Tidal Sound Quality

[sandyk]

Streaming will never sound quite as good as a high quality local rip, even with the exact same source material.

This will be obvious to most with a half decent set up using JRiver 26 for example.

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I used to believe this as well... until I actually tested it myself.

I should have qualified this by adding streaming from  Tidal over Qobuz, but we were talking about Tidal and

Quobuz, not local streaming

 Neither does it surprise me that you are unable to hear the kind of differences that are blindingly obvious to members other than those who post almost exclusively in the General area of the forum, which is the area where the closed minded sceptics like yourself mainly congregate, instead of areas like Rajiv's massive thread where they invariably use far better equipment than you use.

 Note that Chris, for example, realises the need for vastly improved mains power in a 60HZ 117 VAC country , and other things such as the need to better match signal levels without the need for excessive attenuation !

[sandyk]

30 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Have you actually tested streaming services versus local stored files?

 I don't need to. I can hear the obvious degradation when my own uploaded .wav files are DL from Dropbox etc.again  , saved   and played using JRiver 26 compared with the original copy.

I will not be further responding to the usual garbage from you about your so called perfect little Digital World where even all error free USB cables sound the same, and the PSU area, whether SMPS or Linear , of the PC/Server doesn't matter, even that of Tidal or Quobuz.

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Are you certain that the original and DL'ed versions are identical, using, say, the DOS FC program, Alex?

Who cares ? All that matters to some is that their precious checksums remain identical, which of course I make sure they are.

Even a single error, perhaps muted, provided that the file still plays, won't alter the overall sound of the audio, which amuses me where so many reject ripped  audio or Video files that aren't "bit perfect" even though they may not have even noticed a single muted error when the file is played.

 Different USB cables can make much larger audible differences even when the digital output is found to be error free !

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Well, I would do that, just to be absolutely certain.

 Well I couldn't be bothered.

 I have already done pretty much what you described way back in 2009 with 3 lots of 20 renamed pairs of .wav files, created by DIY Audio member Greg Erskine from my original files on USB memory, then copied to and shuffled between his HDDs before renaming them. NONE of the copied files sounded as good as the original .wav files that I added for comparison purposes, making 3 files in all of each track in each of the 3 versions of  20 tracks.

 

 

 

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

5. The biggest surprise was identical files stream through two different digital cable sounded different. They are supposed to send the data to the DAC and wasn’t expecting any difference. 

 

 That would be far from a surprise to numerous members .

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

Anyone want to take a blind test?  

 

Wouldn't you rather go to a Dentist and have root canal therapy ?

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The key thing is that the way that you add the original has to be done exactly the same as you treat the copies - all done at the same time, no difference in the timing, and procedure used. What one is attempting to do is to make certain that absolutely nothing in the way the files are treated, at any time, could possibly favour the original over the copy, for any possible reason.

 

If you are certain that this was done, then fair enough ...

We also did a series of tests with E.E. Frans de Gruitjer from The Netherlands  and 2 U.K. members of a U.K. based forum, where the 2 U.K. members  had no problems hearing the differences between the pairs of uploaded files directly downloaded from Filemail, but had problems reliably picking the differences after being saved in The Netherlands,  renamed, and sent out again.

 There were also a confirming set of results when performing extensive tests with John Kenny and Marcin Ostapowicz from JPlay.

 Anyway, that's more than enough for now.

[sandyk]

53 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Actually the opposite is true, most CD rips sound utter crap. Luckily there are some great masterings on Tidal. 

 

 In that case you must have a lot of CDs that were made after the start of the Loudness wars, or your CD ripping leaves a lot to be desired due to poor ripping techniques including the choice of writer and the PSU used.

 Yes, some CDs were rushed out at the beginning of the CD era that were inferior to the LP mastering where more care was taken in many cases, and the lower maximum output levels used in the AAD days often showed up deficiencies in the player , Preamplifier areas etc.

 If the exact same recording from Tidal sounds better than a local rip then you have MAJOR problems in the Digital area of your PC/Server  Don't expect great results from a typical Laptop or a bog standard Mac Mini, as they are usually too electrically noisy, especially where USB is used.

[sandyk]

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2020 at 7:13 AM, gmgraves said:

I find that my rips, played back on Audirvana, sound significantly better than they do played back on JRiver. Of course, I can’t compare JRiver playback of Tidal because The current version of the software (JRiver 26?) doesn’t support Tidal playback on the Mac (although, I seem to recall that it is possible to access Tidal on JRiver on the Windows version, but it’s not as easy or as seamless as it is on Audirvana)

 A dedicated Audiophile S/W player for the particular O.S. usually sounds better.

[sandyk]

8 hours ago, Rexp said:

I wish

 

After NUMEROUS replays of the same track they may start to sound the same, but perhaps more like the inferior version as concentration lapses ?

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, Rexp said:

I found this track good for identifying the differences, the streamed Tidal version is more diffuse sounding than the download with weaker bass, its easy to spot:

https://tidal.com/track/111213084

 I have a rip of this from 2009, but will have to get back to listening later today

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, Rexp said:

I found this track good for identifying the differences, the streamed Tidal version is more diffuse sounding than the download with weaker bass, its easy to spot:

https://tidal.com/track/111213084

 

 I am not surprised that this sounds a little better than Tidal. My 2009 rip of tracks such as "What Am I to You sound pretty good.

 Interestingly, this time the Bonus DVD has AC3 5Ch. Audio instead of LPCM

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, Summit said:

 

I think that you exaggerating. In a good (or very good) audio system a small difference can be heard if directly compare the two, but it’s no night and day difference IME.

 I didn't claim that it was a night and day difference. However it should be quite obvious to those with better than average gear,  and those who do not have an Expectation Bias that they should sound the same.

[sandyk]

6 hours ago, Rexp said:

You can download the Tidal version here if you want to compare to your rip:

https://store.tidal.com/my/album/112707015

 

Thanks, but I do not feel the need for Tidal or any other paid music service .

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

@The Computer Audiophile

 

I think this thread should be moved to Objective sub-forum. Please delete @sandyk posts as they are not based on any first hand experience with Tidal or any other paid services.

  My experiences are based on paid Downloads from both HDTracks and Linn Records, as well as direct listening to their, and samples from other sources.

 Note also that your new childish Objective Music Forum elsewhere is not needed as we already have a suitable area .

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/forum/13-music-analysis-objective-subjective/