Tidal Lossless Streaming

[pctazhp]

I apologize in advance for this post, but I'm an Old Geezer and think I'm entitled to some degree of reminiscing))
 
I first developed my life-long passion for high end audio back in the early 70s. I bought my first "high-end" system at a British Navy PX in Hong Kong (I was a US Marine) while on leave from VietNam. At the time, Stereo Review was the leading audio publication and Dr. Julian Hirsch was its technical editor. He staunchly maintained that all amps or preamps that operated within certain electrical parameters and below recognized levels of distortion all sounded the same - a position I think many still adhere to.
 
Then along came Harry Pearson's The Absolute Sound and a little later Stereophile Magazine, which were both very subjectivist oriented. I remember reading an account of a dinner meeting of some society (AES???) in which Hirsch and some reviewers from TAS and Stereophile were all present. According to the subjectivists, Hirsch's attitude toward them was very condescending. I don't know what Hirsch thought but I'm sure he thought they were all dunces. Seems to me both camps have been at war with each other ever since.
 
Stereo Review is long gone and TAS and Stereophile have survived to this day. Apparently, a lot of people put stock in the subjective reviews that appear in those publications - as they do with many of the subjective reviews that appear here on HeadFi. However, I do not remember ever reading a coherent and convincing argument supporting the scientific validity of sighted tests, comparisons or evaluations. But, of course, each person is entitled to chose what he or she deems helpful.
 
Anyway, as I said before, what matters to me is what brings me listening enjoyment, and my choices of both sources and equipment are based entirely on that criteria.

 

[Sonic Defender]

  If you read my entire post you would see I acknowledge the extensive research and literature that exists regarding double-blind tests. I personally believe a properly designed double-blind audio test can be very helpful and informative, but as with any scientific test, to really be valid it should be repeatable and subject to peer review. I'm not sure how many reported double-blind audio tests can satisfy those criteria.
 
There is nothing I said I need to support. I was talking about the attitude I have experienced going back over 40 years from many supporters of audio double blind testing. The attitude of many on the other side of the debate to me is equally irritating - but of course you didn't want to discuss that part of my post. It's the attitudes of many on each side of the debate I object to, and this is just my personal experience and opinion.
 
I have no interest in engaging in the debate with respect to the hobby of high end audio. I'm not sure anyone has come up with an original thought from either side of the debate in a very long time.

Yes we should all cool the rhetoric, and I did notice your attention to those who don't favour any scientific testing, I just thought your comments toward the objectivist camp was unduly harsh. And I do agree that it is a tiresome debate, but it still does have value as this community is a portal to many new audiophiles, some who over-extend themselves to buy gear and services that it is possible holds little real value above and beyond say less expensive options. It is already a skewed community in the sense that people are free to express support for subjective only viewpoints, but those who wish to discuss how the objective side has a place are supposed to be hidden away in the sound science forum. Anyway, I don't want to get a huge derailment going, nor do I wish to ruffle feathers as I know it is tough to maintain healthy and balanced discussions in the forums. I hope I didn't offend you, and I do understand your frustration and I also support your right to respectfully express your opinions.

 

[pctazhp]

  Yes we should all cool the rhetoric, and I did notice your attention to those who don't favour any scientific testing, I just thought your comments toward the objectivist camp was unduly harsh. And I do agree that it is a tiresome debate, but it still does have value as this community is a portal to many new audiophiles, some who over-extend themselves to buy gear and services that it is possible holds little real value above and beyond say less expensive options. It is already a skewed community in the sense that people are free to express support for subjective only viewpoints, but those who wish to discuss how the objective side has a place are supposed to be hidden away in the sound science forum. Anyway, I don't want to get a huge derailment going, nor do I wish to ruffle feathers as I know it is tough to maintain healthy and balanced discussions in the forums. I hope I didn't offend you, and I do understand your frustration and I also support your right to respectfully express your opinions.

Not offended at all. I have enjoyed our discussion. And I agree with much of what you say.

 

[ScottFree]

I apologize in advance for this post, but I'm an Old Geezer and think I'm entitled to some degree of reminiscing))
 
I first developed my life-long passion for high end audio back in the early 70s. I bought my first "high-end" system at a British Navy PX in Hong Kong (I was a US Marine) while on leave from VietNam. At the time, Stereo Review was the leading audio publication and Dr. Julian Hirsch was its technical editor. He staunchly maintained that all amps or preamps that operated within certain electrical parameters and below recognized levels of distortion all sounded the same - a position I think many still adhere to.
 
Then along came Harry Pearson's The Absolute Sound and a little later Stereophile Magazine, which were both very subjectivist oriented. I remember reading an account of a dinner meeting of some society (AES???) in which Hirsch and some reviewers from TAS and Stereophile were all present. According to the subjectivists, Hirsch's attitude toward them was very condescending. I don't know what Hirsch thought but I'm sure he thought they were all dunces. Seems to me both camps have been at war with each other ever since.
 
Stereo Review is long gone and TAS and Stereophile have survived to this day. Apparently, a lot of people put stock in the subjective reviews that appear in those publications - as they do with many of the subjective reviews that appear here on HeadFi. However, I do not remember ever reading a coherent and convincing argument supporting the scientific validity of sighted tests, comparisons or evaluations. But, of course, each person is entitled to chose what he or she deems helpful.
 
Anyway, as I said before, what matters to me is what brings me listening enjoyment, and my choices of both sources and equipment are based entirely on that criteria.

Great to hear your comments. Also personally I found that this article offered a decent overview of the Objectivist/Subjectivist debate.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/10335#post_12447731

 

[Sonic Defender]

  Not offended at all. I have enjoyed our discussion. And I agree with much of what you say.

Thank you, and I'll continue the good will and also say that I am actually a hybrid in that I love the hobby and I would hate to see it stripped of all mystery and soul and be a hobby purely evaluated based on measurements and theory. I also put high value on the subjective and know that without some intrigue and mystery we would all have a lot less fun.

 

[jazzfan]

@pctazhp and @Sonic Defender - my god, a civil discussion on Head-Fi? Bravo! You both are to be commended. In all sincerity, well done!

 

[canali]

anyone else also using the sennheiser 'captune' app?
i'm enjoying it but it only works with tidal online streaming...not for off line songs.
i guess there is no EQ app that will work with tidal offline songs?
(i do realize that Tidal's own EQ is 'still in progress'..whatever).
 
also while i enjoy the soundchecks (choosing a or b or none) and then 
progressing thru a few series, it is too bad the app didn't take the results I gave it and came
up with some finalized 'average' or whatnot sound signature...i don't think it does
anyway, as when you choose 'done' it just shows the last sound check you did.
 
not the most intuitive app, but i guess its a work in progress

 

[headfry]

yes, using Captune to eq my two Grado's - RS325e and RS80e - with my iPhone 6S+. Nice app, worth checking
out - I like being able to tweak the sound of my headphones with a decent equalizer - for example - 
I'm using a gentle downward slope from 6 - 14K to subtly tame the upper highs on my 325e's.
 
Wish the eq showed units in decibels, still it works very well.
 
...nice having the control for more comfortable/enjoyable listening sessions!

 

[canali]

  yes, using Captune to eq my two Grado's - RS325e and RS80e - with my iPhone 6S+. Nice app, worth checking
out - I like being able to tweak the sound of my headphones with a decent equalizer - for example - 
I'm using a gentle downward slope from 6 - 14K to subtly tame the upper highs on my 325e's.
 
Wish the eq showed units in decibels, still it works very well.
 
...nice having the control for more comfortable/enjoyable listening sessions!

yes good to hear you're enjoying it too.
 
but am I right: you can only use it when streaming online?
does not work for offline songs..nothing pops up
 
...so I guess for off line songs we're SOL for an EQ app.

 

[CFGamescape]

Anyone using Amarra for Tidal? I'm patiently waiting for their Windows version before purchasing, but it seems like a very affordable EQ option for Tidal, among other features.

 

[uhhmike]

Anyone using Amarra for Tidal? I'm patiently waiting for their Windows version before purchasing, but it seems like a very affordable EQ option for Tidal, among other features.

I used it. I like audirvana plus more

 

[tmarshl]

  Anyone using Amarra for Tidal? I'm patiently waiting for their Windows version before purchasing, but it seems like a very affordable EQ option for Tidal, among other features.

Tried it, but ended up using Roon do their great interface, discovery features and seamless integration of Tidal.

 

[canali]

yes i'm also looking at alt mgmt systems too as above...
 
but my flac collection is nil ...and my itunes only amt to 500 or so
 
also only have maybe 500 tidal hifi offline songs...
 
so am not sure right now if paying $$ for roon or amarra  (i'm windows based)
warrants it, for my personal situation.
 
but kindly offer suggestions: i'm open to them, esp if i can get even better sound.

 

[elnero]

  Anyone using Amarra for Tidal? I'm patiently waiting for their Windows version before purchasing, but it seems like a very affordable EQ option for Tidal, among other features.

I use Amarra for Tidal at times becuase it does sound really good. Unfortunately the User Interface and the User Experience are horrendous which tends to keep from even opening it. I'll often just use Tidal's own desktop app or Audirvana Plus since I upgraded recently.

 

[Steve Wilcox]

I listen to Tidal mainly through a Sonos Connect and use the Sonos control app (on a Windows laptop or Android phone) but don't really like this.  Does anyone know if it's possible to listen through the Sonos Connect but use a different control app?