Best Ever Albums

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

junodog4 — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:05:53 GMT

Author: junodog4

Posted: 04/15/2015 04:05

I really think Tidal is Fiona Apple's best.

😁

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

kramerfan86 — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 23:06:28 GMT

Author: kramerfan86

Posted: 04/15/2015 03:06

As a guy who only uses streaming as a means to determine what I want to actually buy I cant see myself paying 120-240 dollars a year to do something I can do for free with spotify.

I dont see the market for the 20 a month package, yea audiophiles exist but not enough of them and it seems to me a huge chunk of them probably would favor just buying their music and ripping it in lossless. Considering the backlash their advertising campaign got them I dont see them surviving the fight against Apple/Beats and Spotify.

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

Gigantic — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:28:39 GMT

Author: Gigantic

Posted: 04/14/2015 21:28

Oh dear
Oh dear

check ur priv Jay

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

Gigantic — Mon, 6 Apr 2015 18:54:28 GMT

Author: Gigantic

Posted: 04/06/2015 22:54

It really looks like the poll has determined the fate of Tidal

share this on Google+ everybody

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

MrFrogger — Mon, 6 Apr 2015 15:16:44 GMT

Author: MrFrogger

Posted: 04/06/2015 19:16

sp4cetiger wrote:

Thank goodness for audiophiles.

Haha no problem. Luckily I'm in a position where I don't have to rely on streaming services, but even if I did use them, I don't think Tidal is worth the money.

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

Anonymous — Mon, 6 Apr 2015 15:14:54 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/06/2015 19:14

It would be easier for me to know whether I want to use it if I knew if I could find more obscure artists that aren't already on spotify. For ex. Arto Lindsay (which I can find on grooveshark), Luar Na Lubre, some albums by Califone, Tribe After Tribe, etc. are all not present on spotify, but if I can find a significantly larger variety of difficult to find music on Tidal, I'd be willing to pay $20 extra every half year.

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

Anonymous — Mon, 6 Apr 2015 13:47:40 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/06/2015 17:47

MrFrogger wrote:

When you compress a lossless format, like FLAC or WAV into a lossy format, like MP3 or AAC, the maximum constant bitrate is full 320kps. Any higher than that and there won't be any difference in audio quality, but the file size will be bigger, which is why it isn't widely used. Yet a variable bitrate file (VBR) only uses higher bitrates in parts of the audio file where the difference in quality would be perceivable, and lower bitrates in parts where it isn't, while still always remaining the maximum quality bitrate. This means that the highest quality VBR file (called a V0), sounds exactly the same as a 320 Kbs CBR file, yet the V0 has a lower file size.

A lossless FLAC on the other hand uses no compression whatsoever, so the file is very very large. If you're downloading all your Tidal FLAC files, they'll take up a lot of space. It should also be noted that the audio difference between an uncompressed FLAC, and a V0/320 kps should theoretically be unable to be heard by the human ear, but some claim they can hear the difference. Not to mention all the other variables in audioquality, including headphones/speaker, DAC/soundcards's, the capabilities of your playback device, and the master of the file itself.

Thank goodness for audiophiles. Your post plus some additional reading has convinced me that Tidal isn't worth the money -- whatever differences I'm hearing between it and Spotify probably aren't due to the bit rate. Oh well, at least it was a free trial.

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

creator — Mon, 6 Apr 2015 13:13:06 GMT

Author: creator

Posted: 04/06/2015 17:13

meccalecca wrote:

So, can someone tell me if Tidal carries the Drag City catalog. Because that's a difference maker.

It doesn't appear so. I searched Joanna Newsom and Smog on the Tidal homepage and none of their Drag City albums appeared.

http://listen.tidalhifi.com

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

Anonymous — Mon, 6 Apr 2015 13:06:55 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/06/2015 17:06

meccalecca wrote:

So, can someone tell me if Tidal carries the Drag City catalog. Because that's a difference maker.

This with bells on top. By far, my only frustration with Spotify really.

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

meccalecca — Mon, 6 Apr 2015 13:04:09 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 04/06/2015 17:04

So, can someone tell me if Tidal carries the Drag City catalog. Because that's a difference maker.

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

MrFrogger — Mon, 6 Apr 2015 12:45:26 GMT

Author: MrFrogger

Posted: 04/06/2015 16:45

sp4cetiger wrote:

It would be nice to have an intermediate option, like 640 kbps, to help with this issue.

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

Anonymous — Mon, 6 Apr 2015 12:07:40 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/06/2015 16:07

Been trying this and the improvement in music quality is substantial (especially with headphones) and considering how much time I spend streaming music, $20/month really isn't very much. The main problem I'm having is that my internet connection can't always keep up. If I know what I'm going to listen to ahead of time, I can download for offline listening without fear of pauses or skips, but otherwise it's kind of a crapshoot. It would be nice to have an intermediate option, like 640 kbps, to help with this issue.

Still haven't decided if I'm going to keep it...

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

Anti — Sun, 5 Apr 2015 13:12:49 GMT

Author: Anti

Posted: 04/05/2015 17:12

I won't get Tidal for reasons everyone has already mentioned:

1) $20 a month? Hell nah!

2) Spotify is perfect for me. It's free and I enjoy letting my friends see what I listen to, and hopefully they will expand their tastes.

3) 320kbps is a perfect quality for me. Better quality than iTunes and easier on storage than higher quality files. Plus, I'm no audiophile, so lossless doesn't really convince me.

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

Anonymous — Sun, 5 Apr 2015 09:50:48 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/05/2015 13:50

Yeah, I agree that for plebs like Luke it's useless to be listening to high quality audio through cheap equipment. It wouldn't make a difference.

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

Anonymous — Sun, 5 Apr 2015 09:43:21 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/05/2015 13:43

Jhereko wrote:

Am I missing something or are you not contradicting yourself by saying that 320 is a compromise from FLAC and then saying you don't think subscribers can justify the price? Or do you just not realise that Tidal is 1411 kbps?

Oh shucks I totally misread their FAQ as them streaming 320kbps. Alright, that changes things then, as obviously that's significantly better than Spotify, and I can see why people would spend the extra.

For me personally 320kbps is a fine compromise between sound quality and file size, and there's some studies online that show people often can't tell the difference between 192kbps or 320kbps. But honestly that's likely down to the sound systems most people own - if someone has the money, I can see them wanting to fully utilize a more expensive sound system.

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

alelsupreme — Sun, 5 Apr 2015 09:04:38 GMT

Author: alelsupreme

Posted: 04/05/2015 13:04

Jhereko wrote:

I would miss spotify's integration of the social media aspect. I love seeing if Luke's listening to Chris Brown again

Lies and slander.

320kpbs is fine as far as I'm concerned, I mean my headphones cost £8 from Asda so FLAC would just be wasted on me.

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

beflygelt — Sun, 5 Apr 2015 08:46:29 GMT

Author: beflygelt

Posted: 04/05/2015 12:46

I personally think flac sounds simply amazing, with my 50€ Sennheiser in-ears I can clearly hear the difference. You can identify all the individual textured crafted together, which can sound more like a melting pot of sounds with mp3s. Tame Impala, Massive Attack, Flying Lotus and many more artists who put some extra detail in their music sound way better losless. The sound is more clear, more detailled and stereo is way better. Haxan Cloak also sounds incredible.

However 20€ are too much. Hopefully they lower the price somewhen, I would pay like 12,50€. That would be 30 extra euros per year and a fair surcharge. I will watch how this service developes, so far it seems already better than Spotify and that's version 1.0 only. The library lacks of some albums, but on the other side they got some albums Spotify doesn't have, they will add so much more in the next week though, they will soon surpass Spotify's library. The application looks better.. Before I subscribe the search function has to be updated and some issues have to be cleared.

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

Anonymous — Sun, 5 Apr 2015 08:17:15 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/05/2015 12:17

Puncture Repair wrote:

320kbps isn't even that good quality, I mean it's what I use but I consider it a compromise from FLAC.

Twice the price shouldn't equate to twice the quality, because you're paying for access to the music, and the difference from 80-160kbps is far greater than 160-320kbps because of how compression works.

I expect it'll be popular with people who fancy themselves as audiophiles so they can feel superior to their friends, I can't think how else anyone would justify the price.

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

Anonymous — Sun, 5 Apr 2015 08:13:49 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/05/2015 12:13

320kbps isn't even that good quality, I mean it's what I use but I consider it a compromise from FLAC.

Twice the price shouldn't equate to twice the quality, because you're paying for access to the music, and the difference from 80-160kbps is far greater than 160-320kbps because of how compression works.

I expect it'll be popular with people who fancy themselves as audiophiles so they can feel superior to their friends, I can't think how else anyone would justify the price.

Re: Tidal (v. the Streaming Industry)

Anonymous — Sun, 5 Apr 2015 07:59:02 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/05/2015 11:59

craola wrote:

I subscribed to Tidal for three months before cancelling. The content is redundant when I have Spotify for free. I typically purchase albums I love and listen to them not through streaming, so Tidal wasn't worth the 20 to me.

An item I found a little funny. They advertised that the pay the artists twice as much money per listen as Spotify does, but since they're charging twice as much, I don't get how that's saying anything.

I don't see what's confusing about this? You pay more so artists get more per listen. It's like taxes - they're higher so that more of your income goes to supporting infrastructure that possibly has nothing to do with you. Jay Z is definitely communist! D:

So it's marketing that's based on not necessarily what serves the consumer as an individual best which is a really tricky thing in our 'check your privilege' modern western world but it worked for me.