Submitted by Not-Icarus t3_11akj4c in headphones
I recently upgraded my audio setup, and while it's been a night and day difference, I can't say the same for hi-fi or master files on Tidal. While I think I can notice some slight differences, I'm unsure if it's a placebo. Is this normal? do I not have a trained ear for it?
Wired with a pc, with a ds400 amp using 7hz dioko's
Might just be a matter of personal preference. Some people don't feel there's any difference.
That's normal, don't worry about fear of missing out, not a lot of people have access to 24-bit/16-bit FLAC and so on. Those files are usually what people like to differentiate with, like they compare it to 320kbps MP3, 256kbps AAC, et cetera.
These days yes those streaming services also offer lossless now but there's some random fake marketing and snake oil stuff there too, so just stick to what sounds best to you. For the most part, if you listen to those higher quality, higher bitrate, and so on stuff, it will drain more battery and so that can influence the usage.
Try binaural ASMR tracks or say use Bluetooth, usually those will let you hear more differences due to the different factors with LDAC, AptX Adaptive, et cetera. For some people the louder you listen, the more you hear the compression/static/etc.
Here's some videos/channels for ASMR triggers: https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/11advtw/what_do_you_do_with_your_gear/j9rw19i/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/xqq9kw/can_a_normal_person_hear_binaural_sound_when/iqcayk9/
Try the ASMR videos with the $1000-10000 microphones, lmao. Like the Neumann KU 100 microphone, it may show better spaciousness, sharpness, et cetera.
Hatomugi ASMR has this about new (about a week old) Neumann KU 100 ASMR video with rubber gloves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJHZX3GpgG4
Rapunzel ASMR has a slow twin ear cleaning video (also about a week old) with the $6000 3Dio Omni Pro microphone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUCLtkmlrVo
Extra info on wired IEMs/headphones/Bluetooth/et cetera: https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/11a550d/how_can_i_learn_the_basics_about_soundheadphones/j9r9r48/
Some people claim to be able to differentiate 320 and lossless, but all the science shows that in a blind test the average person can’t tell the difference, I wouldn’t worry about it and just use whichever app interface you prefer
Heck, I too can't even hear the difference. Even high quality FLAC files. Had high-end headphones, amps, dacs and daps. Now very happy with a simple bluetooth amp and a decent iem.
this is also a cheaper setup(relatively), Im wondering how big of a difference it will make as I go up the price ladder. Any recommendations? im pretty new to the hobby so i'm not sure what kind of iem's I should be looking for even with all the reviews its still overwhelming
Do you use exclusive mode with Tidal? Also it’s like with new gear, listen to Tidal for a week, then switch to Spotify and see if something is missing. Or just stay with Spotify and save the money.
[deleted]
Always tell what you mean by 320kbps. Because old MP3 encoded by Bladeenc or l3enc (for example) is pretty much easy to differentiate from FLAC. On the other side you have absolutely no chance to find difference between Opus 320kbps and FLAC. MP3 320 encoded by LAME (the most relatable variant) is somewhere in between - close to being transparent though.
I’ve never even caught a whisper that there was different types of 320kbps, I’ll look into it more in the morning, thank you for the info
That's pretty normal, actually.
Going from Spotify @ Very High to lossless is almost certainly not going to be a noticeable difference, even with expensive equipment.
When people compare streaming services and hear a clear difference, it's either because of a disparity in volume, user EQ, or master recording, 99.9% of the time. The actual file format itself doesn't really matter all that much.
When I had both Spotify and Tidal, my Chromecast/Bluetooth streamers would auto-resume and sometimes I forgot which service it was playing from.
I always thought Spotify sounded worse, but it may be that Spotify plays at a lower volume.
Tidal Masters with MQA is not lossless but that's doesn't even matter (matters if you see what they're charging for lossy file compression codec disguising itself as lossless)
In a double blind test, one can't tell the difference audiobly between Spotify's 320kbps OGG Vorbis and Tidal's lossy pretending as lossless MQA.
Please save money and just stick to Spotify... If you truly want a lossless playing streaming app these four are available (Apple Music HiFi, Qobuz, AmazonHiFi, Deezer)
u/Not-Icarus
Yeah, save your money and just go for Spotify, don’t forget to activate the « very high » sound quality option in your Spotify settings on the computer app.
> Please save money and just stick to Spotify
Spotify Premium is more expensive than Tidal HiFi at least where I live (€5.99/month vs. €4.99/month), so not much of a reason to stick with it.
Also FYI, Tidal pays more of that money out to artists/rightsholders.
On the go, I use Spotify data saver 24kbit/s. Because I'm usually in noisy environments or moving around, I don't focus on quality so I still enjoy listening.
At home I have 2 options, listen to Amazon/Spotify through my Yamaha a-s501 connected to my Android TV through optical. It's not possible to stream lossless this way but I like the sound it puts out. I do this when I'm chilling out on the sofa. Basically just plug the headphone in and use my phone to select the tunes. Or. Amazon music on laptop > USB-C to qudelix 5k > headphones. This way I can list to hi-Res.
Honestly I don't have a favourite way to listen but I enjoy chill out on the couch while listening through the Yamaha. The whole ritual make me relax most. I don't think I hear the difference in lossless/lossy, but I hear differences in the source. Albeit not much.
I have both and 95% of the time i'm on Spotify, the remaining balance is Tidal. When i don't want to miss anything i use Tidal even if it's kind of hard to distinguish.
There is a difference but only if you're sitting down in a quiet room listening for the sharpness of vocals or thumping of bass drums
I could only tell between 320 and lossless about 2/3 times after a few AB tests while concentrating pretty hard, it wasn't easy to differentiate.
So I do believe there is a minute difference, but ultimately just go with the platform that has the music you enjoy and not some audiophile test tracks or whatever
There are different types of audio codecs like mp3 aac opus wav flac and many more. The kbps is the bit rate of the codec. More bitrate, better qaulity. Mp3 at 128kbps sounds pretty bad while opus at 128 sounds near lossless. Flac is lossless so that means there is no loss in the audio file.
Most "audiophiles" wouldn't pass the 192 vs. 320 in a blind test
I tried tidal for a while and tested their Hi-Fi and Master Quality Audio against the Spotify „Very High“ Setting. After I volume matched both players (tidal player was louder for me) there was really no difference between the two. I blind tested with a friend and neither of could tell if one of them was better or worse.
So I just decided to stick with Spotify.
Have you used any other IEM driver type?
You may need to up the power settings on your amp to hear all the details.
Planar drivers need more power than DD & BA drivers to get the same emotional impact, and possibly detail retrieval.
There’s an energy efficiency problem still being solved for mini Planar drivers.
Ex: Same music, hardware (except IEM set), same volume/gain settings… different amount of audible detail/emotional impact… just because not enough energy is going through the planar driver to fully energize the entire surface.
Are you using exclusive mode after selecting the output device next to the audio quality option in tidal?
I’m some people. But even then, I mainly use Spotify. It’s really not that bad and not even worth worrying about. Besides, nothing will make a difference if the song was recorded poorly to begin with. EDIT: You can get less fatiguing gear, but that’s pretty much it. It’s not like you can magically increase the quality with audio crystals or something.
I understand what u mean, I have had the same experience, having just finished an one month free trial of Tidal Hifi, comparing it with my Spotify (very high settings) account... in the end I have not found any valid differences and reasons to switch to Tidal Hifi
I can hear the minute diferances if we are talking purely about file format
What pairing? I’m guessing the Q5k…
Try Qobuz. The difference is obvious.
[deleted]
don't waste your money going 'up the ladder', unless you have a lot of money to waste.
The differences are so small, despite the hyperbolic adjectives used to describe them, that the money is much better spent on better headphones/iems, or on something productive in your life.
As for Tidal, it wins for me because it has the best artist payout, especially with the 10% to the artist you listened to most for each month (~$2). It is still pitifully small, but much more than others are doing.
I'll admit i dont hear the difference either. look at it that way, its cheaper and more convenient for me :))
I hear a difference between Spotify high-quality (320 kbps) and Qobuz. Small, but noticeable -- and worth it to me.
The biggest difference is in detail and separation. I hear the placement of the instruments with better clarity with Qobuz high-res files and the sound doesn't disintegrate into mush as often in complex passages.
Again, this is not a "part the Red Sea" difference. But I notice. And I prefer Qobuz.
Tidal uses MQA, which is pure snake oil and marketing rubbish. Qobuz files come straight from the masters, with MQA only if the record company offers no other high-res streaming file. Maybe that makes a difference -- who knows?
I'm sure some will disagree. Fine -- you don't have my ears or brain. I hear the difference, so I don't care what you think.
That's highly unlikely, statistically speaking.
If you are basing this purely on your subjective experience as you play both sources side by side, there are various factors that could be affecting your perception (not least your preconceived expectation that the one with the higher bitrate is supposed to sound better).
I'd be interested to see your results from a proper blind ABX comparison to see if you can still hear it then.
I can with the same setting hear more in wav format then mp3
Press X to doubt.
You can belive me or not but I swear I hear a difference between quality not just volume
That's what everyone says until they try an actual blind test - myself included!
The placebo effect is a hell of a drug.
I'll try to do that see if it all is a lie
That's the spirit!
Let me know how you get on.
P.S. if you manage it - don't forget to save your ABX log as proof!
In blind tests I could only hear a difference on certain tracks, listening to them back and forth to pick a difference, very small. I have noticed a difference though when listening to the same genre of music for a while on Spotify, then changing to a playlist on Apple Music and having a kind of ‘oh shit that sounds more detailed’ moment, but that’s very hard to prove. I first noticed that effect in the car switching between MP3 and physical CDs, but again, hard to prove.
More than a handful of people have made this claim, and it seems there may be some truth in the matter, not only taking into consideration that there are possibly some people out there with better hearing/perceiving ability than you / the "hearing ability/range" of humans is an average rather than a hard limit, but also the fact that it's know certain file formats, when processed, decompressed, transmitted, etc., can have different sound due to variances in the processing itself (e.g. FLAC sounding different when it finally hits your headphone because, despite it being lossless, decompression ends up messing with the output, etc.)
(Edit: Something to do with increase CPU/electronic noise, depending on what device is doing the decompression/playback, I think I've read.)
To make the assumption that just because you're playing "bit perfect" files, you're actually getting every bit, unaltered, through every part of your chain, is widely accepted as a bad assumption to make.
So, if a certain lossless file format gets "colored" one way through your setup, and a different filetype is colored differently, then you may actually notice a difference.
Note that u/coconutbrown123 isn't saying one is better than the other. They're just saying they notice a difference.
I'd say, due to the fact that you're not saying it's impossible, plus what I've head, read, and seen - I'm going to conclude they very well could be hearing a difference, and any further time devoted to debating it is just a waste of our lives.
>More than a handful of people have made this claim, and it seems there may be some truth in the matter
I believe that they think they can, however actually being able to is quite another matter.
>also the fact that it's know certain file formats, when processed, decompressed, transmitted, etc., can have different sound due to variances in the processing itself
>To make the assumption that just because you're playing "bit perfect" files, you're actually getting every bit, unaltered, through every part of your chain, is widely accepted as a bad assumption to make.
>So, if a certain lossless file format gets "colored" one way through your setup, and a different filetype is colored differently, then you may actually notice a difference.
Aside from the fact that there a few pretty dubious claims here, I'm not sure how this changes the fact that the vast majority of people cannot discern a difference between a high bitrate lossy file and the lossless original in a blind test. If your "coloration" theory were correct then it should make such a test much easier!
>Note that u/coconutbrown123 isn't saying one is better than the other. They're just saying they notice a difference.
Agreed - they are two different things, however having the preconception that one source is supposed to sound better than another often leads to a difference being perceived either way.
>I'd say, due to the fact that you're not saying it's impossible, plus what I've head, read, and seen - I'm going to conclude they very well could be hearing a difference, and any further time devoted to debating it is just a waste of our lives.
I don't know what you have heard, read, or seen, but in fact all the evidence points towards the likelihood that they cannot. Most people who think they can hear a difference actually can't when their brains don't know which source is which.
Funnily enough, I too wish this debate could finally be brought to an end. If people would just drop the obsession with lossless formats for their own sake and focus on things that really matter to sound quality, like better recording, production, and mastering, then I would consider that progress.
Nope. Shanling and moondrop blessing 2
Try both for a couple of weeks to see if you end up favoring one over the other.
Most people cannot tell the difference between high quality compressed audio and lossless.
Welcome to headphones, speakers, and general audiophile stuff.
More often than not, people are describing placebo effects induced by spending mad cash.
Blind tests to keep people honest is pretty great in terms of headphones, speakers, and audio format.
More people really should go the extra mile to validate their theories of listening to stuff with some proper testing.
It always reminds me of the "feel" audio peeps who can never manage to make a good argument against the measurement audio peeps who can usually drop actual data.
I would say yes. It’s quite normal. For one, tidal isn’t even lossless, so it has its own “color”. Spotify very high quality will provide enough quality for most systems unless they are highly resolving but even then, it depends on the recording. On high quality recordings, the differences are very obvious. On normal recordings, it’s minimal. I think if you are struggling to hear a difference, then in your current situation, I wouldn’t worry about spending more money on tidal. If you have to listen back and forth many times to hear a difference, the difference isn’t worth it. It should be obvious. At some point with the right gear and the right recordings, it will be extremely obvious.
Absolutely. It also really helps narrow down which parts of the audio chain are worth fussing over and which aren't, so resources can be allocated most effectively.
I think a lot of audiophiles are genuinely afraid of it, as if by admitting that two things aren't audibly different is going to get them disbarred and stripped of their Golden Ears Club membership status, or something.
>Shanling
Oh nice, what bluetooth codec then?
Yeah, idk, it might be my other nerd hobby is a money sink (flight simming), but I am fine saying sometimes (maybe even often) I buy expensive hobby shit just for the sake of it, I don't really feel like I need to defend it as an objective choice though.
There is def some weird thing with Golden Ears / Super Tasters, like bro, no one cares, I don't care if you claim to magically hear / taste better than average.
>If your "coloration" theory were correct then it should make such a test much easier!
Unless a "vast majority of people" have subpar hearing, damaged by traffic noise, auto-immune issues due to modern diets, a great number of other physiological variables, etc. How many people tested/making claims of hearing no difference actually have undiagnosed/are unaware of their own tinnitus?
You can't know - especially when they don't even know, themselves.
Or, more reasonably, don't have as good of a listening environment as they think they have. If I had a dollar for every "audiophile" that listened to music while playing video games, or with a TV on in the background, or with computer fans going, or an air condition unit running, etc...
If you based everything on the words of the "vast majority", the fastest car in the world would, in fact, be the Toyota Camry.
>If people would just drop the obsession with lossless formats for their own sake and focus on things that really matter to sound quality, like better recording, production, and mastering, then I would consider that progress
...? The end user has no hand in the recording, production, or mastering of music/audio. If we're already achieved the best hardware our budgets allow, I see no problem moving on to the only other thing(s) we can affect.
Also, it bares noting - the audiophile community is already a niche within a niche. The cross-section of the community is neither diverse, nor a good enough sample size for anything.
And you're suggesting that, within that niche of a niche, that a small group of people saying "I don't hear anything" is proof that there's nothing to hear?
Come on. If we're going to science, let's science. But as long as we can't actually do good science, let's stop pretending like it's already been done well. Because it hasn't.
I went to audio school and have done blind testing.
When I'm regularly keeping up with ear training exercises I can usually tell the difference between 128kbps and lossless with near-perfect accuracy, but 320kbps vs lossless I'm basically guessing. I still leave my projects and bounces at either 96/24 or 48/24, and all my downloaded music is in .flac or .wav, but I also am a pretty firm believer that unless you're actively training to hear the difference and using a very high quality setup the difference is negligible.
>I'm unsure if it's a placebo.
Could be
>Is this normal?
Yes
>do I not have a trained ear for it?
Could be
If youre not sure you hear a difference, get the cheaper one. Doesnt matter if there is a difference or not if you can't hear it, as long as you dont claim there's objectively no difference. Really goes for everything audio, especially here
>If you have to listen back and forth many times to hear a difference, the difference isn’t worth it. It should be obvious.
Totally agree with this.
However, there are a few things I'd like to address elsewhere in your comment.
>For one, tidal isn’t even lossless, so it has its own “color”.
While MQA technically isn't lossless, that doesn't mean that people can easily tell between Tidal and any other streaming service. In fact, all evidence points to the fact that MQA sounds the same as standard FLAC in blind listening tests.
> On high quality recordings, the differences are very obvious.
This is actually something of a myth - lossy audio codecs do not adversely affect dynamic range, nor do they affect "high quality" genres more than others. In fact, at low bitrates, imperfections may be more audible in genres that are more sensitive to time domain artifacts (such as electronic music) than with, say, classical music.
>At some point with the right gear and the right recordings, it will be extremely obvious.
Again, this is a common misconception that isn't actually true. Blind tests have shown that owning expensive gear doesn't really make much of a difference when it comes to discerning higher bitrate msuic from lower bitrate. Here's a CD vs Hi-Res study, and here's a more informal but still well conducted test for CD vs MP3.
The reason being that lossy audio codecs base their algorithms on psychoacoustic models of human hearing to determine what audio data human ears can and can't hear. So while you may be able to drop $20K on audio equipment, you still have to live with the same old ears you had before!
>And you're suggesting that, within that niche of a niche, that a small group of people saying "I don't hear anything" is proof that there's nothing to hear?
>Come on. If we're going to science, let's science. But as long as we can't actually do good science, let's stop pretending like it's already been done well. Because it hasn't.
So let's weigh up the evidence, then.
In the "most people can't hear it" camp we have:
And in the "can hear a difference" camp, we have:
So, as you can see, the weight of evidence leans heavily towards the former rather than the latter group.
The differences between Tidal and Spotify are minute enough to where you're not likely to notice if you're actually listening to the music and not actively trying to dissect tiny details of it. I notice a -very- small difference between the two but I switched over to Tidal just because I was bored of the stuff Spotify kept recommending me year after year and I wanted to give hifi a shot. It's not night and day and who knows if I actually hear it myself, but here I am. They're the same price anyway so I don't care.
No interest in the blind AB testing. That’s not how we listen to music. And I’m gonna be honest, it’s blatantly obvious on some tracks. There’s no myth to what I and many other people hear just because the science hasn’t been able to pinpoint what’s going on. I don’t actually care why. What I do know is that one sounds much fuller and less compressed than the other. Also, as a matter of principle, I think when you have high performance gear it’s worth having the best quality source. You wouldn’t put street tires on a Ferrari even if they would probably work OK.
>No interest in the blind AB testing. That’s not how we listen to music.
That's not really relevant if the goal is to confirm whether or not we can spot a difference between two sources, though.
>And I’m gonna be honest, it’s blatantly obvious on some tracks.
If that's the case, blind testing it would be a breeze, no?
>There’s no myth to what I and many other people hear just because the science hasn’t been able to pinpoint what’s going on.
The science is actually pretty clear - if you think the difference is "blatantly obvious" but you still can't pass a simple listening test, then it's the placebo effect.
>What I do know is that one sounds much fuller and less compressed than the other.
That's the placebo effect.
>Also, as a matter of principle, I think when you have high performance gear it’s worth having the best quality source.
That's perfectly reasonable. You don't have to invent all the other stuff just to rationalize this, though.
> Scientific studies
Did you even read the study?
[I don't know how it include images or quotes correctly, I guess. See section 4 of the first "study"]
They didn't test headphones. This took place nearly twenty years ago. They admit that they were likely using less carefully mastered/recorded sources.
Yeah. Duh. Garbage in, garbage out.
​
Excuse me.
[See the "audio equipment quality graph from the Wordpress blog.]
You call this a control? Self-described, non-standardized, three-optioned meassure of the quality of audio equipment used in this blog-tier "test", which didn't control for jack?
​
Oh, well, if Gabriella says so.
[See the About page of that blog. Who even...]
I'm not that invested in this conversation that I'm going to even bother checking the other links. This is too much work, and I'm not getting paid. Let's just say "you win", because that's clearly what needs to happen here, and then I'm going to call it a day. GLHF
Sure, the large scale test data has some pretty obvious limitations but it's better than nothing. Official scientific literature on the subject is seriously scarce but what little data there is is heavily weighed in favour of people not being able to tell the difference, which also lines up with what my own personal testing has shown.
If people who claimed otherwise could actually provide some evidence to back it up rather than just anecdotal, subjective testimony, that would actually be a great help!
Do the blind test at audio check headphone test and see if you can tell the difference between 16 and 8 bit audio lol
Some of these people crack me up. Even if we pretend there is a difference, you’ll get so lost in the music after a few minutes you won’t even end up noticing the very minute details. I tried Tidal, noticed no differences to my ears on my HEKse and Utopia and kept Spotify. I’m not going to throw out years of playlists and a better GUI just to hear a hi-hat at a slightly different pitch. There is more to a service than bitrate.
Again, it's a niche within a niche. It's not going to happen / even large studies get it wrong, so what chance do individuals have at providing evidence any kind of evidence you would accept? What would that even look like?
In the end, "better than nothing" is how we end up having to live our lives, and, simultaneously, the foundation for many of the most widespread cases of misinformation in all of scientific history.
We can't know until we know. Until we do, I'm not so willing to say I'm convinced, and saying I'm not convinced doesn't change anything/affect my life, so it's fine, in my book.
> so what chance do individuals have at providing evidence any kind of evidence you would accept? What would that even look like?
As I have often pointed out, proving it is actually fairly easy and pain-free. People who are willing to give up maybe ten minutes of their time and a little effort can use free software tools such as Foobar2000's excellent ABX comparator plugin (installation and usage instructions here) to conduct their own test using their own lossless source files on own their own setup.
The log that results from the test can be saved as .txt and can be verified using Foobar's ABX signature checker to confirm that the results are legitimate. It's not perfect, but it goes a long way to showing that people can actually hear what they claim to hear.
Plus, even more importantly that the result itself, the process of blind testing actually shows to people how small the difference actually is when they don't know which is which and how little it generally matters in the grand scheme of things.
Fuck tidal and fuck mqa
Except Spotify Premium is actually more expensive than Tidal HiFi (€5.99/month vs. €4.99/month here in Croatia), so even if you don't hear the difference, there is not much to lose by making the switch.
Aaaah yes you’re right ! I just saw that in France it’s 10€, I actually thought it was 20€ ! 😆 my bad haha
Here in the UK, both Spotify Premium & Tidal Hifi are priced at £9.99 month (roughly €11.28).
[deleted]
[deleted]
In America you can get Hulu and Spotify bundled for $10 which is a pretty great deal.
DreCapitano t1_j9sjxbp wrote
First question - what is your set up? Bluetooth? Wired? Receiver? Phone?