I'm just saying, man. The science shows that 192 is actually detrimental to sound if it's audible at all, and 16 vs 24 makes no possible difference to the ears.
I use Tidal and listen to the masters at 24/48 just because it's satisfying to know that I'm not losing anything, but no way I'm gonna be claiming I'm hearing a difference between it and a well-compressed mp3.
Many/most of the Tidal software-decoded MQA/Masters sounds much better to me than
any mp3 I've heard, particularly in added body/bass detail air and impact, naturalness/
fine detail, analogue ease and soundstage imaging.
Improvements in my system are obvious and considerable!
Many/most of the Tidal software-decoded MQA/Masters sounds much better to me than
any mp3 I've heard, particularly in added body/bass detail air and impact, naturalness/
fine detail, analogue ease and soundstage imaging.
Improvements in my system are obvious and considerable!
I can absolutely appreciate the difference between 320mp3 and 24/192. The details/differences are there to be heard but only if your system and/or ears are capable .
it's actually not that hard. and indeed it makes it easier when your system is capable... of failing to output a transparent signal at 16/44.
here are a few ways you could do it:
- you encode 320mp3 without a care about intersample clipping, and then your DAC is "so good", it doesn't know how to deal with such a typical issue in digital audio. the result is that you can hear louder clipping on some passages in mp3. some encoders can deal with that, you can deal with that by not sticking to 100% digital level, or buy a DAC that deals with that by keeping a little headroom. in proportion you're a bigger part in the problem than mp3 itself.
- your DAC is one of those antiquated design like NOS DACs or one made after some weird philosophy about time smearing like the pono. anyway one where they need to start rolling off the trebles soon in the audible range if they want to stick to a limited value of aliasing with signal at 44khz. the result is that when listening to 192khz signal the low pass starts at a much higher frequency, so 16/44 signal from mp3 or CD has an audible roll off compared to high res. those stuff are so bad they actually need high res files to be able to sound transparent.
- you're listening to a loop of 1 second of one of those very rare sounds that mp3 fails to encode in an audibly transparent way. you probably had to get the file from someone because you couldn't find even one similar example in your entire library that would let you pass an ABX. result you can pass blind test for real. it's dishonest, but at least it's a true and audible difference really caused entirely by mp3 for once.
- you have no idea what you're talking about and have never even tried to test anything properly. why not brag when we all know that audio forums require zero accountability? I can bend spoons with my mind and speak at 110khz.
Many/most of the Tidal software-decoded MQA/Masters sounds much better to me than
any mp3 I've heard, particularly in added body/bass detail air and impact, naturalness/
fine detail, analogue ease and soundstage imaging.
Improvements in my system are obvious and considerable!
My favorite part of this hobby is when people just say a bunch of jargon that doesn't mean anything.
I loves me my Tidal Masters, frankly I'm waiting for Spotify to get their asses in gear and offer a HiFi option, but unless you've been listening to complete garbage mp3s there's just no audible difference.
I realize my gear is not the world's best (LCD-X with a Deckard), but I got nothin' on the audible differences. I just like having it.
Correct. Unless those applications are doing some sort of EQ/treatment of their own to sound better, FLAC is as good as you're gonna get just as it is.
Not sure that a couple of opinions qualify as a general consensus Audirvana offers a free trial so I'd suggest you try it and see for yourself. I personally find a difference using Audirvana and in my opinion there is a greater clarity to the music I hear. Again this can be dependent on your equipment and your hearing. But it doesn't hurt to try!
Edit: I personally use Roon which I also believe enhances sound quality but I also use it due to its enhanced presentation of the information in my library as well as Tidal. It's ability to integrate Tidal with your own library is awesome. And since that latest update it has some useful EQ and DSP tools. Roon also offers a free trial for I believe 2 weeks.
There isn't any significant sound difference, and you can only get the masters on desktop. IMO if the extra money is an issue, don't stress over it and stick with the 320. Hop up to HiFi when you have the disposable cash. It's more of a feel good thing.
Spotify if you want the best overall experience. Tons of music, amazing suggestions, great playlists/stations, etc.
Google if you have a lot of your own music, plus the appeal of YouTube Red
Tidal if you want access to lossless music.
All are AWESOME, and if you don't anticipate needing the bells and whistles then there's no wrong answer. I have GPM for YouTube but use Tidal generally for my music because I'm turning into one of those insufferable audiophiles who complains if my crap isn't in FLAC even though I still can't hear a difference.
I think Spotify 320 is £10 a month. Google will tell you. As for the difference between 320 and HiFi I agree with Someguydude. You are very unlikely to hear a significant difference. I have Tidal HiFi because I like the idea that I am listening to lossless. I also like the idea that at £20 a month might offer a sustainable business model for streaming. £10 a month for such a phenomenal catalogue of music almost felt like stealing! I'm very fortunate that I can afford such half baked notions!
I noted this morning that Tidal often includes CD Quality and MQA versions of the same album. So I spent a few minutes this morning doing comparisons (Toshiba laptop -> Oppo HA-2 with bass boost on -> AKG 701). To my surprise I was consistently able to hear a difference. I listened to about half a dozen albums - Modern Jazz Quartet, Joni Mitchell and Crosby Stills and Nash, all from the analog era. In the case of MJQ's "Blues on Bach" I also compared it with my ripped ALAC copy, but switching between versions on Tidal was faster, making comparison easier. I try to avoid hyperbole, so I won't say the difference was drastic, but it was significant in the sense that it changed my appreciation of the music. It was more significant than the difference between the SACD vs. redbook layers of many of the hybrid discs I have compared over the years.
As I said, I was quite surprised by this result. I don't consider myself to have golden ears (and I'm 65). Did the albums I tested derive from different source tapes? Was it the higher resolution of MQA or some other aspect of the process? Were there minor variations in the volume level? (In one case the volume level on the MQA version was substantially lower than the redbook, but I still preferred the MQA. I don't know, but I do know that the instruments on the MQA versions had more apparent color and in some cases more detail.
20 minutes of flipping back and forth is not the same as extended close listening, so I will continue to explore this.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
