If its lossless ecoding then the encoder should make no difference to the sound by definition. Most likely its the playback in the app that differs i.e. the decoder
I think Qobuz supports DSD also now. This is from an e-mail they sent out two days ago: "DSD and DXD audio formats now available As part of our ongoing commitment to the highest quality sound, both formats are now available on the online download store. From timeless classics to new releases, enjoy your favourite records in unmatched sound quality."
Lossless FLAC encoding has zero sound to it. It’s like ZIP compression. But the audio can be different when the files are different and your gear can also mess it up if it does any sample rate conversion or resolution scaling. Lossless transfer is lossless for whatever data type. In the past of lossy compression, there was such point to be made.
Lossless is lossless. If there's a difference, it must be in the source material. Many popular recordings had different mixes & releases. CDs mixed after the mid-'90s were influenced by the loudness wars & trade volume for dynamic range. I like Amazon HD, because often they have both the original and remix images.
My gut feeling is that the difference is the entire backend data-servers infrastructure . These “ones and zeros” files are stored somewhere, they will be compressed and decompressed multiple times on the backend when someone or many are accessing them (downloading them) at any part of the world to stream them in real time simultaneously. There is no way that there is no compression and decompression along the storage and streaming process.
@@LEGOBubuS I highly doubt it. FLAC, by definition, is a container and not a format. PCM and DSD are music formats, while FLAC is a container with the property of compression mentioned. It can contain whatever is digital.
FLAC is lossless, so if the uncoded input was the same, the decoded output will be the same. However, there is an adjustment in the encoder which allows you to trade off file size with CPU usage. FLAC can encode faster with less optimization to produce a larger encoded file size.
There I was, thinking that FLAC files were lossless. Now I’ve learned from the comments before me that sometimes they may not be. Another fact becomes a myth. 🙁
Tidal sux when it comes to Dolby Atmos music. The volume level for its Atmos songs is ~15-18db lower than its non-Atmos songs. Very annoying when switching from one type to another. Apple Music doesn’t have this issue. From my research online, people have been complaining about this volume issue for years, yet Tidal can’t seem to resolve it. Tidal is not high tech. Once my free trial period with Tidal is up, I’m canceling.
Yes. But flac is a format for the wrapping around the PCM code contained within. That PCM code should be identical across any level of flac compression. Sort of like zipping files. You can zip them with zero compression, medium compression, or high compression. But when you unzip the contents of a zip file, you get back the original files, identical to how they were prior to zipping them.
@NoEgg4u but when the file is streamed via network, it's still compressed hence the bitrate may vary depending on its file size. Different compression ratio creates different size of file from the same WAV file. That's what I thought.
Well, compression is one thing - the higher it is, the more computation it requires, but the lower bitrate of the encoded data. Since FLAC shall be lossless, it should produce the exact same PCM data, with the exact bitrates on that. Provided that, I don't understand how can they objectively sound better or worse. Perhaps there could be another factor such as the quality of the decoder in the devices we use as consumers - if it gets loaded in a specific way, maybe more jitter forms, or something in that fashion. Although serious streamers should even eliminate that part. Then there is just one more plausible explanation - Tidal and Cobuz source their recordings differently, and the difference stems from there.
Actually, there could be one more thing, although I don't quite believe any of the companies are doing it anymore. Even a pure PCM signal or FLAC (losslessly compressed PCM) can be further processed - e.g. by restorative upsampling (e.g. to lower the loudness and restore digital clipping to some degree), or what Tidal previously did with MQA. Can we be sure that neither of the companies do that with their tracks?
Flac is lossless. However there are different encoding settings. On the other end the files need to be decoded by a processor. I think that is where the difference happens. The harder the processor has to work, the more it will affect sound
What I find mysterious is when people say Qobuz sounds better than Tidal but no one explains how or why. What does “better” mean? And if a particular song sounds “better” (or worse), how do you know if it matches the original source? Or even if it’s an enhancement of the original source? Or a de-emphasis of the original source? Or the results of the playback equipment? Or the results of the different analog conversions from the DAC chip itself? Or just a placebo effect? The point is, Qobuz may sound better because of factors that might stray from the intent of the recording engineers. Maybe Tidal is technically more “accurate” but less enhanced sonically. Who knows? But the bits themselves within these digital formats have nothing to do with it.
Slight differences in FLAC bitrates: Same as ZIP -- different ZIP compressors produce slightly different ZIP file sizes. Nevertheless, content (un-ZIPped) is identical. So: Nothing to worry about. Neither Tidal oder Qobuz are "cheating".
2:25 "the way they encoded" and "there is better or worse sounding encoders" 2:48 "maybe the encoder they use is not the same encoder that qobus uses" HALLO! Are ANYONE really thinking that the streaming services are encoding the master files themselves?! Of course not! They get the files from the record labels encoded and done already. Why should record labels give them the masters files? No of course they do NOT get the invaluable master files they get at most something that is already converted somehow. And/or record labels are doing all the conversation for the streaming companies. I dont know. But it is absurd to think that they get the original masters and do the flac conversation from them! Point number 2: Not only that there is a many different flac encoders. Each encoder has MULTIPLE options that is used and we get then different outcomes! There is also options that is available to use as input so that the resulted output file is NOT any longer lossless!! (But we think it is lossless when it is a flac file...) Those bits that is the difference between the streaming companies is just a indication that the there is probably one ore many differences. The source may differ AND/OR the type of flac converter may differ AND/OR the different settings differs. So that the resulting output is different some bits and just tells us that they were treated differently and are far from SAME. And even dont need to be lossless anymore when we have no clue what encoding settings have been used at all! So when someone like Paul prefer the sound of one over the other files on the different streaming services. It means in reality that one of the files and or both of them, is not lossless, otherwise they should sound the same and they are definitely NOT the same. It is record labels that most likely are pulling us consumers leg. And we audiophiles are UNAWARE that we are scamed om fidelity. And tricked to believe it is lossless and in our mind that we could revers and recreate the source master. So that we get exactly what the record label has as master files in their vault.. No of course not, think again..😢
I would not be surprised if tidal is just converting mqa to flac. That's a fast and cheap option. Flac streaming also has more meta data then flac downloads.
Qobuz uses asio drivers tidal doesn't is the only thing i can think of why it sounds better... I find the interface and library better on tidal which are the only reasons i use it
They all use codecs, it's best to use DSD files, but many of us don't distinguish between FLAC and DSD....due to poorly configured systems. By the way Paul, how much do we have to invest in the system to tell the difference between FLAC and DSD?
The trained listener can tell the difference on the set of 20 USD headphones. If you cannot hear the difference in whatever your system consists of, just don't worry.
@@danijel-c I bought planar headphones that tell the difference between FLAC and DSD, but the speakers don't, even though I paid $8,000 for the system.
I support title because it pays the artist much better than any other streaming service.
Qobuz sounds better in my tests
If its lossless ecoding then the encoder should make no difference to the sound by definition. Most likely its the playback in the app that differs i.e. the decoder
I think Qobuz supports DSD also now. This is from an e-mail they sent out two days ago:
"DSD and DXD audio formats now available
As part of our ongoing commitment to the highest quality sound, both formats are now available on the online download store. From timeless classics to new releases, enjoy your favourite records in unmatched sound quality."
Oh! It’s 2am, and here is Paul’s video, right on time! 😊
Qobuz sounds the best out of them all.
Qobuz sounds better indeed. Even I noticed it on my kef ls50w2 kc62 setup.
Very, VERY, interesting!
- Thank you so much for sharing!
Lossless FLAC encoding has zero sound to it. It’s like ZIP compression. But the audio can be different when the files are different and your gear can also mess it up if it does any sample rate conversion or resolution scaling. Lossless transfer is lossless for whatever data type. In the past of lossy compression, there was such point to be made.
Qobuz sounds better, I left Tidal a while ago
qobuz bigger file size that is the conclusion
I use Tidal but I agree that Qobuz sounds better. However, I prefer the Tidal app.
Lossless is lossless. If there's a difference, it must be in the source material. Many popular recordings had different mixes & releases. CDs mixed after the mid-'90s were influenced by the loudness wars & trade volume for dynamic range. I like Amazon HD, because often they have both the original and remix images.
My gut feeling is that the difference is the entire backend data-servers infrastructure . These “ones and zeros” files are stored somewhere, they will be compressed and decompressed multiple times on the backend when someone or many are accessing them (downloading them) at any part of the world to stream them in real time simultaneously. There is no way that there is no compression and decompression along the storage and streaming process.
Good Morning! 😊 Its easy! Qobuz sounds 0,12345% better due different Flac encoders used.. 😅
@@LEGOBubuS I highly doubt it. FLAC, by definition, is a container and not a format. PCM and DSD are music formats, while FLAC is a container with the property of compression mentioned. It can contain whatever is digital.
*QOBUZ offers DSD download albums since October*
FLAC is lossless, so if the uncoded input was the same, the decoded output will be the same. However, there is an adjustment in the encoder which allows you to trade off file size with CPU usage. FLAC can encode faster with less optimization to produce a larger encoded file size.
There I was, thinking that FLAC files were lossless. Now I’ve learned from the comments before me that sometimes they may not be. Another fact becomes a myth. 🙁
Tidal sux when it comes to Dolby Atmos music. The volume level for its Atmos songs is ~15-18db lower than its non-Atmos songs. Very annoying when switching from one type to another. Apple Music doesn’t have this issue. From my research online, people have been complaining about this volume issue for years, yet Tidal can’t seem to resolve it. Tidal is not high tech. Once my free trial period with Tidal is up, I’m canceling.
FLAC compression ratio can be set differently
Quality Encode (sec) Ratio (%)
FLAC 5 1.431 49.3%
FLAC 6 1.429 49.3%
FLAC 7 3.049 49.1%
FLAC 8 4.524 49.0%
Yes. But flac is a format for the wrapping around the PCM code contained within. That PCM code should be identical across any level of flac compression.
Sort of like zipping files.
You can zip them with zero compression, medium compression, or high compression. But when you unzip the contents of a zip file, you get back the original files, identical to how they were prior to zipping them.
@NoEgg4u but when the file is streamed via network, it's still compressed hence the bitrate may vary depending on its file size. Different compression ratio creates different size of file from the same WAV file. That's what I thought.
Streaming services target different LUFS values and this is what Paul and others may be hearing.
Well, compression is one thing - the higher it is, the more computation it requires, but the lower bitrate of the encoded data. Since FLAC shall be lossless, it should produce the exact same PCM data, with the exact bitrates on that. Provided that, I don't understand how can they objectively sound better or worse. Perhaps there could be another factor such as the quality of the decoder in the devices we use as consumers - if it gets loaded in a specific way, maybe more jitter forms, or something in that fashion. Although serious streamers should even eliminate that part. Then there is just one more plausible explanation - Tidal and Cobuz source their recordings differently, and the difference stems from there.
Actually, there could be one more thing, although I don't quite believe any of the companies are doing it anymore. Even a pure PCM signal or FLAC (losslessly compressed PCM) can be further processed - e.g. by restorative upsampling (e.g. to lower the loudness and restore digital clipping to some degree), or what Tidal previously did with MQA. Can we be sure that neither of the companies do that with their tracks?
Flac is lossless. However there are different encoding settings. On the other end the files need to be decoded by a processor. I think that is where the difference happens. The harder the processor has to work, the more it will affect sound
What I find mysterious is when people say Qobuz sounds better than Tidal but no one explains how or why. What does “better” mean? And if a particular song sounds “better” (or worse), how do you know if it matches the original source? Or even if it’s an enhancement of the original source? Or a de-emphasis of the original source? Or the results of the playback equipment? Or the results of the different analog conversions from the DAC chip itself? Or just a placebo effect?
The point is, Qobuz may sound better because of factors that might stray from the intent of the recording engineers. Maybe Tidal is technically more “accurate” but less enhanced sonically. Who knows? But the bits themselves within these digital formats have nothing to do with it.
Slight differences in FLAC bitrates: Same as ZIP -- different ZIP compressors produce slightly different ZIP file sizes. Nevertheless, content (un-ZIPped) is identical.
So: Nothing to worry about. Neither Tidal oder Qobuz are "cheating".
2:25 "the way they encoded" and "there is better or worse sounding encoders"
2:48 "maybe the encoder they use is not the same encoder that qobus uses"
HALLO!
Are ANYONE really thinking that the streaming services are encoding the master files themselves?!
Of course not!
They get the files from the record labels encoded and done already.
Why should record labels give them the masters files?
No of course they do NOT get the invaluable master files they get at most something that is already converted somehow. And/or record labels are doing all the conversation for the streaming companies.
I dont know.
But it is absurd to think that they get the original masters and do the flac conversation from them!
Point number 2:
Not only that there is a many different flac encoders.
Each encoder has MULTIPLE options that is used and we get then different outcomes!
There is also options that is available to use as input so that the resulted output file is NOT any longer lossless!! (But we think it is lossless when it is a flac file...)
Those bits that is the difference between the streaming companies is just a indication that the there is probably one ore many differences.
The source may differ AND/OR the type of flac converter may differ AND/OR the different settings differs.
So that the resulting output is different some bits and just tells us that they were treated differently and are far from SAME.
And even dont need to be lossless anymore when we have no clue what encoding settings have been used at all!
So when someone like Paul prefer the sound of one over the other files on the different streaming services.
It means in reality that one of the files and or both of them, is not lossless, otherwise they should sound the same and they are definitely NOT the same.
It is record labels that most likely are pulling us consumers leg. And we audiophiles are UNAWARE that we are scamed om fidelity. And tricked to believe it is lossless and in our mind that we could revers and recreate the source master. So that we get exactly what the record label has as master files in their vault..
No of course not, think again..😢
I would not be surprised if tidal is just converting mqa to flac. That's a fast and cheap option.
Flac streaming also has more meta data then flac downloads.
LZW is almost always 2 to 1 compression. Flac is a tuned version of LZW I believe, kinda like AAC is a tuned version of AC3.
I have significantly reduced my signal path. I use a Samsung tablet, ($90). "Discuss"...
Qobuz uses asio drivers tidal doesn't is the only thing i can think of why it sounds better... I find the interface and library better on tidal which are the only reasons i use it
They all use codecs, it's best to use DSD files, but many of us don't distinguish between FLAC and DSD....due to poorly configured systems. By the way Paul, how much do we have to invest in the system to tell the difference between FLAC and DSD?
The trained listener can tell the difference on the set of 20 USD headphones.
If you cannot hear the difference in whatever your system consists of, just don't worry.
Most music isn't available in DSD, no streaming service uses DSD.
@@danijel-c I bought planar headphones that tell the difference between FLAC and DSD, but the speakers don't, even though I paid $8,000 for the system.
@@D1N02 Yes, this is a shortcoming that can now be fixed with fiber optic speeds.
@@mariancol2428I doubt. Why would someone put DSD on a streaming platform? The cost would be tremendous.