the files in the Tidal test, and I can't be certain if these differences are only with the test files or if Tidal is improperly encoding to AAC 320, intentionally or otherwise, throughout their entire library of music. I know that I can take the same song in one of their comparison tests that I have on CD, rip it to FLAC and Lame mp3 or AAC 256, and I can't successfully pass an ABX test.  So, I know these can and should be audibly transparent.  
 
Tidal can't be trusted.  Even if I don't hear any difference between FLAC and AAC 320 in all of the personal testing I have conducted, they are streaming FLAC, and I can understand the justification for charging more money for a subscription due to the increased data transport costs; but that wonky test they provide makes me think they are either dishonest or incompetent, and they won't be getting any of my money.

 

[bigshot]

   If the major music labels create and distribute degraded versions of files that would otherwise be audibly transparent, only to try and force people to purchase more expensive options (Tidal or PONO and others to follow, I'm sure), it would be a huge step in the wrong direction.

 
Ask any rock music fan who's been around for a few decades how many copies of Dark Side of the Moon they've bought over the years in various formats. Deliberate hobbling of sound quality and making old formats obsolete is a very good marketing strategy.
 
If you are interested, I have put together nine sound samples that have been encoded in Fraunhofer MP3, LAME MP3 and AAC at 192, 256 and 320, along with the lossless original. It's a blind listening test where you listen and decide which samples are which and when you have finished, I will tell you how you did. I've shared this with dozens of folks on audiophile forums so far, and the only sample that people seem to be able to identify is Fraunhofer 192. The rest of the samples all sound the same. PM me if you would like to try it.

 

[limpidglitch]

   
Ask any rock music fan who's been around for a few decades how many copies of Dark Side of the Moon they've bought over the years in various formats. Deliberate hobbling of sound quality and making old formats obsolete is a very good marketing strategy.
 
If you are interested, I have put together nine sound samples that have been encoded in Fraunhofer MP3, LAME MP3 and AAC at 192, 256 and 320, along with the lossless original. It's a blind listening test where you listen and decide which samples are which and when you have finished, I will tell you how you did. I've shared this with dozens of folks on audiophile forums so far, and the only sample that people seem to be able to identify is Fraunhofer 192. The rest of the samples all sound the same. PM me if you would like to try it.

 
Planned obsolescence?
 
He doesn't seem to have a problem with lossy compression, rather lossy compression handled by Tidal and their ilk. And while it seems a little paranoid and conspiratorial, it doesn't seem completely out of whack, but I doubt it's particularly widespread if it exists.
For it to work you'd have to let the customer try out each version. Some places let you do this, some don't. From the general conversations (including about Tidal) the implied audible quality of lossless seems to be a sufficient driving force to buy the more costly option. Few seem to have compared sound quality at all, they just assume that's the way it is.

 

[Tiemen]

I did the test here: http://test.tidalhifi.com/
Got three out of five correct.
With the Killers I really couldn't hear any difference.
James Blake was a sonical torture so I didn't bother.
With the other three the differences were quite clear to me, but not enough to pay 20,- Euro each month.

 

[peanuthead]

...

 

[jonstatt]

  I did the test here: http://test.tidalhifi.com/
Got three out of five correct.
With the Killers I really couldn't hear any difference.
James Blake was a sonical torture so I didn't bother.
With the other three the differences were quite clear to me, but not enough to pay 20,- Euro each month.

 
I ran the test from a Sony ZX2 walkman with AKG 3003 IEMs and got 4 out 5. To do this I had to install Firefox on the ZX2 and of course it doesn't tell you which one you got right or wrong and I deliberately didn't note down what I had chosen.
 
I then ran the test again a few days later with the ZX2 fed into a separate Sony PHA-3 amplifier so that I could use my Audeze LCD-3. I then only got 3 out of 5. I went straight back to the AKG and got 4 out of 5 again. The lower score with the Audeze may not be too much of a surprise as it has a stronger treble roll-off than the AKGs.
 
I am really curious which one track I am persistently getting wrong, but if they have tweaked the EQ then it is more likely I "prefer" the tweak in one of them rather than being able to tell lossless from lossy.
 
In my own auditioning of Spotify vs Tidal actual service, with some tracks there was little to no difference in it, but in others the difference was marked and I preferred Tidal by quite a margin. Not sure its enough to make me pay a double the cost monthly charge though!

 

[Tiemen]

   
   
I am really curious which one track I am persistently getting wrong, but if they have tweaked the EQ then it is more likely I "prefer" the tweak in one of them rather than being able to tell lossless from lossy.
 

 
At the end of the test they let you know which one is correct en which one is not. The latter has a 'x'.

 

[jonstatt]

   
At the end of the test they let you know which one is correct en which one is not. The latter has a 'x'.

 
Maybe you need a desktop browser for it....on the mobile Firefox version which is the only one that works on the Android device, it doesn't seem to show individual song results.

 

[Tiemen]

   
Maybe you need a desktop browser for it....on the mobile Firefox version which is the only one that works on the Android device, it doesn't seem to show individual song results.

 
Ah. Yes, I use a desktop PC.