Separate names with a comma.
What do they do to work for musicians, out of curiosity?
Well I honestly don't really know but it is run by and owned by musicians. It's the only streaming service that some musicians will allow their music to be released on. I figure that says something. Tidal does not have a free service, which I think is a good thing.
Personally, £20 a month seems fair for my usage. Spotify's £10 felt like a steal.
I don't care about any potentional "better SQ" on Tidal when the UI is garbage and the monthly free is an overpriced $20.
Spotify sounds just fine and is great to browse around on.
I know that Tidal pays way more per stream than Spotify or Apple, but Tidal has far fewer users, and so it takes a much smaller percentage of Spotify (or Apple's) users streaming a song to make more money. And it should be noted, Google Play Music (which I always talk up because I think it's a lot better than Spotify having tried both) pays more per stream than Tidal. I don't know if the current market even approaches sustainability. And with the Googles, Apples, and Amazons of the world in the market, I don't know that the standalone streamers will ever turn a profit. Even Spotify and Pandora have trouble actually making money, and with the big guys in the room, willing to use their services as loss leaders, prices aren't likely to come up. I pay $8/month for Google Play Music, which comes with YouTube Red (because I got in at the beginning and keep that rate as long as the service continues). But again, even at that low pricing, they still pay more per stream than Tidal.
I'm so pleased with Apple Music, for a multitude of reasons, that it just seems meaningless to ponder the "greatness" of other streaming services. Accessories like iTunes Match and AirPlay make it so convenient to listen to as well, over all sorts of devices and places.
Yeah, if you're in Apple's ecosystem, then it's always going to make sense. FYI, though, Tidal also works with AirPlay, and Google Play Music has an identical service to iTunes Match (and it's free, unlike Match). But I mean, there is always going to be some advantages to the ecosystems that the big boys provide.
Having Android and Google Cast speakers, Play Music makes a lot of sense for me.
After testing it for quite a while with sony zx2, I am confident to say, tidal sounds effortless, better.
Have you tested it over several days?
I actually like the UI of Tidal. I do not like the UI of Spotify at all. Now, maybe it's been updated since I auditioned it a while ago, but last I used it, it felt like they'd been absent for 10 years of UX evolution. But as I say, that may have changed, since it was a few years ago. I prefer both Apple Music and Google Play Music to all of them, to be honest, in terms of UI, but Tidal didn't seem bad when I ran through a trial of it. Also, They're priced $20 for their hifi service, but their standard service (which is the same as Spotify) is priced right with all of the others. And they offer student and military discounts, which is nice. I'd probably switch if I wasn't grandfathered in at the trial price for Google Music, as I could get that sweet military discount.
I have been using Google Play Music for my first time, for the last 3 weeks. So far so good.
I will second what sterling1 states. I had been using Tidal for some time and switched back to Apple Music. Number one reason is the third party apps that I can use after I download the songs from Apple Music to my iPhone. As long as I have iTunes Match for my songs, I can play them through CanOpener, Relisten, etc... And when I listen to any number of songs through CanOpener and play the same song in Tidal HiFi, it sounds better through CanOpener. I understand that people prefer Tidal for what it offers when played through Audirvana, etc... in their homes, but I have most of my music in ALAC, FLAC, or DSD anyways, so it doesn't have that big of an impact.
That's actually pretty cool. I prefer Chromecasting solutions, because I use chromecast all over, but that's a pretty sweet feature that you can use the pinned music elsewhere on the device. I don't think any of the other services offer that.
Latest streaming blind test comparison by CNBC crew using Genelec speakers...
Hi-fi music streaming: People can't tell it when they hear it
We conducted our test in the high-fidelity audio "sweetening" room at CNBC headquarters.
We had top-notch Genelec speakers, a wired internet connection, and professional audio experts
conducting and overseeing the test. We brought in many of our colleagues for a blind test — hearing
three songs each with three different services — to find out if they could hear the difference between
high-fidelity and regular-quality streaming. Again, the details on the test are available here.
The results were dramatic. We played a total of 48 songs, and 16 times the person correctly identified the
high-fidelity service. That's exactly 1 of 3 — the same figure one could expect from completely random guessing.
similar to what "the verge"found in their own blind testing last summer
I REALLY don't think that someone can distinguish lossless from a OGG Vorbis 320 kbps (Spotify) - no matter how expensive the gear. OGG is a better codec than MP3 320 and there is inumerous debates and tests that point the transparency of this bitrate. Seriously, just sit down, open a good beer and enjoy your songs.
And I think the same for 256 AAC.
what is interesting coming from this is the importance of the quality of the recording being played, too.... 'garbage in, garbage out'
..and thus for Tidal to charge 2x the price for 'cd quality' hi fi maybe doesn't hold as much water if the production is meh-ish to begin with.
...maybe that is why they're investigating MQA to really make the difference heard.