Jump to content
IGNORED

Tidal + Apple


Recommended Posts

I have subscriptions to Apple Music, Spotify, Tidal, and Pandora. I'll be dumping Spotify as it has nothing to add to the mix.

I have all kinds of files including flac and mastered for iTunes and I use Roon.

The idea that Tidal is a competitor to Apple is pretty laughable. I like Tidal but they are a blip in sales which is one of the reasons they are trying to sell.

Exclusives haven't helped Tidal much.

Apple has shown plenty of commitment to higher quality files with AAC and Mastered for iTunes. They aren't in the audiophile market which is tiny but they are delivering higher quality music to millions of people.

Apple charges 30 percent but so does Amazon but Amazon whines about it still. Spotify has never made money and screws over artist but whines about Apple. Plus Apple is now charging 15 percent on subscriptions. Hosting files at Apples level costs serious money. Apple isn't interested in making money from the App Store they are interested in selling you devices and the App Store and iTunes are a means to that end.

So I'm not really sure why Apple would want Tidal unless it's to get a jump on MQA. Imagine Apple behind MQA...buh bye Spotify with your 320k Ogg..

Link to comment
I have subscriptions to Apple Music, Spotify, Tidal, and Pandora. I'll be dumping Spotify as it has nothing to add to the mix.

I have all kinds of files including flac and mastered for iTunes and I use Roon.

The idea that Tidal is a competitor to Apple is pretty laughable. I like Tidal but they are a blip in sales which is one of the reasons they are trying to sell.

Exclusives haven't helped Tidal much.

Apple has shown plenty of commitment to higher quality files with AAC and Mastered for iTunes. They aren't in the audiophile market which is tiny but they are delivering higher quality music to millions of people.

Apple charges 30 percent but so does Amazon but Amazon whines about it still. Spotify has never made money and screws over artist but whines about Apple. Plus Apple is now charging 15 percent on subscriptions. Hosting files at Apples level costs serious money. Apple isn't interested in making money from the App Store they are interested in selling you devices and the App Store and iTunes are a means to that end.

So I'm not really sure why Apple would want Tidal unless it's to get a jump on MQA. Imagine Apple behind MQA...buh bye Spotify with your 320k Ogg..

 

I'm still hoping beyond hope probably that the rumors of Apple streaming 24/96 files happens !

 

That would wake everyone up here in this forum .

Link to comment

Based on another post on Audiostream, it doesn't look like Apple will follow through with more talks. I hope that Tidal will be able to make it financially. We who buy the HiFi sub's are in a vast minority. I bet most non audiophiles even have a clue about the differences and I wonder if they'd be able to hear them with much of the equipment they use. JMHO

Link to comment
I bet most non audiophiles even have a clue about the differences and I wonder if they'd be able to hear them with much of the equipment they use. JMHO

 

And even if that vast majority of the population owned equipment capable of revealing the differences, a more fundamental issue is that almost nobody listens to music as a sole, focused activity, sitting in the sweet spot, like most of us on this site do.

 

Music is played in the background while performing other activities and in these cases, expensive equipment and hi rez files are for the most part, a waste of money. Put another way, I don't think being an audiophile and listening to hi rez music makes much sense for most people (and that is perfectly fine).

Speaker Room: Lumin U1X | Lampizator Pacific 2 | Viva Linea | Constellation Inspiration Stereo 1.0 | FinkTeam Kim | Revel subs  

Office Headphone System: Lumin U1X | Lampizator Golden Gate 3 | Viva Egoista | Abyss AB1266 Phi TC 

Link to comment
Based on another post on Audiostream, it doesn't look like Apple will follow through with more talks. I hope that Tidal will be able to make it financially. We who buy the HiFi sub's are in a vast minority. I bet most non audiophiles even have a clue about the differences and I wonder if they'd be able to hear them with much of the equipment they use. JMHO

 

My daughter uses my Tidal account and says she notices the difference in audio quality on a Sonos S5 speaker . Not exactly audiophile territory .

And she likes the improvement

Link to comment
My daughter uses my Tidal account and says she notices the difference in audio quality on a Sonos S5 speaker . Not exactly audiophile territory .

And she likes the improvement

 

Great to hear. My daughter does the same. She's getting her first apartment with three other girls next semester and I'm giving her my old Marantz receiver and Paradigm speakers/sub (still can't believe I was talked into buying a sub for non full range speakers, lol). Not sure of the front end yet, but she'll stream Tidal as I gave her a sub (hifi with military discount of course, lol). She too hears a difference as do her friends, but she's been around me and my system her whole life and she sings and always has her music on like I always did/do. That said, we all know very few will care even if/when they hear a difference. If the great sounding gear looks cool and is in their price range, then MAY go that route, but not if they aren't guided there. JMHO.

Link to comment
Hopefully they don't ruin the sound of TIDAL. I tried apple music for a while and the sound wasn't good. Seems like Apple thinks they can just decide for everyone what is good and bad. They have been known for bad sound forever so I hope they don't creep in and wreck a good thing that is TIDAL.

 

Apple known for bad sound? Hardly. Their AAC and especially Mastered for iTunes formats are quite good and over the course of iTunes/Apple music history they have done quite a few things to improve. I prefer it over Spotify 320k Ogg easily which is one of the reasons I am getting rid of Spotify.

Considering that Apple is selling music to millions of people they have done quite well with sound quality.

The other streaming services use various formats too, how are they not deciding what for everyone is good and bad as you claim Apple is?

 

http://www.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/

Link to comment
Based on another post on Audiostream, it doesn't look like Apple will follow through with more talks. I hope that Tidal will be able to make it financially. We who buy the HiFi sub's are in a vast minority. I bet most non audiophiles even have a clue about the differences and I wonder if they'd be able to hear them with much of the equipment they use. JMHO

 

This is all rumor and conjecture at this point.

I'm still not seeing why Apple would want Tidal unless its to get a running start on MQA but maybe that's just because I want that to be the reason.

As far as Tidal making it I seriously doubt they will ever get beyond treading water. Most people are used to streaming at low rates using cheap earbuds and $19.95 a month makes no sense to them when everyone else is half the cost. If anything a very large population uses the free versions of Spotify and Pandora and puts up with ads and other limitations rather than pay.

Link to comment
All great questions...

 

I think the move to lightning-only is hardware simplification and cost reduction - no DAC in the phone, less of a thickness design constraint, no need to make space for that pesky old banana plug... I am all for it frankly, you can have a nicer DAC this way. For example, the Wolfson DAC in the lightning-to-30pin converter is actually very nice, in my opinion better than the one in the phone.

...

 

I haven't seen any rumors saying they were getting rid of the speaker(s)... so the phone would still need a DAC.

Link to comment
...

Spotify has never made money and screws over artist ...

 

To be fair, those deals were signed by the record label execs (many of which allegedly received stock options as well). The negotiation for streaming rights (if it even occurred) would have been done between the labels and their artists. Sure, Spotify could have offered more money than what the labels were asking for, but that would have been an absurdly benevolent act from a VC-funded company that is still, to this day, losing money hand over fist.

Link to comment
This is seriously OT but just expressing my agreement with the comment above. Seems that other than a very select group of audio reviewers, very few are given the open opportunity to review MQA. In Vancouver, BC, Canada, we had a small audio show a couple of weeks ago with representation from the local dealers and some industry reps...there was a sheduled MQA demonstration running throughout given by a member of Meridian and played on some very expensive gear. Huge Tidal speakers and Burmeister gear.

The presentaion was roughly a half hour long and I left being no wiser as to MQA. The presenter played an MQA track of the drum kit portion of Dave Brubeck's Take Five which sounded exquisite but then didn't play the original unaltered version. People in the audience were asking for direct comparisons but when he finally did so did it was a very odd and goofy audiophile track. Why not have compared the Brubeck? Well, the drum kit portion of that song would sound great on an iPhone and as an MP3!

Totally lacklustre presentation which did nothing to intrigue or excite the listener.

Don't get it.

 

I had a similar experience at CES this year when I visited the MQA room. Lots of bluster. Expensive Meridian system. Unspectacular sound. No A/B comparisons. It all felt very smarmy. I'd be very surprised if Apple jumped on the MQA bandwagon.

Link to comment
To be fair, those deals were signed by the record label execs (many of which allegedly received stock options as well). The negotiation for streaming rights (if it even occurred) would have been done between the labels and their artists. Sure, Spotify could have offered more money than what the labels were asking for, but that would have been an absurdly benevolent act from a VC-funded company that is still, to this day, losing money hand over fist.

 

I switched from Spotify to Apple Music simply because I see trouble ahead for them financially .

 

Apple Music is not going away , period .

 

Of course I have Tidal , which is fantastic , even though their library is weak

Link to comment
I heard about that yesterday, but as far as I know neither company has verified this. I would hypothesize that such an acquisition would gain Apple the legal right to stream 16/44.1 or higher music.

 

 

Paul would you please explain to me your comment regarding the legal right to stream 16/44? I did not know that was an obstacle. Is the 16/44 and other standards patented or otherwise legally protected as being owned by some entity? Is it just with respect to streaming? Does Tidal own some sort of patent or has it obtained some special legal privilege that enables it and it only to stream 16/44 and/or "high resolution" audio? I always thought it was a purely a marketing decision by Apple to stream any or all of it's music in whatever format they had available or chose to do so. I know you are an Engineer and not a lawyer. But i also know you know a helluva lot about a lot of things. Maybe Jud can chime in here and educate me a little on this?....Inquiring minds want to know !! Thank you Larry

Link to comment
I switched from Spotify to Apple Music simply because I see trouble ahead for them financially .

 

Apple Music is not going away , period .

 

Of course I have Tidal , which is fantastic , even though their library is weak

 

I don't honestly think it is fair to say that Tidal's library is weak. Missing things here and there, yes. But overall, I would give it fairly high marks for what it has available. It even has rare recordings, live and otherwise and even remasters virtually whenever they are available! I am amazed regularly by finding those things.

 

JC

Link to comment
Apple known for bad sound? Hardly. Their AAC and especially Mastered for iTunes formats are quite good and over the course of iTunes/Apple music history they have done quite a few things to improve. I prefer it over Spotify 320k Ogg easily which is one of the reasons I am getting rid of Spotify.

Considering that Apple is selling music to millions of people they have done quite well with sound quality.

The other streaming services use various formats too, how are they not deciding what for everyone is good and bad as you claim Apple is?

 

iTunes - Mastered for iTunes - Apple

 

"Considering that Apple is selling music to millions of people they have done quite well with sound quality."

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure what selling music to millions of people has to do with sound quality. And honestly, when did selling millions of anything ever have any kind of relationship to quality? I know of nothing positive Apple has contributed to music quality, and much they have done to damage it, probably irretrievably. Indeed, their use of a garbage format like MP3 just to make sure all of the music could be compressed to fit on an iPad is responsible for more destruction of music quality than anyone in history. It is due to that, primarily, that we are well on the way to seeing cd's disappear, and music quality (except at very high prices for hi rez digital downloads) becoming eventually unavailable to those of us who truly care.

 

JC

Link to comment
Paul would you please explain to me your comment regarding the legal right to stream 16/44? I did not know that was an obstacle. Is the 16/44 and other standards patented or otherwise legally protected as being owned by some entity? Is it just with respect to streaming? Does Tidal own some sort of patent or has it obtained some special legal privilege that enables it and it only to stream 16/44 and/or "high resolution" audio? I always thought it was a purely a marketing decision by Apple to stream any or all of it's music in whatever format they had available or chose to do so. I know you are an Engineer and not a lawyer. But i also know you know a helluva lot about a lot of things. Maybe Jud can chime in here and educate me a little on this?....Inquiring minds want to know !! Thank you Larry

 

Hi Larry - Apple has agreements on what they can legally stream. Just like their for-sale agreements, it specifies the maximum quality in terms of bit or sample rate they can stream. The musc industry is trying to squeeze more money out of Apple for everything. Remember when all tracks were $0.99 on the iTunes store?

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
This is seriously OT but just expressing my agreement with the comment above. Seems that other than a very select group of audio reviewers, very few are given the open opportunity to review MQA. In Vancouver, BC, Canada, we had a small audio show a couple of weeks ago with representation from the local dealers and some industry reps...there was a sheduled MQA demonstration running throughout given by a member of Meridian and played on some very expensive gear. Huge Tidal speakers and Burmeister gear.

The presentaion was roughly a half hour long and I left being no wiser as to MQA. The presenter played an MQA track of the drum kit portion of Dave Brubeck's Take Five which sounded exquisite but then didn't play the original unaltered version. People in the audience were asking for direct comparisons but when he finally did so did it was a very odd and goofy audiophile track. Why not have compared the Brubeck? Well, the drum kit portion of that song would sound great on an iPhone and as an MP3!

Totally lacklustre presentation which did nothing to intrigue or excite the listener.

Don't get it.

I posted this little diatribe not to alert our assembled host but, quite seriously, want Meridian to know how bad these demonstrations are going. Perhaps you are paying attention to this site!

If you have an ambition to re-code our musical history you really should send a better representative...I suspect you're on to something but we, the unwashed, have no better idea what it is after events like these.

Link to comment
"Considering that Apple is selling music to millions of people they have done quite well with sound quality."

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure what selling music to millions of people has to do with sound quality. And honestly, when did selling millions of anything ever have any kind of relationship to quality? I know of nothing positive Apple has contributed to music quality, and much they have done to damage it, probably irretrievably. Indeed, their use of a garbage format like MP3 just to make sure all of the music could be compressed to fit on an iPad is responsible for more destruction of music quality than anyone in history. It is due to that, primarily, that we are well on the way to seeing cd's disappear, and music quality (except at very high prices for hi rez digital downloads) becoming eventually unavailable to those of us who truly care.

 

JC

 

I think people are forgetting a bit of history in the late 1990s and into the early 2000s. Music Execs were screwing artists as they have always done. There was a "little rebellion" called Napster. CDs could be ripped into MP3 and obtained from the Internet for free via Naspter. Shawn Fanning (whom I met once at one if the Label meetings) was either a hero or a pirate. The Music execs were freaking out, lost revenues, reduced bonuses, poor artists, etc.. etc. The end of the record industry.

 

In came Steve Jobs with the first consumer portable music device with true end-to-end DRM. The device had no APIs or interfaces other than for Apple. A true closed system. Not just that, it brought a new user experience. Etc. etc. you know the rest.

 

So I usually cut a bit of slack for Apple for this amazing achievement (plus for giving us the first Mac 128K in 1983). Other than the audiophile communities, there hasn't been much complaints about SQ from the general user base.

Let every eye ear negotiate for itself and trust no agent. (Shakespeare)

The things that we love tell us what we are. (Aquinas)

Link to comment
No A/B comparisons. It all felt very smarmy.

 

No direct and obvious comparisons?

 

Isn't that the essence of a scam?

 

A form of bait and switch?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Music is love, made audible.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...