Spotify premium V's Tidal hifi

[Dolphy]

I must be the only person here not using Tidal or Spotify, I use Pandora due to the ease of use. I might take up the 99c trial on Spotify. I already used the Tidal trial and I wasn't impressed

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Edited March 31, 2016 by dolphy

[Guest Sime]

Ahh bollocks, I just bought a Node 2 and I didn't realize it had a 3 month Tidal subscription with it. Dagnabit.

[powerav]

I must be the only person here not using Tidal or Spotify, I use Pandora due to the ease of use. I might take up the 99c trial on Spotify. I already used the Tidal trial and I wasn't impressed

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I use Pandora for casual listening on patio, quality not good enough for serious sessions.

[Steve M]

I checked it out. It's well recorded. I can't compare it to the cd as I don't have it but it does sound good. It's Tommaso etc in case anyone else is trying to find it

 

Yeah, I don't have the Tommaso Quartet CD either, but just making the point that on something well recorded like that album, it tells you that music streamed at 320kbps can be very acceptable.

[Happy]

Apparently JZ is having a second thought about his Tidal gig: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-03-31/is-jay-z-showing-buyers-remorse-with-tidal

 

It might not last long anyway.

[Kaynin]

Apparently JZ is having a second thought about his Tidal gig: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-03-31/is-jay-z-showing-buyers-remorse-with-tidal

 

It might not last long anyway.

 

 

Wow - Spotify has 30 million (paying) subscribers, Apple music has 11 million and it's been around for 2 seconds...obviously on the back of iTunes/iDevices, but they're a big player straight away.

 

At the end of the day, it's all about paying subscribers.  Without them, the service is in danger - just like MOG (pity, I thought MOG was better than Spotify).  There are lessons to be learnt from Beta vs VHS and HD DVD vs Blu-ray - it's all about getting "units" into as many homes and people's hands as possible.  Tidal has taken a gamble and priced themselves double that of the nearest biggest competitor.  If their operating costs are twice that of Spotify, then I understand.  If not, then it may be a fatal business decision...

[Odyssey]

Apparently JZ is having a second thought about his Tidal gig: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-03-31/is-jay-z-showing-buyers-remorse-with-tidal

 

It might not last long anyway.

Unfortunately you're right. Let's hope one of the big players provide a higher quality of streaming than 320 which in itself isn't bad but Tidal at 16/44.1 does sound better to my ears. I have a friend who listens mostly to his DSD files but when he heard Tidal HiFi on my setup, he ask 'What EQ did they put in it?' In short he was impressed with it. :-)

 

Whatever it is, go with what suits you. One thing is for certain. Music streaming is up. CD sales and downloads are down. Vinyl sales are on the way up. I still have a healthy collection of flac files and through JRiver, it is lovely. When Tidal streaming plays up, this is what I go back to.

[Happy]

How much do deezer charge?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest Sime]

Dunno about Deezer, but there's a geezer down the street who'll hook me up some cable for a buck fiddy.

[Happy]

Being a cheapskate like a true trailer trash eh sime those bnw wouldn't appreciate those cables

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest Sime]

Their cheap Chinese knock off's . Bowers&Willies

Edited April 2, 2016 by Sime

[legselevens]

While I haven't heard Spotify Premium I have compared the Tidal HiFi against the other Tidal. The difference was way more dramatic than I had expected. My wife was the first to notice lol.

 

Take note that I'm one of those people who can't be bothered by 'subtle differences'. I use pretty much anything for cables.

Maybe they make the difference obvious to funnel subscribers to their "HIFI" service

 

[Happy]

Maybe they make the difference obvious to funnel subscribers to their "HIFI" service

Maybe. Or maybe not.

[darth vader]

I dont feel Tidal is offering enough value for money. If their pricing was closer to Spotify, well maybe, but I dont care much for a Kanye early release.

 

Seems most people are using these streaming services more like a radio broadcast and not for critical listening, so I'm not sure that hi res quality will get them over the line. I am generalising as everyone has their own preferred use.

 

For me, I tend to use them as a source to find older music that I dont have on vinyl or CD.

[Guest thathifiguy]

I dont feel Tidal is offering enough value for money. If their pricing was closer to Spotify, well maybe, but I dont care much for a Kanye early release.

Seems most people are using these streaming services more like a radio broadcast and not for critical listening, so I'm not sure that hi res quality will get them over the line. I am generalising as everyone has their own preferred use.

For me, I tend to use them as a source to find older music that I dont have on vinyl or CD.

Tidal is more costly because they pay better royalties to artists as I understand it, which I'm entirely ok with.

I want all my favourite musicians continuing to record music, so if it means I pay a little more for them to do it, then I'm all for it.

I'll still buy a physical copy of albums I'm really taken with, but I, like many others love the convenience of streaming and for me Tidal is a way of giving the musicians a little more back in a business model which really doesn't support them.

Heck, it's the cost of one album a month, or these days, half a record.

[Guest Sime]

I use tidal for critical listening where I never have for any othe streaming service before simply because it matches the rest of my Cd-hires library as far as sound is concerned.

[Kaynin]

Tidal is more costly because they pay better royalties to artists as I understand it, which I'm entirely ok with.

 

 

Is that why they're more expensive though?  I haven't seen any documentation/press releases to say where their money goes.  Without seeing the actual figures we'll never know if Tidal could pay more to artists yet still charge the same subscription price as Spotify.  I do know that Spotify is absolutely raking the cash in - so can Tidal pay more to artists whilst charging the same as Spotify and still be a profitable company?  Keep in mind that Spotify only pays a percentage of a cent per song upload to artists...

 

The gap between the Spotify and Tidal could purely be money in Tidal's pockets - who knows?  See, I was thinking more along the lines that the lossless music files increase operating costs for bandwidth...but again, it's all guesswork.

 

I do agree that it appears they pay better royalties to artists, which is certainly a good thing, but if it's actually the case that they charge more because it's a "Premium" service, then they could be pricing themselves out of business...

Edited April 4, 2016 by Kaynin

[Guest thathifiguy]

Is that why they're more expensive though? I haven't seen any documentation to say where their money goes. Without seeing the actual figures we'll never know if Tidal could pay more to artists yet still charge the same subscription price as Spotify. The gap between the Spotify and Tidal could purely be money in their pockets. Without seeing actual figures then we're just guessing. See, I was thinking more along the lines that the lossless music files increase operating costs for bandwidth...but again, it's all guesswork.

I do agree that it appears they pay better royalties to artists, which is certainly a good thing, but if it's actually the case that they charge more because it's a "Premium" service, then they could be pricing themselves out of business...

I've got a few friends with music on tidal, deezer, Spotify etc. they pay double everyone else. Edited April 4, 2016 by Tarxman82

[Kaynin]

I've got a few friends with music on tidal, deezer, Spotify etc. they pay double everyone else.

 

Ok - so they pay just over 2 cents per song upload - according to this article (where it's alleged Tidal state they pay .024 - .028 cents per song/per upload).

 

http://www.worldwidegroovecorp.com/blog/2015/8/25/does-tidal-pay-more-that-spotify-to-artists-for-digital-distribution

 

 

My point is this - does this equate to a double priced subscription premium?  Without further figures, who knows - it's just guesswork.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Kaynin

[Guest thathifiguy]

Ok - so they pay just over 2 cents per song upload - according to this article (where it's alleged Tidal state they pay .024 - .028 cents per song/per upload).

 

http://www.worldwidegroovecorp.com/blog/2015/8/25/does-tidal-pay-more-that-spotify-to-artists-for-digital-distribution

 

 

My point is this - does this equate to a double priced subscription premium?  Without further figures, who knows - it's just guesswork.

 

I guess if they are paying at least double to the musician, plus offering lossless FLAC as opposed to MP3 they see it as worth double?

[Kaynin]

I guess if they are paying at least double to the musician, plus offering lossless FLAC as opposed to MP3 they see it as worth double?

 

Who knows.  Maybe.

[a.dent]

Tidal. What a joke!

 

I thought I'd try again to get it to stream so I committed to another month. I tried both with Ickstream and the Tidal app on my server.

 

It stuttered from the first few seconds and is totally useless.

 

Never again will they get my money.  

 

I'll stick to Spotify.

[Guest Sime]

Tidal worked all day for me today perfectly.

[a.dent]

Tidal worked all day for me today perfectly.

 

 

OK so there's something weird going on isn't there? I couldn't even get MP3s to stream smoothly through Tidal.

 

I have a Telstra ADSL2 internet connection with 13Mbps download speed. No problems with Spotify, Netflix HD and iTunes movies download almost in real time.

 

Maybe Telstra is punishing Tidal for some reason.

[Happy]

Did you actually check if you were getting that speed?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk