Crabwalker Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I used the service a few months ago on a free trial. It's great. The sound quality is much better than spotify. I'm guess most of you don't have systems set up for streaming music or playing lossless audio, but for those of us that do this is really interesting. The $20 price point is the only reason I didn't keep it, but I'm heavily debating canceling spotify and switching to tidal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejesseb Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I dont think I have ever been listening to Spotify and thought "I really wish the sound quality was better". Plus free streaming is best streaming. Breezus, cfrancese5 and Hairy Potter 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefoxUSSR Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 i almost signed up for a trial until they wanted my cc/paypal info up front. then i sent them a note- I'm curious to know if Tidal has albums not mastered as loudly as their CD counterparts. I'm highly interested in high-fidelity copies of modern albums (esp. Def Jam/GOOD music) with true-to-studio sound... like one might find on a vinyl record or quietly mastered cd or live performance. Also consider 24-bit downloads. I'm most interested in Kanye West, Frank Ocean, John Legend and Pusha T's music seeing a proper audiophile release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy. Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Not sure if it's been answered, but why is the 'Z' in apostrophes in the thread's title? SubstituteForLove 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabwalker Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 The trial auto renews if you don't cancel. Thus the reason they want payment info. That said, it's one click to cancel. I would suggest giving it a try. It's a great service. Especially if spotify doesn't cut it for you quality wise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konk Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Not sure if it's been answered, but why is the 'Z' in apostrophes in the thread's title?I came to ask the same thing. Feel like launches should be in quotes. andy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrackt Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 The iOS app is a dumpster fire. That alone is enough to make me keep Spotify (which has gotten better). Also, lossless streaming is insane. Data plan = thrashed in an hour and can fit 20 albums on my 64GB iPhone if downloaded. It's mad! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabwalker Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Lossless streaming to an iPhone is not what tidal is really about. If you have a hifi system at home with a DAC and PC or other device that you use to play lossless audio, this is another option. The nice thing is that tidal does give you the option to stream lossy audio to your mobile device to alleviate that issue while still letting you stream lossless to your hifi system. In that application tidal is really great. Only complaints are price and the selection is good but not as deep as spotify (yet) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slushy Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I don't get this streaming shit at all. When at home I will listen to records or occasionally mp3s on my computer, and when at work/out and about I'll listen to mp3s (from bandcamp or soulseek) on my phone. I checked out the free Spotify trial and it's so shitty compared to just having albums on your phone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slushy Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Lossless streaming to an iPhone is not what tidal is really about. If you have a hifi system at home with a DAC and PC or other device that you use to play lossless audio, this is another option. The nice thing is that tidal does give you the option to stream lossy audio to your mobile device to alleviate that issue while still letting you stream lossless to your hifi system. In that application tidal is really great. Only complaints are price and the selection is good but not as deep as spotify (yet) this sounds very very niche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabwalker Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 The push for lossless music is ever growing. A service like tidal entering the market and having support from musical artist is only going to increase that push. Some people are fine with MP3 files and that's cool. Tidal isn't for those people... Well... I guess it is now that they are offering a lossy version for the same price as spotify. Tidals real advantage is for those of us that want to listen to lossless music and want easy solutions to do so. This is a nice platform to do just that. wbhendrix 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyShackelford Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 How does Tidal compare to Spotify as far as the amount/variety of music available? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCandless Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I don't get this streaming shit at all. When at home I will listen to records or occasionally mp3s on my computer, and when at work/out and about I'll listen to mp3s (from bandcamp or soulseek) on my phone. I checked out the free Spotify trial and it's so shitty compared to just having albums on your phone. I don't understand why it's any different streaming on spotify than it is having the MP3's on your phone? Phones are limited to a small amount of memory anyway, it's a lot easier to swap/change/stream anything I fancy listening to at the spur of the moment whilst out rather than having to plan in advance what I'll want to listen to before I leave the house. Until they start making 120GB+ phones like the old style ipods, i'll keep streaming and syncing playlists from spotify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuzzersonKillwell Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I don't understand why it's any different streaming on spotify than it is having the MP3's on your phone? Phones are limited to a small amount of memory anyway, it's a lot easier to swap/change/stream anything I fancy listening to at the spur of the moment whilst out rather than having to plan in advance what I'll want to listen to before I leave the house. Until they start making 120GB+ phones like the old style ipods, i'll keep streaming and syncing playlists from spotify. The paid version feels the same. I think he is talking about the free version of Spotify which kind of sucks and does not feel like a replacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCandless Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 The paid version feels the same. I think he is talking about the free version of Spotify which kind of sucks and does not feel like a replacement. Ahh I never tried the free one! Just started on the premium free trial and now they just keep taking money from me every month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabwalker Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 How does Tidal compare to Spotify as far as the amount/variety of music available? It's good. They have a large library but there are things on spotify that tidal did not have. That was a few months ago though and I imagine the selection is even better now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeytags Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Does this let you download music to store on your phone like Spotify Premium? Is/will there be a Roku channel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just a normal guy kevin Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 If this fails, the creative development fund dries up, major label artists start to hang up their cleats and young kids no longer aspire to be the next Rihanna or Maroon 5 front man, how could music as a whole continue to exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabbaskillet Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I used the service a few months ago on a free trial. It's great. The sound quality is much better than spotify. I'm guess most of you don't have systems set up for streaming music or playing lossless audio, but for those of us that do this is really interesting. The $20 price point is the only reason I didn't keep it, but I'm heavily debating canceling spotify and switching to tidal. Seriously? If you've been in the audiophile world long enough, you should know that, if the masters are the same, there is no audible difference between Tidal's lossless stream and Spotify's high-bitrate option for streaming. There is a material difference between lossless and very high bitrate lossy, but there shouldn't be an audible difference. The purpose of lossless is for preservation of the data, not its consumption. The streaming nature of Tidal means that we won't be able to store the lossless files or archive them to HDD, CD, DVD, Blu-ray, etc. Lossless streaming is absurd because streaming's purpose is purely for consumption, and there is no way that a human could tell the difference between a lossless file and a very high bitrate lossy file in a blind test of the same audio. It's cool that artists are supporting high quality audio formats, but if the mastering is bad there's really no point. On point. Spotify needs to work with artists to release several masters of old releases. I'd rather subscribe to a more detailed and source-conscious Spotify than send $100 to some guy in Europe for an old CD on Discogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfrancese5 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 If I wanted to hear high quality audio I'd spin a record... no care when I am on my computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGhostOfRandySavage Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 If I wanted to hear high quality audio I'd spin a record... no care when I am on my computer.Yeah. Same. The only time I listen to digital music is when I'm in my car, so this service isn't for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabwalker Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Seriously? If you've been in the audiophile world long enough, you should know that, if the masters are the same, there is no audible difference between Tidal's lossless stream and Spotify's high-bitrate option for streaming. There is a material difference between lossless and very high bitrate lossy, but there shouldn't be an audible difference. The purpose of lossless is for preservation of the data, not its consumption. The streaming nature of Tidal means that we won't be able to store the lossless files or archive them to HDD, CD, DVD, Blu-ray, etc. Lossless streaming is absurd because streaming's purpose is purely for consumption, and there is no way that a human could tell the difference between a lossless file and a very high bitrate lossy file in a blind test of the same audio. On point. Spotify needs to work with artists to release several masters of old releases. I'd rather subscribe to a more detailed and source-conscious Spotify than send $100 to some guy in Europe for an old CD on Discogs. maybe you should get a more revealing system? kidamnesiac 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidamnesiac Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 There is a material difference between lossless and very high bitrate lossy, but there shouldn't be an audible difference. The purpose of lossless is for preservation of the data, not its consumption. Lossless streaming is absurd because streaming's purpose is purely for consumption, and there is no way that a human could tell the difference between a lossless file and a very high bitrate lossy file in a blind test of the same audio. Ludicrous. Depends on the song, certainly, but there are definitely audible differences between many high bitrate lossy files and their lossless counterparts. These differences are minor, of course, and probably don't matter to everyone. But saying that lossless is for data preservation only is ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just a normal guy kevin Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 If your human ear can't tell the difference then you need to spend a few thousand more dollars to force yourself to hear a difference to justify those few thousand more dollars. Billich0986, _stretts, jabbaskillet and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabwalker Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 If your human ear can't tell the difference then you need to spend a few thousand more dollars to force yourself to hear a difference to justify those few thousand more dollars. Something like that. But really if you have a system that isn't revealing then a normal MP3 is probably fine and you don't need hirez files. On the flip side, if you have a system you've invested a lot money in and is revealing to even minor changes, then hirez only makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.