I really wanted to like tidal, but honestly it's not really good. The search sucks, no offline mode on desktop, no official Linux client, an incomplete catalog...
It's not worth it, even if they are the least bad for paying artists.
You can use Plexamp as a Tidal client. I do this for offline music.
Works on desktop too 🙂
Need a Plex server though :/
Also cost $6.50AUD a month, way too much.
I don't think you need a Plex server to use the tidal feature.
Btw Plexamp seems to be free (with a few restrictions) to everyone now and not just Plex pass subscribers (which admittedly was expensive if you only used Plexamp and didn't have a life time sub like me)
How do you set it up without a server. I can't get past this screen
Edit: Also on that web page is says that downloads are locked behind Plex Pass, that's pretty vital...
Good question. The website FAQ says that tidal can be used without a webserver but I have never tried it personally.
Good to know, thanks!
The limited library was their biggest problem in my opinion. It's acceptable if you want mainstream, well known artists centered on appealing to North America but there were so many international and independent groups that weren't on the service. Higher quality streaming is only worth it if you can listen to what you like.
Yeah. The number one reason I won't subscribe is that if their library is missing a song, you can't even add it yourself. Both Spotify and Apple Music allow adding your own MP3s, how does Tidal not have that feature?!
honestly it’s not really good
*for you it isn't
the search sucks
what's wrong with it? works fine for me
no offline mode on desktop
why would you need it? it's supported on phones, just listen via phone?
It’s not worth it, even if they are the least bad for paying artists
Again, for you. On paper, tidal is the better option and I rather support artists than some questionable monopolistic corporation
This is perhaps the stupidest response I've read on Lemmy for a while. Nobody is entitled to an opinion these days.
Im expecting a response, quoting each paragraph I wrote, with only 'For you' as the text.
I don't agree. He wrote it like it was absolute, whereas it's a personal opinion. Like you stated correctly.
well it's neither nor. I'm also pissed that there's no Linux client, and they didn't even try to make their windows client run in wine. so it's not just one person's opinion as i hereby confirm.
Not saying it's not a valid point against tidal overall. I would also enjoy me a linux native client. However I don't see why this is a valid point against tidal and for apple music.
Having said that. I found a bug in their windows client and the devs are very much receptive for feedback. Maybe in the future when more people use Linux they'll come around and make one. Or the community will with tidal's open source SDK.
Why do you keep mentioning apple music? OP never made any comparison to it or any other streaming service. He just communicated why the service didn't work for him and you felt compelled to inform him that how he feels is his opinion?
You're missing the point I'm trying to make. He's stating his opinion, which his absolutely valid for him, but concludes that in general it's not worth it and that it is not good. The only thing I did was mark his opinions, also mark my opinions, but conclude that in the general case there's no better option. I only wanted to draw attention to this style of rhetoric which I don't like as a discussion culture.
Btw I also don't like the ad homimen argument e.g. "stupidest comment I've seen" etc. That's not how a respectful discussion should be.
Damn, you're shilling hard!
I don't want to use my phone for basic features like the offline mode, I'm not always connected to the internet on my laptop, that's it.
I don't care about Apple music, and almost every streaming platform provides some kind of SDK. It doesn't change the fact that I don't have a Linux client, and probably never will (or at least feature-complete) because they partly use Dolby Atmos, which is a closed-source licensed format.
And no, even on paper, tidal's not the better option to support artists. Buy tracks on Bandcamp, buy merch and vinyl directly from artists...
I'm talking in the context of streaming services here...
Maybe you're right with the Linux client part, but I don't know any other streaming service that does provide one? At least Spotify and Apple Music don't. Does it make them also not worth it? I would disagree.
I never said tidal is the best app to support artists. In that regard there is a better option, just give them your money for free. I meant as a streaming service, quality wise and in terms of paying artists, there are no better options.
What I didn't like about your OP was the fact that you laid your personal opinions out and then concluded that tidal is not worth it. Doesn't make me a shill when I answer with counterpoints.
Point taken, guess I remembered it wrong. But if you take a look at the arch wiki, they say that your mentioned client is actually not official.
This article is mainly about the semi-official, proprietary Spotify for Linux client, which is developed by Spotify's engineers in their spare time and not actively supported by Spotify.
Your counterpoints were all basically just "your use case is different than mine therefore you are wrong".
No not at all
Why would you waste your own time with a comment like this?
What do you mean? I'm interested in his opinion and he wrote it like it was an absolute fact. Poor way to start a discussion imo.
That's his opinion, that's the fact for him. How obtuse do you have to be to waste your time like that?
I'm not arguing against his personal opinions, I'm arguing against his conclusion that tidal is not worth it (for everyone,because that is how it is worded).
How is it of your concern how I spend my time?
no offline mode on desktop
why would you need it? it's supported on phones, just listen via phone?
Article specifically calls how they're axing military and first responder discounts, how you still get upcharged for HiFi if you use their DJ Integration feature, and how they're nixing the free tier.
The article is not an advertisement; it contains some good news for consumers and some bad news for consumers. The notable bit is the good news, hence it's the headline. And it's notable exactly because it's good news --- most everyone else is raising prices across the board.
You don't know the Verge, perhaps
This is just a good news and they are reporting it as such
I am too familiar with this gaudy website and its concept of journalism.
Ok. So journalistically, the key points to get across here are:
Tidal is changing its subscriptions plans
They are now cheaper
That's pretty unique since literally everyone else on the planet is increasing prices, not lowering them
How would you have reported the news? Would you have done something differently?
Not.
It's not news.
Yes, it is. It may not be interesting to you, but it is (as others said) noteworthy when a company bucks the trend of the industry.
This type of story is business journalism --- it's not world news or politics, but it's still news. And the article isn't as rosy as the headline --- they are still upcharging for the HiFi service if you used the DJ Integration feature (no idea what this is, I don't use Tidal), and they're axing military and first responder discounts.
I initially upvoted this comment, but since every other comment you've made is weird and combative, you've somehow made me stop agreeing with you. It's an odd feeling.
I like Tidal because its interface isn't downright crap. What Spotify did to playlists and to the heart/cross button is so damn annoying.
I love the change. I have many playlists and it has made my life so much easier organising everything.
How does it work better for you? To me it's annoying, I cannot easily move folders around anymore, nor move playlists into folders if I'm not using the desktop app.
Also, the + (former ♥️ button) is the worst offender to me. I used to use the button to add a music to my big "liked" default list, the one that is more permanent, and the three dots to add it to a playlist, which are more fluid. So playlists come and go, and not every song on a playlist is the one i want on my definitive pool of "always wanted" songs.
Then someone at Spotify decided to say "fuck you users", and merged the + and three dots, making it harder to know if a song is already in my main "liked" list.
Say I have a playlist I created, the + button is now a ✅ button. It tells me the song is saved somewhere. I have to tap it to see where, which 1. is completely unintuitive, because tapping a check button would create me the expectation of uncheking it, but it instead shows me a list of playlists! What in the freaking hell? This is decades of UI convention thrown out the windows for a really bad concept.
And 2, being checked doesn't mean it's my favorite song, just that it is saved on some playlist. It's a mistery, which is only solved by tapping the schizophrenic +/✅ button, instead of simply saying to me "yep, you liked this song".
So... Yeah. I hate Spotify.
I love it because I never use liked songs (I don't understand how people do, using the same playlist forever. Do your tastes never change? Idk each to their own).
So it means 1: I can easily add songs to multiple playlists at once. I have 4 different playlists that I listen to, and sometimes a song fits all 4, and it used to take 12 taps to add it to all 4 (tap dots, tap add, tap playlist, 4 times). Now it only takes 6.
2: I can now see if the song is already in a playlist. Before the only way was to try adding it to the playlist and see if it warned me of a duplicate.
3: Now I can see at a glance if it's added to a playlist. If it's added to 1 playlist then it's probably added to all the playlists it needs to be.
And you can still add songs to your liked songs in 1 tap. I feel like the reason most people dont like it is because it's a change that they aren't used to.
But really, the ideal solution would've been if Spotify just added a settings option to change it back to the old way. But Spotify seems to be vehemently opposed to options.
Also, what's way worse than the new like button is the stupid "smart shuffle". I just want to turn off shuffle, but now I have to press it again. And it's also really buggy, it will often display shuffle as off when it's really on smart shuffle, so I get unpleasantly surprised with some random song I've never heard. I really wish there were third party apps for Spotify, cause the Spotify app kinda sucks
I use liked songs exclusively. I mostly use shuffle but I also unlike and like songs that I rediscover in my enormous (≈5000 songs) liked list so the songs end up at the top.
So the songs at the top are the songs that I am listening to currently. If I want something I haven't heard in a while I just scroll down or use (the suboptimal) shuffle.
Unliking and liking used to be two clicks but now It's 4 or 6 depending on the song and if it's in another playlist or not.
I can't understand why they couldn't just add two buttons. Modern devices have plenty of screen real estate.
When they tried this last time people got outraged any they rolled back the change. Now Spotify is going ahead anyways.
Funny how it is, the smart shuffle is something I actually like because, when I'm in the mood, it brings something new to the table.
Yeah I just wish there was a toggle.
Also didn't they have a thing like smart shuffle before, it was just called radio. But they seem to have removed it and replaced it with smart shuffle for playlists. I can only see the radio option for albums. That was better, because then it only did it when I wanted it.
Also what is the change to playlists? I wasn't aware Spotify had folders. Did they remove them?
Edit: Nevermind they're still there. What did they change?
Hope this is rolled out to other countries and not just the US.
I got the email in Canada, so yes? It's not uncommon for us to not get things when they do across the border.
UK here, also got the email.
Oh nice! Knowing corporations though I'm just trying to figure out how they are going to screw us on this.
It should be rolled out globally according to Tidal's support article:
We're updating our pricing for TIDAL globally
Not for Thailand yet, but the Thai price is anyway cheaper
Tidal also pays artists significantly more than Spotify/ Apple Music. So they're good-shittifying in both directions 🙂
A rare instance of... unshittification?
Yeah, like, when services are actually trying to compete for your business. It's so nice when it (rarely) happens!
Interesting, what is this "reverse enshittification" you speak of
Wipe-ification?
De-shittification?
I usually call that flushing
So tidal essentially flushed it's toilet
Don’t forget that Apple Music also pays significantly more than Spotify. Just not as much as Tidal.
Oh yeah Spotify is definitely the worst in comparison
I've been using Deezer for a while, but I've been looking to move to something else after they absolutely mutilated their UI and actively insulted any paying customer that complained.
Tidal seems like a good choice. I just dread the day they, too, get caught up in current trend chasing and redesign their app to look like a bubbly toy to hook the kids.
Been using tidal ever since Spotify's Joe Rogan debacle. Main reason? They actually pay the artist. But the sound quality is a nice bonus as well! No regrets...other than people trying to share music with me by sending a spotify link!
They still don't pay the artists all that much. No streaming services do.
If you genuinely want to support artists financially, you should buy their music outright through online stores like Bandcamp or Qobuz.
It's true, but at least half the artists I listen to I would never have found if it weren't for streaming. Something is, after all, better than nothing.
And compared to the competition, Tidal's payments are good:
~30% more than Apple Music (0.01c)
~300% more than Spotify (0.003 - 0.005c)
~500% more than Soundcloud (0.0025c)
~1000% more than Pandora (0.00133c)
Sure, but even 300% of a tiny amount is still a tiny amount. People shouldn't be kidding themselves that Tidal pays artists well when the compensation is still significantly less than if you buy an artist's music directly.
The best approach is to use both - streaming for discovery and online stores for when you find an artists you really like and want to support them financially.
If I had the money to pay for music twice I would 😅
Man fuck Joe Rogan, basic boring prick
Qobuz has the most beautiful and serious-looking UI I've tried, I really love it. But I had to stop using it because there is no lyrics integration and some of my favorite (admittedly obscure) music was not there. But the UI is spectacular, especially on desktop.
Tidal's interface is simply good, nothing more and nothing less, and it's a more mature product overall with more features
Try apple music. Also has lossless audio for the same price and has a great app, even on android and it does have a pretty good lyrics integration.
Only on non Apple Desktops it’s a bit lacking since your choice is either the ancient iTunes or the web app
if you want cross platform from major platforms such windows macos Linux,IOS and Android. Spotify is the best
I've felt like Tidal has behaved exactly like Spotify in my use so far (which has only been a couple of months). I was doing side-by-side comparison of playing, adding to the queue, inserting next in queue, etc., and it all seemed to behave exactly the same.
edit: Oh, yeah, I only compared Windows, Mac, and Android.
I just ended up installing Deemix and moving my library to offline storage.
I really liked Deezer a few years ago, I thought about trying it again but saw the new UI and was like wtf
Deezer is still great because you can upload personal music to your account and I find they have alot more music available than every other service Ive tried.
Not to mention they pay the artists better and hifi is automatically included too so. I went from Spotify > YT Music > Deezer and I am very happy. The UI is not as bad as everyone makes it, imo the icons are just a little uglier in some places thats it.
The headline sounded good but the article lists a lot of negatives too. They're removing discounts for veterans/first responders, they recently laid off 10% of staff, and their price now matches Amazon and Apple. So don't mistake this for good intention; this is just a business' survival instincts taking over.
their price now matches Amazon and Apple
That's a negative?
So don't mistake this for good intention; this is just a business' survival instincts taking over.
A business made a business decision, yes. Your point?
I read the email from Tidal four times and still didn't believe they weren't trying to fuck me over. Well, I'll be damned.
As far as I can tell, I'm actually in the vast minority in that I use the service on a family plan and with my DJ gear. Streaming for DJs is being removed from family plans and it now requires me to pay for an individual plan + $9 a month in addition to what I'm already paying for the wife and kids, so I'm thinking about canning it.
Any variation of "yep, you read that right" makes me instantly not care, idk
It does sound clickbait-y and I guess that's why there are butthurt people in the comments. I guess its meaning is "literally everyone is raising prices, while Tidal is lowering them". TBF I also had to read the title again because it's pretty strange to see prices decrease
I mean good on tidal for doing that, no hate towards them.
I wish it was getting cheaper....I've been @ $6.35/month for their CD FLAC quality middle tier, with my veteran discount for a few years.
Has been perfect for my budget HiFi setup.
Now it's nearly doubling in cost, and they won't have the discount anymore....
Good news for the seven people who use tidal!
Tidal may not be the best streamer. It certainly does have its faults. But so do the others mentioned in these comments. For a subscription service to halve their rate is really unheard of. I appreciate it. This is really the type of pricing movement we need after so many years of out of control inflation. I wish Amazon, Disney, and Netflix would do something similar rather than endless cost increases without any improvement in services.
I worry because like every streaming service they've slowly been reducing the amount they pay artists. How can they halve customer fees and not pay artists less?
My guess is that they've realized that nobody subscribed to the highest tier, so they've incorporated its features into the normal tier, hoping to make it up in volume (I.e. new people subscribing because it's cheap and it offers more than Spotify). So perhaps they are going to be able to pay artists the same rates
As far as I can tell, I'm actually in the vast minority in that I use the service on a family plan and with my DJ gear. Streaming for DJs is being removed from family plans and it now requires me to pay for an individual plan + $9 a month in addition to what I'm already paying for the wife and kids, so I'm thinking about canning it.
That's a pretty good price, if YT music ever takes away my $8 a month early sign up pricing I'll probably look at swapping over.
Just do it now. Give your money to a company that actually supports artists in a consumer friendly way.
Problem is I have this fantasy of being 95 years old and proudly showing my great great grandchildren how I get YT Music/Premium for $8 instead of the $695 everyone else pays.
That imagined sense of superiority from getting a good deal is pretty much the only thing that keeps me going some days.
Google services don't last that long, sorry.
So far my $8 deal has outlived the service I got it for, so as long as I keep getting grandfathered in maybe it will stick around.
This won't happen, you'll just end up in a shittier world by giving Google more money.
I can't force you, but your $8 "deal" isn't worth it.
I thought they went up for everyone? You're still paying 8? I was paying 10 for the past like 8 years and mine just went into 14 last month. I opted for the yearly plan at $140 so it's 11.66/mo so it lessened the blow. I envy you if you're still paying 8.
If I remember right, people who had YouTube premium got grandfathered in at a lower price, but that lower price didn't last forever and recently went up.
However people who signed up early for play music all access were told they would get an $8 a month price for signing up early, and that price has persisted until now through all the other price hikes and the change to YT Music.
I signed up for Google play music/YouTube red I believe in 2015 when I got my nexus 6P. It was 10 a month then and I've been grandfathered till now. When the prices went up last summer, I was told I had another 6 months or so to keep my grandfathered price before mine would go up as well. Did the OG 8 dollar users not get that email?
No, never got an email like that. I signed up in 2013 I think, when Play Music All Access was announced.
Good for you. I'm a little jealous I was 2 years late lol
I still regret giving up this plan
I signed up back when it was “Google Play Music” and was locked into that deal as well. I didn’t want to lose it, but I wanted to upgrade to a family plan. Customer support promised me that if I upgraded, my family plan price would continue to be honored for just as long as the individual plan price.
Spoiler: they lied.
I had my account using a unique-per-service card with a monthly cap and it started rejected their billing attempts when, about a year ago, they abruptly increased my plan price to nearly double what I had been paying.
I had already been using uBlock Origin and Tidal via Plex (even though I don’t actually use Plex, but when I signed up I hadn’t yet decided to use Jellyfin), since I despise the YT Music UI, so for me there wasn’t much of a change.
That said, if you like YT Music / YT Premium then by all means stick with it. The creators of the videos you watch get comped better when you watch them than when a free user does - that was the main reason I kept my subscription for as long as I did.
Who uses YT music when there are so many free clients?
I guess people who also like YT premium
Spotify vs Tidal vs Apple Music vs Youtube Music which one is better?
Tidal is the most popular option for audiophiles. What I also like about it is the fact that they pay artists much more fairly than other platforms. According to this, they payout $0.013 per stream on average (which means $1 per 77 streams). Because I listen to a lot of unknown artists it is important to me to be on a platform where I can support those artists much more directly.
AFAIK Spotify only pays the overall most listened to artists like Taylor Swift etc. I canceled my Spotify subscription when Neil Young quit Spotify.
EDIT: because this is becoming a bit popular, for anyone looking to migrate from Spotify to Tidal, I recommend this simple to use python script to migrate your playlists. And because we have a lot of Linux users here, check out tidal-hifi.
Tidal may be most popular but the use of the lossy MQA codec for their "lossless" offerings is objectively worse than Deezer, Apple music and even Amazon Music.
Good thing they are migrating to FLAC! Also, while MQA is objectively worse, subjectively it's pretty much equal to objectively better options. At least for us humans :) I found this double-blind test of MQA critic Archimago and they couldn't find a statistically significant difference between MQA and PCM :)
Is Neil on Tidal? I know he is in QoBuz.
He is! And I think he returned to Spotify as well. Nope, still off.
I'm thinking of switching to Tidal. I've had YouTube music for awhile and I like it, but I just learned they fired a huge chunk of their staff after they unionized and that pissed me off. Anybody know how their rock and jazz selection is, especially with smaller lesser known artists?
I mainly listen to punk and it's extremely hard to find bands that are not on Tidal. When I migrated my playlists to Tidal from Spotify, there was only 1 Band which didn't exist on Tidal. But because it was only 1 song that was part of one of my playlists, I simply didn't care. I don't even remember which one it was. Aha, they're called Valentiine (3 piece all-girl garage rock band from Melbourne, Australia) and they're still not on Tidal. Still don't care.
Can't speak for Jazz though.
Tidal also laid off 10% of their staff in December. Probably not union busting, at least.
If you care about sound quality, Tidal and Qobuz are the best. The rest comes down to preference, IMHO. I like Tidal's recommendations, but I've also heard good things about Spotify's and Apple's
Qobuz
EDIT: this is when you have audio quality preferences and currating like Tidal does. But in the end it's a matter of taste. Platform A has sometimes songs and albums that platform B does not have and vice versa.
But for your decision making, you can't go wrong with Tidal. If you have a good dac/hifi installation, you may want to opt for hifi plus. But the lossless plain hifi subscription is perfect if you are not super sound picky and not having a above decent installation.
EDIT EDIT:
They are merging hifi and hifi plus to a 10.99 offering. That is actually very good value if you don't care about the DJ part. I am even considering this to ditch my Qobuz sub.
Haha ignore this post
Tidal's electronic selection isn't great, it's why I left the platform. But if you're into pop music, and especially hip hop, it's got you covered.
A few years ago I did listening comparisons of Amazon Music, Spotify, Deezer, Tidal and Quobuzz. At least for my ears, Tidal was way better, with engaging dynamic range and clarity. Quobuzz was just a little better, while listening to Spotify and Amazon Music was like FM radio in comparison, loud and compressed.
Pricewise, they're all somewhat similar. I went with Tidal because it has good quality, a good catalogue, and pays the artists better.
I spent a few months with each of them recently.
For me, Apple Music recommendations are by far the best. Tidal was decent but the UI was a pain and the integrations didn’t work well. Spotify had great integrations and easy device switching, but the recommendations were terrible, for me. YouTube music is the worst of the batch. Bad UI, bad recommendations, and just not a music lovers platform.
So, I use Apple Music. For me, it is the best since the GOAT Google Play Music was retired.
Interesting. For me, none of any recommendation algorithm worked decently well for me. I find new bands via following other bands (on Instagram, sadly), look at what they listen to, what bands they hang/tour/do concerts with or by asking other punks or by checking other communities.
It takes a month or so before recommendations start to get close to my tastes. Apple has consistently recommended either old bands I haven’t listened to in years or new bands that I end up liking. Sure, they still fail from time to time, but I listen to a very wide variety and Apple seems to be the only platform to recognize that if I’m listening to metallica, I don’t want to hear kid cudi in the same playlist
Is there a word for the opposite of enshitification?
engoodening
Normal and sane.
It's not normal though.
Deshitification
goodshitification
Does this mean we're stuck with MQA? Or can we still forcibly use FLAC. I was on the lower tier purely to avoid MQA.
No, there is what Tidal calls "HiRes FLAC", which is 24-bit, 192 kHz. Their website does not even mention MQA anymore. They've moved away from MQA since early 2023, when the MQA company went bankrupt
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Tidal seems to have decided that there just aren’t enough people willing to pay upward of $20 per month for the highest-possible audio fidelity.
At a high level, it sounds like this new, much simpler subscription model will still include all the perks — high-res FLACs, Dolby Atmos mixes, etc.
Now Tidal is caving and throwing in its large catalog of high-res tracks without demanding extra money on top.
With this move, Tidal could be trying to head off an eventual rollout of the rumored “Supremium” Spotify plan and avoid potential subscriber losses.
Either way, it’s an attempt to remain competitive in the streaming music landscape — or at least to stay relevant.
Tidal laid off 10 percent of its staff in December amid other cuts at parent company Block.
The original article contains 428 words, the summary contains 130 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Actually this is a good deal. Curation on tidal is good, meaning they have cool playlists handpicked by people. In the past when I used it it was with questionable MQA encoding, which had a lot of controversy. But 24/192khz flac, If you care about audio quality is a better offer than Qobuz.
Can't go wrong for the price. But I think the main driver should be audio quality. Because FLAC files (esp 24/192khz) can be very data hungry, for those who use it mobile only. So you need to be careful with that. You can use lower sample rates and higher bitrate mp3 as well if my memory serves well. But that defeats a bit the purpose of what Tidal stands for
But 24-bit audio is useless for playback. The difference is literally inaudible. In fact, the application of dynamic range compression during the mixing/mastering process has a far greater impact on perceptible audio quality than sample rate or bitrate does (the placebo effect notwithstanding).
If you care about audio quality, seek out album masters and music that is well-recorded and not dynamically crushed to oblivion. The bitrate isn't really all that important, in the greater scheme of things.
I partially agree with you. Yes mixing and mastering is far more important than bitrate. However if I let my gf listen to a identical song both in normal 16/44khz and 24 bit version, she can hear difference. Now is it night and day ? Not always, but subtle Improvement can matter when enjoying music.
Literally the only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is that the latter has a lower noise floor, which is really only useful for sound production - It doesn't translate to any increase in meaningful detail or dynamic range when dealing with playback.
16-bit was chosen as the defacto standard for CDs and digital music precisely because it contains more than enough dynamic range for human hearing.
Any difference your gf hears is due to the placebo effect rather than any inherent difference in the actual audio.
That writeup from Xiph is excellent. The comparison with adding ultraviolet and infrared to video makes so much sense. But you're dealing with audiophiles who seriously consider getting hi-end power and ethernet cables. I read somewhere that there was a listening test with speakers connected with hanger wire - and audiophiles couldn't tell.
In the end, it's all physics. I could never hear a quality improvement beyond normal 16bit, 320kbps, no matter how demanding the music.
As a recovering audiophile, I can safely say the hobby is heavily based around FOMO (the nagging doubt that something, somewhere, in your audio chain is causing a loss of audio quality), and digital audio is no exception. Not only is 320kbps more than enough, even with $1000s worth of equipment, but with codecs more efficient than MP3 (especially Opus), even 128kbps can be good enough to sound identical to lossless.
If you have plenty of local storage then 16-bit FLAC is ideal, but if you are just streaming then you really don't need a lossless service except to keep the FOMO at bay.
Anyone who has ever heard a 128kbps mp3 side-by-side with a 320kbps (or really anything above 192kbps in my experience) version can tell you that bitrate definitely matters. The better audio equipment you play it through, the more noticeable it is.
It definitely becomes inaudible at a certain point, but back in my CD ripping days, I'd scoff at anything below 192kbps
Have you ever done an actual double blind listening test? You'd be surprised. Even with good listening equipment it can be very challenging.
Have a go on the 128 kbps AAC test on this page and see how you do:
Presumably it was using an older/outdated codec then. With modern encoders, especially with codecs like Opus, Ogg, and Apple's AAC, the vast majority of listeners find 128kbps to be transparent, and certainly nowhere near night-and-day when compared to lossless.
Check out the results of this public listening test here:
Not surprised, I was fed up with the cost so setup a new account with a Nigerian VPN, only a few pound per month with that method.
Might switch back to a UK account if they make the price more reasonable here.
I did the same (Nigeria) a few months ago for a family account. They have still to charge me anything for it. And the account is actually working anyway. I don't know why. I also emailed them about this and they replied that everything is fine on their end... Well, thank you for the free account, Mr. Tidal.
Spotify really beats everyone at cricket noises when responding to competitors.
Maybe I would consider paying for tidal but as I am pirating YT music thought ReVanced I think I wouldn't, so good luck anyway.
Still not available in my country. Sadge.
Anyone in the US can confirm if Tidal it's free there?
As a stand alone service I don't think it is great, but feeding into Plex + Plexamp makes it awesome.
Tidal integrates with Plex local libraries seamlessly. Itslike having your own collections without having to rip or download anything.
I really wanted to like tidal, but honestly it's not really good. The search sucks, no offline mode on desktop, no official Linux client, an incomplete catalog...
It's not worth it, even if they are the least bad for paying artists.
You can use Plexamp as a Tidal client. I do this for offline music. Works on desktop too 🙂
Need a Plex server though :/
Also cost $6.50AUD a month, way too much.
I don't think you need a Plex server to use the tidal feature.
Btw Plexamp seems to be free (with a few restrictions) to everyone now and not just Plex pass subscribers (which admittedly was expensive if you only used Plexamp and didn't have a life time sub like me)
Source: https://www.plex.tv/plex-pass/
How do you set it up without a server. I can't get past this screen
Edit: Also on that web page is says that downloads are locked behind Plex Pass, that's pretty vital...
Good question. The website FAQ says that tidal can be used without a webserver but I have never tried it personally.
Good to know, thanks!
The limited library was their biggest problem in my opinion. It's acceptable if you want mainstream, well known artists centered on appealing to North America but there were so many international and independent groups that weren't on the service. Higher quality streaming is only worth it if you can listen to what you like.
Yeah. The number one reason I won't subscribe is that if their library is missing a song, you can't even add it yourself. Both Spotify and Apple Music allow adding your own MP3s, how does Tidal not have that feature?!
*for you it isn't
what's wrong with it? works fine for me
why would you need it? it's supported on phones, just listen via phone?
Neither does apple music. Tidal are open sourcing their SDK though
*for you. for me there isn't
Again, for you. On paper, tidal is the better option and I rather support artists than some questionable monopolistic corporation
This is perhaps the stupidest response I've read on Lemmy for a while. Nobody is entitled to an opinion these days.
Im expecting a response, quoting each paragraph I wrote, with only 'For you' as the text.
I don't agree. He wrote it like it was absolute, whereas it's a personal opinion. Like you stated correctly.
well it's neither nor. I'm also pissed that there's no Linux client, and they didn't even try to make their windows client run in wine. so it's not just one person's opinion as i hereby confirm.
Not saying it's not a valid point against tidal overall. I would also enjoy me a linux native client. However I don't see why this is a valid point against tidal and for apple music.
Having said that. I found a bug in their windows client and the devs are very much receptive for feedback. Maybe in the future when more people use Linux they'll come around and make one. Or the community will with tidal's open source SDK.
Why do you keep mentioning apple music? OP never made any comparison to it or any other streaming service. He just communicated why the service didn't work for him and you felt compelled to inform him that how he feels is his opinion?
You're missing the point I'm trying to make. He's stating his opinion, which his absolutely valid for him, but concludes that in general it's not worth it and that it is not good. The only thing I did was mark his opinions, also mark my opinions, but conclude that in the general case there's no better option. I only wanted to draw attention to this style of rhetoric which I don't like as a discussion culture.
Btw I also don't like the ad homimen argument e.g. "stupidest comment I've seen" etc. That's not how a respectful discussion should be.
Damn, you're shilling hard!
I don't want to use my phone for basic features like the offline mode, I'm not always connected to the internet on my laptop, that's it.
I don't care about Apple music, and almost every streaming platform provides some kind of SDK. It doesn't change the fact that I don't have a Linux client, and probably never will (or at least feature-complete) because they partly use Dolby Atmos, which is a closed-source licensed format.
And no, even on paper, tidal's not the better option to support artists. Buy tracks on Bandcamp, buy merch and vinyl directly from artists...
I'm talking in the context of streaming services here...
Maybe you're right with the Linux client part, but I don't know any other streaming service that does provide one? At least Spotify and Apple Music don't. Does it make them also not worth it? I would disagree.
I never said tidal is the best app to support artists. In that regard there is a better option, just give them your money for free. I meant as a streaming service, quality wise and in terms of paying artists, there are no better options.
What I didn't like about your OP was the fact that you laid your personal opinions out and then concluded that tidal is not worth it. Doesn't make me a shill when I answer with counterpoints.
Spotify does have an application for Linux, if you're gonna harp on about facts you should at least stick to them.
Point taken, guess I remembered it wrong. But if you take a look at the arch wiki, they say that your mentioned client is actually not official.
Your counterpoints were all basically just "your use case is different than mine therefore you are wrong".
No not at all
Why would you waste your own time with a comment like this?
What do you mean? I'm interested in his opinion and he wrote it like it was an absolute fact. Poor way to start a discussion imo.
That's his opinion, that's the fact for him. How obtuse do you have to be to waste your time like that?
I'm not arguing against his personal opinions, I'm arguing against his conclusion that tidal is not worth it (for everyone,because that is how it is worded).
How is it of your concern how I spend my time?
So you're saying this use case works for you??
Yes!
This is just an ad read.
Article specifically calls how they're axing military and first responder discounts, how you still get upcharged for HiFi if you use their DJ Integration feature, and how they're nixing the free tier.
The article is not an advertisement; it contains some good news for consumers and some bad news for consumers. The notable bit is the good news, hence it's the headline. And it's notable exactly because it's good news --- most everyone else is raising prices across the board.
You don't know the Verge, perhaps
This is just a good news and they are reporting it as such
I am too familiar with this gaudy website and its concept of journalism.
Ok. So journalistically, the key points to get across here are:
How would you have reported the news? Would you have done something differently?
Not.
It's not news.
Yes, it is. It may not be interesting to you, but it is (as others said) noteworthy when a company bucks the trend of the industry.
This type of story is business journalism --- it's not world news or politics, but it's still news. And the article isn't as rosy as the headline --- they are still upcharging for the HiFi service if you used the DJ Integration feature (no idea what this is, I don't use Tidal), and they're axing military and first responder discounts.
for when you want to legitimize your advertising
I would not have reported this advertisement as news. The thing I would have done differently is not be a shill.
So you're talking out of your ass. Got it
Funny, I feel the same way.
Hey, at least we agree on something lol
That's a start.
You also feel like you're talking out of your ass?
This guy is fun at parties
Do you have anything to add that isn't merely insulting? Like, a thought. Do you have any thoughts to share? Inside of your head. do you have any
Yea, that you’re fun at parties.
next time you have a thought
let it go
I don’t think I’m going to let mr. ”bad-take—edgy-2006-gamer-tag-name-guy” tell me what to do. So nah.
I initially upvoted this comment, but since every other comment you've made is weird and combative, you've somehow made me stop agreeing with you. It's an odd feeling.
I like Tidal because its interface isn't downright crap. What Spotify did to playlists and to the heart/cross button is so damn annoying.
I love the change. I have many playlists and it has made my life so much easier organising everything.
How does it work better for you? To me it's annoying, I cannot easily move folders around anymore, nor move playlists into folders if I'm not using the desktop app.
Also, the + (former ♥️ button) is the worst offender to me. I used to use the button to add a music to my big "liked" default list, the one that is more permanent, and the three dots to add it to a playlist, which are more fluid. So playlists come and go, and not every song on a playlist is the one i want on my definitive pool of "always wanted" songs.
Then someone at Spotify decided to say "fuck you users", and merged the + and three dots, making it harder to know if a song is already in my main "liked" list.
Say I have a playlist I created, the + button is now a ✅ button. It tells me the song is saved somewhere. I have to tap it to see where, which 1. is completely unintuitive, because tapping a check button would create me the expectation of uncheking it, but it instead shows me a list of playlists! What in the freaking hell? This is decades of UI convention thrown out the windows for a really bad concept.
And 2, being checked doesn't mean it's my favorite song, just that it is saved on some playlist. It's a mistery, which is only solved by tapping the schizophrenic +/✅ button, instead of simply saying to me "yep, you liked this song".
So... Yeah. I hate Spotify.
I love it because I never use liked songs (I don't understand how people do, using the same playlist forever. Do your tastes never change? Idk each to their own).
So it means 1: I can easily add songs to multiple playlists at once. I have 4 different playlists that I listen to, and sometimes a song fits all 4, and it used to take 12 taps to add it to all 4 (tap dots, tap add, tap playlist, 4 times). Now it only takes 6.
2: I can now see if the song is already in a playlist. Before the only way was to try adding it to the playlist and see if it warned me of a duplicate.
3: Now I can see at a glance if it's added to a playlist. If it's added to 1 playlist then it's probably added to all the playlists it needs to be.
And you can still add songs to your liked songs in 1 tap. I feel like the reason most people dont like it is because it's a change that they aren't used to.
But really, the ideal solution would've been if Spotify just added a settings option to change it back to the old way. But Spotify seems to be vehemently opposed to options.
Also, what's way worse than the new like button is the stupid "smart shuffle". I just want to turn off shuffle, but now I have to press it again. And it's also really buggy, it will often display shuffle as off when it's really on smart shuffle, so I get unpleasantly surprised with some random song I've never heard. I really wish there were third party apps for Spotify, cause the Spotify app kinda sucks
I use liked songs exclusively. I mostly use shuffle but I also unlike and like songs that I rediscover in my enormous (≈5000 songs) liked list so the songs end up at the top.
So the songs at the top are the songs that I am listening to currently. If I want something I haven't heard in a while I just scroll down or use (the suboptimal) shuffle.
Unliking and liking used to be two clicks but now It's 4 or 6 depending on the song and if it's in another playlist or not.
I can't understand why they couldn't just add two buttons. Modern devices have plenty of screen real estate.
When they tried this last time people got outraged any they rolled back the change. Now Spotify is going ahead anyways.
Funny how it is, the smart shuffle is something I actually like because, when I'm in the mood, it brings something new to the table.
Yeah I just wish there was a toggle.
Also didn't they have a thing like smart shuffle before, it was just called radio. But they seem to have removed it and replaced it with smart shuffle for playlists. I can only see the radio option for albums. That was better, because then it only did it when I wanted it.
Also what is the change to playlists? I wasn't aware Spotify had folders. Did they remove them?
Edit: Nevermind they're still there. What did they change?
Hope this is rolled out to other countries and not just the US.
I got the email in Canada, so yes? It's not uncommon for us to not get things when they do across the border.
UK here, also got the email.
Oh nice! Knowing corporations though I'm just trying to figure out how they are going to screw us on this.
It should be rolled out globally according to Tidal's support article:
Not for Thailand yet, but the Thai price is anyway cheaper
Tidal also pays artists significantly more than Spotify/ Apple Music. So they're good-shittifying in both directions 🙂
A rare instance of... unshittification?
Yeah, like, when services are actually trying to compete for your business. It's so nice when it (rarely) happens!
Interesting, what is this "reverse enshittification" you speak of
Wipe-ification?
De-shittification?
I usually call that flushing
So tidal essentially flushed it's toilet
Don’t forget that Apple Music also pays significantly more than Spotify. Just not as much as Tidal.
Oh yeah Spotify is definitely the worst in comparison
I've been using Deezer for a while, but I've been looking to move to something else after they absolutely mutilated their UI and actively insulted any paying customer that complained.
Tidal seems like a good choice. I just dread the day they, too, get caught up in current trend chasing and redesign their app to look like a bubbly toy to hook the kids.
Been using tidal ever since Spotify's Joe Rogan debacle. Main reason? They actually pay the artist. But the sound quality is a nice bonus as well! No regrets...other than people trying to share music with me by sending a spotify link!
They still don't pay the artists all that much. No streaming services do.
If you genuinely want to support artists financially, you should buy their music outright through online stores like Bandcamp or Qobuz.
It's true, but at least half the artists I listen to I would never have found if it weren't for streaming. Something is, after all, better than nothing.
And compared to the competition, Tidal's payments are good:
~30% more than Apple Music (0.01c)
~300% more than Spotify (0.003 - 0.005c)
~500% more than Soundcloud (0.0025c)
~1000% more than Pandora (0.00133c)
Sure, but even 300% of a tiny amount is still a tiny amount. People shouldn't be kidding themselves that Tidal pays artists well when the compensation is still significantly less than if you buy an artist's music directly.
The best approach is to use both - streaming for discovery and online stores for when you find an artists you really like and want to support them financially.
If I had the money to pay for music twice I would 😅
Man fuck Joe Rogan, basic boring prick
Qobuz has the most beautiful and serious-looking UI I've tried, I really love it. But I had to stop using it because there is no lyrics integration and some of my favorite (admittedly obscure) music was not there. But the UI is spectacular, especially on desktop.
Tidal's interface is simply good, nothing more and nothing less, and it's a more mature product overall with more features
Try apple music. Also has lossless audio for the same price and has a great app, even on android and it does have a pretty good lyrics integration.
Only on non Apple Desktops it’s a bit lacking since your choice is either the ancient iTunes or the web app
if you want cross platform from major platforms such windows macos Linux,IOS and Android. Spotify is the best
I've felt like Tidal has behaved exactly like Spotify in my use so far (which has only been a couple of months). I was doing side-by-side comparison of playing, adding to the queue, inserting next in queue, etc., and it all seemed to behave exactly the same.
edit: Oh, yeah, I only compared Windows, Mac, and Android.
I just ended up installing Deemix and moving my library to offline storage.
I really liked Deezer a few years ago, I thought about trying it again but saw the new UI and was like wtf
Deezer is still great because you can upload personal music to your account and I find they have alot more music available than every other service Ive tried.
Not to mention they pay the artists better and hifi is automatically included too so. I went from Spotify > YT Music > Deezer and I am very happy. The UI is not as bad as everyone makes it, imo the icons are just a little uglier in some places thats it.
The headline sounded good but the article lists a lot of negatives too. They're removing discounts for veterans/first responders, they recently laid off 10% of staff, and their price now matches Amazon and Apple. So don't mistake this for good intention; this is just a business' survival instincts taking over.
That's a negative?
A business made a business decision, yes. Your point?
I read the email from Tidal four times and still didn't believe they weren't trying to fuck me over. Well, I'll be damned.
As far as I can tell, I'm actually in the vast minority in that I use the service on a family plan and with my DJ gear. Streaming for DJs is being removed from family plans and it now requires me to pay for an individual plan + $9 a month in addition to what I'm already paying for the wife and kids, so I'm thinking about canning it.
Any variation of "yep, you read that right" makes me instantly not care, idk
It does sound clickbait-y and I guess that's why there are butthurt people in the comments. I guess its meaning is "literally everyone is raising prices, while Tidal is lowering them". TBF I also had to read the title again because it's pretty strange to see prices decrease
I mean good on tidal for doing that, no hate towards them.
I wish it was getting cheaper....I've been @ $6.35/month for their CD FLAC quality middle tier, with my veteran discount for a few years.
Has been perfect for my budget HiFi setup.
Now it's nearly doubling in cost, and they won't have the discount anymore....
Good news for the seven people who use tidal!
Tidal may not be the best streamer. It certainly does have its faults. But so do the others mentioned in these comments. For a subscription service to halve their rate is really unheard of. I appreciate it. This is really the type of pricing movement we need after so many years of out of control inflation. I wish Amazon, Disney, and Netflix would do something similar rather than endless cost increases without any improvement in services.
I worry because like every streaming service they've slowly been reducing the amount they pay artists. How can they halve customer fees and not pay artists less?
My guess is that they've realized that nobody subscribed to the highest tier, so they've incorporated its features into the normal tier, hoping to make it up in volume (I.e. new people subscribing because it's cheap and it offers more than Spotify). So perhaps they are going to be able to pay artists the same rates
As far as I can tell, I'm actually in the vast minority in that I use the service on a family plan and with my DJ gear. Streaming for DJs is being removed from family plans and it now requires me to pay for an individual plan + $9 a month in addition to what I'm already paying for the wife and kids, so I'm thinking about canning it.
That's a pretty good price, if YT music ever takes away my $8 a month early sign up pricing I'll probably look at swapping over.
Just do it now. Give your money to a company that actually supports artists in a consumer friendly way.
Problem is I have this fantasy of being 95 years old and proudly showing my great great grandchildren how I get YT Music/Premium for $8 instead of the $695 everyone else pays.
That imagined sense of superiority from getting a good deal is pretty much the only thing that keeps me going some days.
Google services don't last that long, sorry.
So far my $8 deal has outlived the service I got it for, so as long as I keep getting grandfathered in maybe it will stick around.
This won't happen, you'll just end up in a shittier world by giving Google more money.
I can't force you, but your $8 "deal" isn't worth it.
I thought they went up for everyone? You're still paying 8? I was paying 10 for the past like 8 years and mine just went into 14 last month. I opted for the yearly plan at $140 so it's 11.66/mo so it lessened the blow. I envy you if you're still paying 8.
If I remember right, people who had YouTube premium got grandfathered in at a lower price, but that lower price didn't last forever and recently went up.
However people who signed up early for play music all access were told they would get an $8 a month price for signing up early, and that price has persisted until now through all the other price hikes and the change to YT Music.
I signed up for Google play music/YouTube red I believe in 2015 when I got my nexus 6P. It was 10 a month then and I've been grandfathered till now. When the prices went up last summer, I was told I had another 6 months or so to keep my grandfathered price before mine would go up as well. Did the OG 8 dollar users not get that email?
No, never got an email like that. I signed up in 2013 I think, when Play Music All Access was announced.
Good for you. I'm a little jealous I was 2 years late lol
I still regret giving up this plan
I signed up back when it was “Google Play Music” and was locked into that deal as well. I didn’t want to lose it, but I wanted to upgrade to a family plan. Customer support promised me that if I upgraded, my family plan price would continue to be honored for just as long as the individual plan price.
Spoiler: they lied.
I had my account using a unique-per-service card with a monthly cap and it started rejected their billing attempts when, about a year ago, they abruptly increased my plan price to nearly double what I had been paying.
I had already been using uBlock Origin and Tidal via Plex (even though I don’t actually use Plex, but when I signed up I hadn’t yet decided to use Jellyfin), since I despise the YT Music UI, so for me there wasn’t much of a change.
That said, if you like YT Music / YT Premium then by all means stick with it. The creators of the videos you watch get comped better when you watch them than when a free user does - that was the main reason I kept my subscription for as long as I did.
Who uses YT music when there are so many free clients?
I guess people who also like YT premium
Spotify vs Tidal vs Apple Music vs Youtube Music which one is better?
Tidal is the most popular option for audiophiles. What I also like about it is the fact that they pay artists much more fairly than other platforms. According to this, they payout $0.013 per stream on average (which means $1 per 77 streams). Because I listen to a lot of unknown artists it is important to me to be on a platform where I can support those artists much more directly.
AFAIK Spotify only pays the overall most listened to artists like Taylor Swift etc. I canceled my Spotify subscription when Neil Young quit Spotify.
EDIT: because this is becoming a bit popular, for anyone looking to migrate from Spotify to Tidal, I recommend this simple to use python script to migrate your playlists. And because we have a lot of Linux users here, check out tidal-hifi.
Tidal may be most popular but the use of the lossy MQA codec for their "lossless" offerings is objectively worse than Deezer, Apple music and even Amazon Music.
Good thing they are migrating to FLAC! Also, while MQA is objectively worse, subjectively it's pretty much equal to objectively better options. At least for us humans :) I found this double-blind test of MQA critic Archimago and they couldn't find a statistically significant difference between MQA and PCM :)
Is Neil on Tidal? I know he is in QoBuz.
He is!
And I think he returned to Spotify as well.Nope, still off.I'm thinking of switching to Tidal. I've had YouTube music for awhile and I like it, but I just learned they fired a huge chunk of their staff after they unionized and that pissed me off. Anybody know how their rock and jazz selection is, especially with smaller lesser known artists?
I mainly listen to punk and it's extremely hard to find bands that are not on Tidal. When I migrated my playlists to Tidal from Spotify, there was only 1 Band which didn't exist on Tidal. But because it was only 1 song that was part of one of my playlists, I simply didn't care.
I don't even remember which one it was.Aha, they're called Valentiine (3 piece all-girl garage rock band from Melbourne, Australia) and they're still not on Tidal. Still don't care.Can't speak for Jazz though.
Tidal also laid off 10% of their staff in December. Probably not union busting, at least.
If you care about sound quality, Tidal and Qobuz are the best. The rest comes down to preference, IMHO. I like Tidal's recommendations, but I've also heard good things about Spotify's and Apple's
Qobuz
EDIT: this is when you have audio quality preferences and currating like Tidal does. But in the end it's a matter of taste. Platform A has sometimes songs and albums that platform B does not have and vice versa.
But for your decision making, you can't go wrong with Tidal. If you have a good dac/hifi installation, you may want to opt for hifi plus. But the lossless plain hifi subscription is perfect if you are not super sound picky and not having a above decent installation.
EDIT EDIT:
They are merging hifi and hifi plus to a 10.99 offering. That is actually very good value if you don't care about the DJ part. I am even considering this to ditch my Qobuz sub.
Haha ignore this post
Tidal's electronic selection isn't great, it's why I left the platform. But if you're into pop music, and especially hip hop, it's got you covered.
A few years ago I did listening comparisons of Amazon Music, Spotify, Deezer, Tidal and Quobuzz. At least for my ears, Tidal was way better, with engaging dynamic range and clarity. Quobuzz was just a little better, while listening to Spotify and Amazon Music was like FM radio in comparison, loud and compressed.
Pricewise, they're all somewhat similar. I went with Tidal because it has good quality, a good catalogue, and pays the artists better.
I spent a few months with each of them recently.
For me, Apple Music recommendations are by far the best. Tidal was decent but the UI was a pain and the integrations didn’t work well. Spotify had great integrations and easy device switching, but the recommendations were terrible, for me. YouTube music is the worst of the batch. Bad UI, bad recommendations, and just not a music lovers platform.
So, I use Apple Music. For me, it is the best since the GOAT Google Play Music was retired.
Interesting. For me, none of any recommendation algorithm worked decently well for me. I find new bands via following other bands (on Instagram, sadly), look at what they listen to, what bands they hang/tour/do concerts with or by asking other punks or by checking other communities.
It takes a month or so before recommendations start to get close to my tastes. Apple has consistently recommended either old bands I haven’t listened to in years or new bands that I end up liking. Sure, they still fail from time to time, but I listen to a very wide variety and Apple seems to be the only platform to recognize that if I’m listening to metallica, I don’t want to hear kid cudi in the same playlist
Is there a word for the opposite of enshitification?
engoodening
Normal and sane.
It's not normal though.
Deshitification
goodshitification
Does this mean we're stuck with MQA? Or can we still forcibly use FLAC. I was on the lower tier purely to avoid MQA.
No, there is what Tidal calls "HiRes FLAC", which is 24-bit, 192 kHz. Their website does not even mention MQA anymore. They've moved away from MQA since early 2023, when the MQA company went bankrupt
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Tidal seems to have decided that there just aren’t enough people willing to pay upward of $20 per month for the highest-possible audio fidelity.
At a high level, it sounds like this new, much simpler subscription model will still include all the perks — high-res FLACs, Dolby Atmos mixes, etc.
Now Tidal is caving and throwing in its large catalog of high-res tracks without demanding extra money on top.
With this move, Tidal could be trying to head off an eventual rollout of the rumored “Supremium” Spotify plan and avoid potential subscriber losses.
Either way, it’s an attempt to remain competitive in the streaming music landscape — or at least to stay relevant.
Tidal laid off 10 percent of its staff in December amid other cuts at parent company Block.
The original article contains 428 words, the summary contains 130 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Actually this is a good deal. Curation on tidal is good, meaning they have cool playlists handpicked by people. In the past when I used it it was with questionable MQA encoding, which had a lot of controversy. But 24/192khz flac, If you care about audio quality is a better offer than Qobuz.
Can't go wrong for the price. But I think the main driver should be audio quality. Because FLAC files (esp 24/192khz) can be very data hungry, for those who use it mobile only. So you need to be careful with that. You can use lower sample rates and higher bitrate mp3 as well if my memory serves well. But that defeats a bit the purpose of what Tidal stands for
But 24-bit audio is useless for playback. The difference is literally inaudible. In fact, the application of dynamic range compression during the mixing/mastering process has a far greater impact on perceptible audio quality than sample rate or bitrate does (the placebo effect notwithstanding).
If you care about audio quality, seek out album masters and music that is well-recorded and not dynamically crushed to oblivion. The bitrate isn't really all that important, in the greater scheme of things.
I partially agree with you. Yes mixing and mastering is far more important than bitrate. However if I let my gf listen to a identical song both in normal 16/44khz and 24 bit version, she can hear difference. Now is it night and day ? Not always, but subtle Improvement can matter when enjoying music.
Literally the only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is that the latter has a lower noise floor, which is really only useful for sound production - It doesn't translate to any increase in meaningful detail or dynamic range when dealing with playback.
16-bit was chosen as the defacto standard for CDs and digital music precisely because it contains more than enough dynamic range for human hearing.
Any difference your gf hears is due to the placebo effect rather than any inherent difference in the actual audio.
That writeup from Xiph is excellent. The comparison with adding ultraviolet and infrared to video makes so much sense. But you're dealing with audiophiles who seriously consider getting hi-end power and ethernet cables. I read somewhere that there was a listening test with speakers connected with hanger wire - and audiophiles couldn't tell.
In the end, it's all physics. I could never hear a quality improvement beyond normal 16bit, 320kbps, no matter how demanding the music.
As a recovering audiophile, I can safely say the hobby is heavily based around FOMO (the nagging doubt that something, somewhere, in your audio chain is causing a loss of audio quality), and digital audio is no exception. Not only is 320kbps more than enough, even with $1000s worth of equipment, but with codecs more efficient than MP3 (especially Opus), even 128kbps can be good enough to sound identical to lossless.
If you have plenty of local storage then 16-bit FLAC is ideal, but if you are just streaming then you really don't need a lossless service except to keep the FOMO at bay.
Anyone who has ever heard a 128kbps mp3 side-by-side with a 320kbps (or really anything above 192kbps in my experience) version can tell you that bitrate definitely matters. The better audio equipment you play it through, the more noticeable it is.
It definitely becomes inaudible at a certain point, but back in my CD ripping days, I'd scoff at anything below 192kbps
Have you ever done an actual double blind listening test? You'd be surprised. Even with good listening equipment it can be very challenging.
Have a go on the 128 kbps AAC test on this page and see how you do:
https://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify.html
I have, yes.
Presumably it was using an older/outdated codec then. With modern encoders, especially with codecs like Opus, Ogg, and Apple's AAC, the vast majority of listeners find 128kbps to be transparent, and certainly nowhere near night-and-day when compared to lossless.
Check out the results of this public listening test here:
https://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm
Tidal is still around? I'm impressed
Not surprised, I was fed up with the cost so setup a new account with a Nigerian VPN, only a few pound per month with that method.
Might switch back to a UK account if they make the price more reasonable here.
I did the same (Nigeria) a few months ago for a family account. They have still to charge me anything for it. And the account is actually working anyway. I don't know why. I also emailed them about this and they replied that everything is fine on their end... Well, thank you for the free account, Mr. Tidal.
Spotify really beats everyone at cricket noises when responding to competitors.
Maybe I would consider paying for tidal but as I am pirating YT music thought ReVanced I think I wouldn't, so good luck anyway.
Still not available in my country. Sadge.
Anyone in the US can confirm if Tidal it's free there?
As a stand alone service I don't think it is great, but feeding into Plex + Plexamp makes it awesome.
Tidal integrates with Plex local libraries seamlessly. Itslike having your own collections without having to rip or download anything.
Are they pretending everyone knows what that is?
By way of advertisement, yes.