[imeem]

i'm surprised that I got 3/5. When i did my own testing wiht my music, i can't pick out the difference between loseless and 320 kbps and loseless and 192 kbps. 

 

[castleofargh]

  i'm surprised that I got 3/5. When i did my own testing wiht my music, i can't pick out the difference between loseless and 320 kbps and loseless and 192 kbps. 

because the tidal test is a scam. funny how most successful stuff nowadays succeed by taking people for idiots. maybe they're onto something about us ^_^.

 

[imeem]

 
because the tidal test is a scam. funny how most successful stuff nowadays succeed by taking people for idiots. maybe they're onto something about us ^_^.

 
yea maybe. I tried doing a ABX test with foosbar with my own copy of Daft Punk's Give Life Back To Music (flac vs. acc 320 kbps) and I only got 4/10 correct lol. Though, i might still use Tidal if i'm able to get the trial without giving my credit card just for the sake of it . 

 

[bigshot]

Is a free scam better than a scam that charges you money? I'll have to think about that...

 

[limpidglitch]

  Is a free scam better than a scam that charges you money? I'll have to think about that...

 
TANSTAFL

Is there such a thing as a "free scam"?

 

[bigshot]

Is it worth it to scam the scammers and get snake oil for free? At least you wouldn't be getting what you didn't pay for that way!

 

[peterinvan]

I did not do well on the Tidal test... Mostly random results.

However, after re-ripping my entire CD collection to FLAC, I can appreciate a significant improvement in SQ on most albums (compared to the 320kbs MP3 rips). It is much more difficult for me to discern a difference between CD quality and higher rate downloads.

I am happy streaming CD quality Classical and Jazz to my expensive DAC and headphones. At $20 a month it's a lot cheaper than downloading from HDTracks or other high quality sites.

Tidal is competing on sound quality for the audiophile market, as well as exclusive content and curated playlists for the younger demographic. The audiophile community is a relatively small market. How many listeners will pay $300 and up for good headphones? The move to offer two tiered pricing makes sense from this point of view.

 

[sonitus mirus]

I did not do well on the Tidal test... Mostly random results.

However, after re-ripping my entire CD collection to FLAC, I can appreciate a significant improvement in SQ on most albums (compared to the 320kbs MP3 rips). It is much more difficult for me to discern a difference between CD quality and higher rate downloads.

I am happy streaming CD quality Classical and Jazz to my expensive DAC and headphones. At $20 a month it's a lot cheaper than downloading from HDTracks or other high quality sites.

Tidal is competing on sound quality for the audiophile market, as well as exclusive content and curated playlists for the younger demographic. The audiophile community is a relatively small market. How many listeners will pay $300 and up for good headphones? The move to offer two tiered pricing makes sense from this point of view.

 
I think the Tidal service is a total crock, and I believe they know it or else they would not have intentionally degraded their own AAC 320 files in the test.  AAC 320 should be audibly transparent from a CD or any lossless format.  The AAC 320 files in the test have slightly weaker bass and treble values, enough to be audible even to my middle-aged ears, and they even tell the listener to expect to hear a weaker bass and treble with the lossy version of the files.  Too ridiculous for me to take seriously.  Their cheaper $9.99 (US) service would be great, if only I could trust that these lossy files were not gimped like their test files.
 
I can very easily pass the Tidal listening test every single time with 100% accuracy using the same equipment that I am unable to pass an ABX between my own FLAC and Lame MP3 -V0 rips from a CD.  An AAC file uses a superior codec to MP3 (MPEG-2, layer 3), and there is no good reason for the bass and treble to be quieter in relation to the rest of the frequencies.  That is, unless a business model depends on some difference to create value where none should otherwise exist.

 

[gmKevinHNgu]

This is a late post in the thread. However, I'm unsure if everyone here has come to a general consensus whether Spotify 320kbps or Tidal 320kbps is better. I'm leaning on the side that Spotify 320kbps is better than Tidal 320kbps (from the post in this thread).

 

[limpidglitch]

I don't see why the discussion should make you conclude that. The listening test was rigged, but no-one's documented any tampering with the sound of the streaming services themselves. They should sound the same.

 

[gmKevinHNgu]

Ok, thanks. Explains why this was about the only thread concern about this, since it was focused on the listening test. I was definitely in the wrong thread.

 

[wdh777]

Have you taken the tidal test online. Can you tell that big of a difference? I generally get 3 or 4 out of 5 right. Do you guys always get all 5 right? What part of the tracks should I be listening to? I sometimes wonder if my browser is down converting the tracks.

 

[Kon Peki]

I just took it and got 2 correct out of 5.  In my defense, my kids are making a lot of noise in the house right now 

.

 

[wushuliu]

Hm listening to tidal after several years break and the treble seems slightly elevated to me. I miss MOG. That was the best streaming by far in terms of sound quality.

Let's face it lossless is not going to take off anytime soon. Too few people care and it's cheaper to convince people there's no difference.

 

[bigshot]

Have you gotten new headphones in the several years break?