Tidal vs. CD/FLAC/AAC and others

[audiohippo]

I have been listening to Tidal quite frequently over the last week and compared quite a number of albums to the FLAC CD 16/44 copies and found it very hard to pick the best version.

Today I played Aerosmith Greatest Hits (2018), Back in the Saddle in 24/96 and then compared it to Tidal and was able to clearly hear that the Tidal was veiled and lacked bass, overall sounded very bland.

I was wondering if other AA have done similar comparisons and their findings...

[eljr]

Originally Posted by audiohippo

I have been listening to Tidal quite frequently over the last week and compared quite a number of albums to the FLAC CD 16/44 copies and found it very hard to pick the best version.

Today I played Aerosmith Greatest Hits (2018), Back in the Saddle in 24/96 and then compared it to Tidal and was able to clearly hear that the Tidal was veiled and lacked bass, overall sounded very bland.

I was wondering if other AA have done similar comparisons and their findings...

Tidal HIFI is 24/96 streaming so your Dac received the same information from Tidal as it did from 24/96 download.

Hence any difference in sound would be a Dac error or a perception anomaly.
I doubt a Dac can make an error that makes music sound veiled and thin on bass.

[nicoff]

Here is what I understand. Tidal HiFi is typically 16/44. However, if you are playing the MQA version of an album, Tidal can do the first unfold of the MQA file to give you 24/96. If you are not playing the MQA version, then all you get is 16/44.
Keep in mind that to be able to make a meaningful comparison, you have to make sure that you are playing the same version/recording of the track. Otherwise the remastered version will most likely sound better.

[nicoff]

Originally Posted by audiohippo

I have been listening to Tidal quite frequently over the last week and compared quite a number of albums to the FLAC CD 16/44 copies and found it very hard to pick the best version.



Today I played Aerosmith Greatest Hits (2018), Back in the Saddle in 24/96 and then compared it to Tidal and was able to clearly hear that the Tidal was veiled and lacked bass, overall sounded very bland.



I was wondering if other AA have done similar comparisons and their findings...

If I am playing the same versions of an album, i also have a hard time picking a Tidal vs FLAC CD.
However, I have discovered that Tidal often has newer versions (i.e., remastered) of the albums which do sound better than the older version in my CD library.

In your Aerosmith example, you may have been comparing a remastered album (24/96) to a non remastered 16/44 Tidal. So not an Apple to Apple comparison.

[FDPDK]

Originally Posted by nicoff

Here is what I understand. Tidal HiFi is typically 16/44. However, if you are playing the MQA version of an album, Tidal can do the first unfold of the MQA file to give you 24/96. If you are not playing the MQA version, then all you get is 16/44.
Keep in mind that to be able to make a meaningful comparison, you have to make sure that you are playing the same version/recording of the track. Otherwise the remastered version will most likely sound better.

+1

[eljr]

Originally Posted by nicoff

If I am playing the same versions of an album, i also have a hard time picking a Tidal vs FLAC CD.
However, I have discovered that Tidal often has newer versions (i.e., remastered) of the albums which do sound better than the older version in my CD library.

In your Aerosmith example, you may have been comparing a remastered album (24/96) to a non remastered 16/44 Tidal. So not an Apple to Apple comparison.

exactly

most always a difference in sound is a difference in mastering

[PHC1]

Remasters are not always better. In fact are often even louder and compressed. Plenty of examples of that out there. Always good idea to listen to a few various albums if that is available. I find most of the Rock albums sounded better before the loudness wars kicked in.

[imprezap2]

After I installled an "audiophile" network switch (Aqvox), I don't hear a difference between streaming from Tidal or Aurender N100H harddrive (16/44 files)

[Still-One]

I am past the point of comparing Tidal to files I have burned for use by Roon or playing the CD on my dCS player. If there are differences I no longer worry about them because they all sounds so darn good. I have read a couple of reviews of my unit that say CD playback is better than playing files via the DAC. I haven’t even taken the time to try it. I have little desire to play disc any longer. Not worth the effort.

[nicoff]

Originally Posted by Still-One

I am past the point of comparing Tidal to files I have burned for use by Roon or playing the CD on my dCS player. If there are differences I no longer worry about them because what in-lay sounds so darn good. I have read a couple of reviews of my unit that say CD playback is better than playing files via the DAC. I haven’t even taken the time to try it. I have little desire to play disc any longer. Not worth the effort.

+1