[pedalhead]

 
 
And it seems that the desktop application is not downloadable now (they claim they are working on improving it).

 
Hopefully this means they're releasing a new version like they said soon after they launched.  The current desktop client is a mess.

 

[obsidyen]

Jay Z is trying to make Tidal a real rival to Spotify. I agree that the current client is a mess and it needs to be improved. Finding new music is really hard and playlists are just weird. Every playlist I play seems to have lots of weird American indie music which I loathe. I want to find European electronic/dance music but it's really hard unless you know the name of the artists.
 
Jay Z might succeed, but his and Spotify's biggest rival is going to be no other than Apple. Sony is backing Spotify with its Playstation Music service and that might provide Spotify some exclusive rights from Sony Music. There's also Deezer, Qobuz and some others...  Maybe I should just go back to buying CDs, lol.

 

[rschoi75]

Looks like they are streaming their press conference live right now on www.tidal.com

 

[stuartmc]

  Looks like they are streaming their press conference live right now on www.tidal.com

I'm watching it now and I have to say that this is one of the lamest business/press conferences I have ever seen..  According to Allicia Keyes this venture will usher in a new era, save the planet, unite the world in the bond of music-love, etc. etc. blah, blah, blah.  It's rather embarrassing when a collection of self-important "artists" (one, in the accompanying video, referred to themselves all as "icons") with egos big enough to fill three stadiums, but with the collective cerebral horsepower to maybe run a lawn tractor, think that signing on to a music streaming company is going to magically improve the consumers listening experience and the world to boot.  Ok, I'm being a little harsh here, but really, why don't you hire some top technology/engineering guys, set up some bullet proof servers in say, North America, and then get the rights to stream almost everything in every catalog by paying top drawer royalty fees to the publishers and artists.   If you do that, you will eventually have an outstanding product to sell and you just might be profitable. Change the face of the music industry and the world?...not so much.

 

[rschoi75]

I just noticed the new pricing structure. If the standard version is indeed equal to Spotify's 320 kbps streaming, then Tidal has a great shot at stealing a lot of subscribers. Very strong push by Jay-Z and Co.
 
$9.99/mo:
- Standard quality (not sure if this is just 96 kbps or 320 kbps) 
 
$19.99/mo
- HiFi quality (16/44.1 khz lossless)

 

[elvergun]

  I'm watching it now and I have to say that this is one of the lamest business/press conferences I have ever seen..  According to Allicia Keyes this venture will usher in a new era, save the planet, unite the world in the bond of music-love, etc. etc. blah, blah, blah.  It's rather embarrassing when a collection of self-important "artists" (one, in the accompanying video, referred to themselves all as "icons") with egos big enough to fill three stadiums, but with the collective cerebral horsepower to maybe run a lawn tractor, think that signing on to a music streaming company is going to magically improve the consumers listening experience and the world to boot.  Ok, I'm being a little harsh here, but really, why don't you hire some top technology/engineering guys, set up some bullet proof servers in say, North America, and then get the rights to stream almost everything in every catalog by paying top drawer royalty fees to the publishers and artists.   If you do that, you will eventually have an outstanding product to sell and you just might be profitable. Change the face of the music industry and the world?...not so much.

 
LOL

 

[zilch0md]

  Quoting a ComputerAudiophile post from the "Official TIDAL HIFI Streaming Issues Thread":
 
 
Wow!  The guy making this statement is the developer of the software BubbleUPnP Server, but I can't find any corroborating evidence online...
 
I just posted this:
 
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/official-tidal-hifi-streaming-issues-thread-22260/index14.html#post412870
 
Mike

 
Chris Connaker (founder of ComputerAudiophile), has replied to my post, explaining that Tidal is now using the CDNs (Content Distribution Networks) of both Amazon and Akamai:
 
Quoting Chris Connaker's post:
 

It's a combination of storage and caching. The new change should enable streaming from much closer locations and caching of most recently used music at even closer locations.

 
Mike

 

[peepr]

@zilch0md interesting. I will perhaps give the service another shot.

 

[StefanJK]

My streaming problems -- I canceled a few weeks ago after constant hangs for more than a month, on Fios in Northern Virginia -- seem to have gone away.  Just signed up again, no problems at all so far at at time that would have been hopeless previously, tracks loads quickly, not even close to any hang (see streaming speeds several times what is required).  Happy if they can keep this up.  

 

[Steve Wilcox]

  I'm watching it now and I have to say that this is one of the lamest business/press conferences I have ever seen..  According to Allicia Keyes this venture will usher in a new era, save the planet, unite the world in the bond of music-love, etc. etc. blah, blah, blah.  It's rather embarrassing when a collection of self-important "artists" (one, in the accompanying video, referred to themselves all as "icons") with egos big enough to fill three stadiums, but with the collective cerebral horsepower to maybe run a lawn tractor, think that signing on to a music streaming company is going to magically improve the consumers listening experience and the world to boot.  Ok, I'm being a little harsh here, but really, why don't you hire some top technology/engineering guys, set up some bullet proof servers in say, North America, and then get the rights to stream almost everything in every catalog by paying top drawer royalty fees to the publishers and artists.   If you do that, you will eventually have an outstanding product to sell and you just might be profitable. Change the face of the music industry and the world?...not so much.

I couldn't agree more.  
 
Watching Madonna sprawl her leg across the table to sign the 'contract' and the other super-rich, self-important expounding on the need for 'artists' to get a better deal almost made me feel that I'd rather be ripped-off by the record labels than by them. A listener owned streaming service is what we really need.

 

[thatBeatsguy]

I saw the post by the official Coldplay page on Facebook earlier this morning, and I have to say I'm pretty disappointed by this move. Daft Punk is also there -- which means two of my favourite artists are signing onto this rapper-owned, overpriced crapload of a streaming service. I mean, I get the appeal for lossless over regular MP3, but streaming that to my phone? I could probably listen to an album's worth of songs before just one song could stream on that thing.
 
IMO streaming isn't going to be the future, especially since a lot of us have to deal with horribly slow internet speeds. Streaming 320kbps MP3 files (which are usually around 10 MB for a 4-minute song) takes long enough; now you want to go lossless (which is at least 25MB for a 4-minute song)? I guess TIDAL at this point seems to be limited to the elite high-res-obsessed audiophiles packed with AK240s and Summit-Fi gear with 20Mbps internet and way too much money to burn.

 

[TokenGesture]

Actually the mobile app is great, much better than the desktop in my experience

 

[obsidyen]

I have fast internet and money isn't a problem but Jay Z and other "artists" who took place in that "show" made me think about my subscription. It was really pathetic and Daft Punk disappointed me by doing business with Jay Z. I thought they were a cool band. Now I think they just want more money, as if they don't have enough already.

 

[StefanJK]

So long marketing &^%$ doesn't destroy the product, I'm fine.  Marketing will always try to pull in people who are influenced by more marketing and less by the product, that's life.  More customers to support the product is fine.  And yes, even cool bands care about making money.  Fine with me.  Again, please don't destroy the product by doing this because that's what you're told sells to the ignorant masses.

 

[zilch0md]

I'm not going to worry about who's selling the service, how much money they're making, and whether or not they "deserve" to make any money.  
 
I'm only interested in one thing:  What do I get for my $19.99 a month?
 
And right now, I'm getting a lot of pleasure for my money. It's ridiculously appealing compared to the enormously time-consuming ritual of buying and properly ripping CDs, only to stack them in my closet, then doing all of the file management, making backups, distributing the files to my players of choice, etc.  Tidal has become a no-brainer for Redbook quality listening. Best of all, Tidal's infrastructure is now improving and with it, the reliability of the service. I am no longer suffering listenus interruptus.
 
Streaming 44.1/16 to a smartphone with ear buds, using 4G instead of WiFi, doesn't make sense to me, either - MP3 is good enough for that gear - but take that same iPhone or Android, strap it to your choice of portable DAC/amp (i.e. the OPPO HA-2) with a better than average sounding, efficient headphone (i.e. the OPPO PM-3), get yourself a modest WiFi connection, capable of downloading just 1.4 Mbps, and you will soon find it difficult to enjoy MP3 streaming services. It's just a matter of time before adaptive hedonism will take hold. Those who prefer 44/16 over MP3 don't have better than average hearing. They simply have experience listening to better than average sources, DACs, amps, and transducers. They aren't imagining a better than MP3 experience, they are living it.
 
I say this with great conviction, but while I'm sticking my neck out, I'll add that I can hear no improvements above 96/24 - not with my ears and not with the gear I'm using and I doubt it's possible with any gear - but I firmly believe that a cheap DAC can do a better job with 96/24 than with 44/16, and a cheap DAC can do an even better job with DSD files than with any PCM format.  But if you have even a moderately good DAC, you'll find 44/16 to be far better than adequate - all but closing the gap to the quality of 96/24 - and DSD will become an even bigger joke, thanks to the huge file sizes, not to mention the ridiculous cost of acquisition. The only place for DSD is in cheap DACs. Either way, you're going to pay for audio quality, so...
 
Gear-up and res-down to lossless 44/16, then have fun finding well-mastered recordings and forget about higher resolution formats. Tidal HiFi is saving me a ton of money, a ton of time, and a ton of storage space AND it's allowing me to find well-mastered recordings at a faster pace than I've ever experienced in my entire life. Seriously!  
 
Mike