HD Streaming Comparison: Amazon, IDAGIO, Qobuz, Spotify Premium, Tidal

[Bevok]

Thanks for the heads up on Primephonic! Looks very promising in terms of its layout and editorial content, certainly more satisfying than the mainstream services. Hopefully they can up the quality of Chromecast streaming. Other elements that would be good are video performances and ideally live performances. 
 

I switched to Qobuz for general hires recently after further revelations about MQA’s deficiencies. Very nice app and good sound quality via Chromecast (I use Airplay when gapless is essential). 

[OmegaWave]

MQA - NEVER, but can someone please explain to me how a 1 to 1 FLAC of the original digital recording sounds better from one service provider than another? It makes zero sense to me.

 

One point never mentioned here (but which does matter to me as a musician) is that Qobuz pays almost five times more per stream in royalties than Tidal - even though Tidal pays almost three times more than Spotify - basically nothing more than criminal exploit in my opinion. Even Apple is slightly better than Spotify in this regard.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, OmegaWave said:

MQA - NEVER, but can someone please explain to me how a 1 to 1 FLAC of the original digital recording sounds better from one service provider than another? It makes zero sense to me.

 

One point never mentioned here (but which does matter to me as a musician) is that Qobuz pays almost five times more per stream in royalties than Tidal - even though Tidal pays almost three times more than Spotify - basically nothing more than criminal exploit in my opinion. Even Apple is slightly better than Spotify in this regard.

Payouts are determined by the rights holders, not the streaming service. It’s all based on percentage. There is no such thing as a per stream rate. So, the services with the most use such as Spotify, will appear to pay less, but actually pay the percentage dictated to them by the rights holders. Less users/streams make it appear that some services pay more, but they actually don’t. 

[PeterG]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Payouts are determined by the rights holders, not the streaming service. It’s all based on percentage. There is no such thing as a per stream rate. So, the services with the most use such as Spotify, will appear to pay less, but actually pay the percentage dictated to them by the rights holders. Less users/streams make it appear that some services pay more, but they actually don’t. 

 

Sort of.  The streaming services pay a percentage of their revenue to rights holders; this percentage is set by the streaming services.  In the case of Spotify, this is 70%.  Rights holders and artists negotiate the percentage paid by rights holders to artists; in the case of an indie artist, this percentage is 100%.  While it is true that there is no such thing as a per stream $ rate legally; the artists have a relatively predictable $ rate per stream--if you ask an artist the fraction of a cent he gets per stream, you will get a reasonably accurate answer.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, PeterG said:

 

Sort of.  The streaming services pay a percentage of their revenue to rights holders; this percentage is set by the streaming services.  In the case of Spotify, this is 70%.  Rights holders and artists negotiate the percentage paid by rights holders to artists; in the case of an indie artist, this percentage is 100%.  While it is true that there is no such thing as a per stream $ rate legally; the artists have a relatively predictable $ rate per stream--if you ask an artist the fraction of a cent he gets per stream, you will get a reasonably accurate answer.

The percentage is dictated to streaming services by the rights holders. Period. 

 

If I start AS Streaming Service, I can't tell rights holders I am going to pay them 50% and that's that. I talk to streaming services frequently. They don't decide how much to pay. 

 

Asking artists about rates is incredibly fraught with questionable logic. Sure, they can back into the number by simple division, but it just doesn't work that way. 

[OmegaWave]

Well - thanks for that clarification but what I really wanted to know is why so many folks here have the perception that the lossless stream they receive varies in quality between the service providers?

 

I am just trying to decide on hardware that will work properly with a proper service. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, OmegaWave said:

Well - thanks for that clarification but what I really wanted to know is why so many folks here have the perception that the lossless stream they receive varies in quality between the service providers?

 

I am just trying to decide on hardware that will work properly with a proper service. 

 

Some services don't deliver bit perfect audio streams. They claim high resolution or lossless CD quality, but there is DSP going on when using certain services and certain playback chains. 

[OmegaWave]

Do you have any links for verification of this phenomenon? Processing the stream without compressing seems like a completely obsolete addition of cost if you think about it. What can they possibly have to gain?

 

Thanks again.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, OmegaWave said:

Do you have any links for verification of this phenomenon? Processing the stream without compressing seems like a completely obsolete addition of cost if you think about it. What can they possibly have to gain?

 

Thanks again.

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterG]

48 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The percentage is dictated to streaming services by the rights holders. Period. 

 

If I start AS Streaming Service, I can't tell rights holders I am going to pay them 50% and that's that. I talk to streaming services frequently. They don't decide how much to pay. 

 

Asking artists about rates is incredibly fraught with questionable logic. Sure, they can back into the number by simple division, but it just doesn't work that way. 

 

Well, I think it's incontrovertible that, like any business deal, the percentage Spotify pays is a negotiation between two sides.  If the rate is too low for a given rights holder, their music will not appear; if it is too high for Spotify, it will not appear.

 

In the case of Spotify, my understanding is that every rights holder gets the same percentage--around 70% of certain Spotify revenue.  If the rights holders "dictated", then different rights holders would receive different percentages, right?  I have not seen any info suggesting different percentages, please post if you have some.

 

I do not understand how it is fraught to ask artists, at least if they are the rights holders.  Although I think the rate/stream may be falling.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, PeterG said:

 

Well, I think it's incontrovertible that, like any business deal, the percentage Spotify pays is a negotiation between two sides.  If the rate is too low for a given rights holder, their music will not appear; if it is too high for Spotify, it will not appear.

 

In the case of Spotify, my understanding is that every rights holder gets the same percentage--around 70% of certain Spotify revenue.  If the rights holders "dictated", then different rights holders would receive different percentages, right?  I have not seen any info suggesting different percentages, please post if you have some.

 

I do not understand how it is fraught to ask artists, at least if they are the rights holders.  Although I think the rate/stream may be falling.

 

I've personally talked to streaming services that tell me this information. I'm not making it up or using info from another source. The rights holders hold all the cards as well. Spotify can't invent Sort of Blue and sell it as a competitor to Kind of Blue. If Spotify goes away tomorrow, it wouldn't be a big deal given there is so much competition. Either services take the deal or they don't. Also note, the labels double dip because of ownership in Spotify. 

 

Each individual rights holder doesn't go to services to dictate terms. The majors say here's the deal, do you want it? 

 

I've been in countless conversations with artists who believe there is a per rate stream because they've backed into a number using simple division. It's pretty simple to prove to them that there isn't a per stream rate, yet they refuse to believe believe it. If the fake per stream rate changes, that's evidence it doesn't exist. It's all percentage. 

 

 

[OmegaWave]

23 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks a lot. So it seems that the issue may not be with the conversion to FLAC itself, but rather that apps like Amazon's is incapable of streaming directly to external hardware - hence DSP'ed through the app itself.

I've been back and forth you certainly lead my back towards Qobuz - in which case finding properly integrated hardware becaomes the main problem. At my local dealer it says the new Node is Qobuz integrated but Bluesound's own page does not. (I really don't want to pay for Roon on top the service).

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, OmegaWave said:

Thanks a lot. So it seems that the issue may not be with the conversion to FLAC itself, but rather that apps like Amazon's is incapable of streaming directly to external hardware - hence DSP'ed through the app itself.

I've been back and forth you certainly lead my back towards Qobuz - in which case finding properly integrated hardware becaomes the main problem. At my local dealer it says the new Node is Qobuz integrated but Bluesound's own page does not. (I really don't want to pay for Roon on top the service).

I have two new Powernodes and use Qobuz through them frequently with the Bluesound app. 

[Bevok]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I've personally talked to streaming services that tell me this information. I'm not making it up or using info from another source. The rights holders hold all the cards as well. Spotify can't invent Sort of Blue and sell it as a competitor to Kind of Blue. If Spotify goes away tomorrow, it wouldn't be a big deal given there is so much competition. Either services take the deal or they don't. Also note, the labels double dip because of ownership in Spotify. 

 

Each individual rights holder doesn't go to services to dictate terms. The majors say here's the deal, do you want it? 

 

I've been in countless conversations with artists who believe there is a per rate stream because they've backed into a number using simple division. It's pretty simple to prove to them that there isn't a per stream rate, yet they refuse to believe believe it. If the fake per stream rate changes, that's evidence it doesn't exist. It's all percentage. 

 

 

Yes, the per stream rates are a construct used by a lot of commentators and activists but they just aren’t commercially relevant. It’s a bit like saying Uncle Ben’s Cola is so much better for caffeine producers than Coca Cola because they pay 14c per litre and Coke only pay 8.

You can verify this by looking at the number of artists who only have their music on Qobuz.

[Bevok]

I can’t paste the link but search for a BluOS support article entitled “WHAT MUSIC SERVICES DOES BLUOS SUPPORT?”.

 

Deezer is worth considering also, with CD quality across the board on the Hifi tier, big library, a mature recommendation engine and big range of playlists, original content and one of the widest ranges of hardware support.

 

 

 

 

[audiobomber]

YouTube Music is only 256kbps AAC, but the content is unmatched, if you enjoy watching concerts, which I do, or music videos, which I don't.

Google Play Music was folded into YTM last year, so virtually everything is available.

Regular YouTube is only 128kbps and has commercial interruptions.

 

I had Amazon Music for a few months but the software was poor and no video. Tidal holds no interest for me, and Qobuz is not available in Canada. I will try Spotify when it goes to CD quality.

[Bevok]

I find 256k AAC sounds really good in virtually every application, apart from perhaps the most critical listening, and even then you really need training to spot the tells. IMHO. Youtube Music sometimes gets a bit of a bad rap but I've found the recommendation engine to be spot on and unbeaten among the other services I've used. I did use GPM for a number of years which probably helps. 

Probably the only issue is that you can only get gapless playback directly off your device or via Airplay - hopefully one day Chromecast will be able to manage it. 

You're right about the catalogue, unparalleled.

[audiobomber]

25 minutes ago, Bevok said:

I find 256k AAC sounds really good in virtually every application, apart from perhaps the most critical listening, and even then you really need training to spot the tells. IMHO. Youtube Music sometimes gets a bit of a bad rap but I've found the recommendation engine to be spot on and unbeaten among the other services I've used. I did use GPM for a number of years which probably helps. 

Probably the only issue is that you can only get gapless playback directly off your device or via Airplay - hopefully one day Chromecast will be able to manage it. 

You're right about the catalogue, unparalleled.

I agree, the quality is surprisingly good. I normally only listen to YTM on my less resolving systems, where I'm not too nitpicky about sound. I find the quality quite acceptable, and so did the audiophile friends who heard my new desktop system.
 

Actually a friend brought his laptop over to stream Tidal to my main system and I thought YTM sounded better, even though Tidal was streamed to a Playpoint streamer and YTM to a hopped-up Chromecast Audio streamer, both connected to my DAC. Tidal had very poor PRaT. This was before firmware 1.8, so Tidal has apparently upped its game since then. 

 

I like to watch videos of live music on my computer monitor, or on a 65" TV. The TV is connected via Toslink to my exaSound DAC and main audio system, and is great fun. I listen to rock and jazz, so the lack of gapless is no biggie.

 

I noticed a huge improvement in YTM software and recommendations in the past year, probably because of all the complaints they received from GPM members who were shuffled over, kicking and screaming all the way. 

[Bevok]

39 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

I agree, the quality is surprisingly good. I normally only listen to YTM on my less resolving systems, where I'm not too nitpicky about sound. I find the quality quite acceptable, and so did the audiophile friends who heard my new desktop system.
 

Actually a friend brought his laptop over to stream Tidal to my main system and I thought YTM sounded better, even though Tidal was streamed to a Playpoint streamer and YTM to a hopped-up Chromecast Audio streamer, both connected to my DAC. Tidal had very poor PRaT. This was before firmware 1.8, so Tidal has apparently upped its game since then. 

 

I like to watch videos of live music on my computer monitor, or on a 65" TV. The TV is connected via Toslink to my exaSound DAC and main audio system, and is great fun. I listen to rock and jazz, so the lack of gapless is no biggie.

 

I noticed a huge improvement in YTM software and recommendations in the past year, probably because of all the complaints they received from GPM members who were shuffled over, kicking and screaming all the way. 

Its interesting actually, I did quite a few subjective comparisons between the services about three years ago, and consistently found Spotify inferior to Apple Music and Google Play Music as it was then. Fast forward a couple of months ago and Spotify lured me to give them another shot with a cheap three month deal, and I found the quality had improved and was in fact indistinguishable. I later found out they have changed from using 320 ogg to 256 aac. If you read up on it aac is superior in terms of the mathematics of how it works but I am surprised I noticed a difference - could still be other factors of course, I definitely don't have Golden ears!

 

Now Tidal  ... I've had a couple of people comment on how they were so so subjectively with Tidal then switched to Qobuz and noticed an improvement. They have a definite volume bump which artificially makes them sound better in comparisons if you're not careful too. I had a Tidal Hifi membership for a year or so until the infamous "Goldensound" video earlier this year (and Qobuz came on the market in New Zealand around the same time) and was just never blown away by the sound. Not saying it was worse than lossy or anything like that, just that it seemed ordinary. I didn't have any beef against it, MQA or anything else (still on the fence on that really but I can get FLAC/ALAC elsewhere and don't have to buy special hardware so why bother with it). Qobuz over Chromecast though - certain pieces really seem to sing! 

 

Tidal emailed today offering a month of Hifi for free, then a year at the same price as Apple Music (interesting they haven't yet made the price drop permanent or available on the website). I'm almost tempted to do some more testing. I will say Tidal did have very good recommendations for me anyway. 

 

Love the Bertrand Russell quote, spot on and thinking critically and taking everything with a grain of salt is one of the most important skills of the Internet age. "Strong opinions held weakly".

[Bob Stern]

4 minutes ago, Bevok said:

they have changed from using 320 ogg to 256 aac

Ogg is merely a "container" format that can encapsulate various audio codec formats, including lossless FLAC and lossy Opus.  Perhaps what you meant was Opus.

[Bevok]

Ah, I've always just called it Ogg but you're correct, to be accurate they are using Ogg Vorbis. Interesting comment here:

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Spotify-use-the-relatively-obscure-Ogg-Vorbis-file-format

 

Googling around just now I think I'm wrong that they've replaced it - it sounds like they use 256 aac for the web player but still use Ogg Vorbis for desktop, mobile and tablet. Time to repeat that testing if I can get an hour or two, perhaps with Tidal in the mix too! 

[Jim Sylva]

Apple buys classical music streaming service Primephonic

[audiobomber]

Nothing Apple for me, thanks.

[Jim Sylva]

I just noticed Chris posted this purchased the day it was announced. I apologize for not looking further on this site before posting the link.

[matthias]

On 3/1/2020 at 6:31 AM, Calvin & Hobbes said:

Spotify Premium vs Qobuz: I have Spotify Premium with a Family subscription. From a value standpoint, Spotify was my default choice that has the best search as well as working well for my family. From a critical listening perspective in my auditioning sessions, Spotify actually is not bad at conveying detail, pace and presence from music. It sounds musical. Any shortcomings that it has are errors of omission rather than errors of commission. I can listen to Spotify especially in mobile settings and be engaged and immersed in the music. After listening for a longer period of time, Qobuz is clearly better at conveying detail, transparency/clarity, pace and presence, but Spotify doesn't do anything noticeably wrong.

 

I compared the available versions of "Kind of Blue" on Qobuz and Spotify.

 

The first discovery was that the original version from 1959 which I found in the past by far the best sounding one on Qobuz seems to be no longer available, at least not in Germany. Spotify seem to offer this one and from memory it sounds very similar to the Qobuz one when it was still available.

 

The remaining versions on Qobuz did sound far inferior musically than the 1959 Spotify version even when offered as 24/192.

 

Matt