I might have another explanation ( possibly). My daughter used to work at Universal Music in the digital platforms service. She knew I was a loyal Qobuz subscriber, and she told me that they were very strict in checking if the digital format that was transferred to them was absolutely accurate, they’d rather wait a few days to get the best resolution available than to release it at a lesser quality. That maybe part of the explanation. Hope it helps understand. Cheers
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
Compared to my actual CD , Tidal was adding something in the mastering on some CDs... All classical piano music. I switched to Qobuz, it just sounds better and purer to my ears ..Ive never looked back.
The goal of the Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC) project is to provide lossless compression. There are different encoders, but typically all use the same open-source FLAC codec library to achieve consistent results.This means that no matter encoder is used, the audio data remains entirely intact. When you decompress a FLAC file, it will be identical to the original audio file bit for bit. What compression level, or encoder you use doesn't alter the final result.
Think about unzipping a text file. The words won't change. More than likely the source is different if there's an actual difference in output. Or one service modifies the source before compressing. It's been shown that even CD mastering studios will sometimes modify the source provided to them without telling the customer when producing an uncompressed CD. This happened to Stereophile when making a test CD meant to showcase minor differences. So you're right that it isn't the compression. But it could be any number of other things. If real.
I agree; it’s unlikely to be the encoder since this applies across the entire library. All Tidal tracks sound inferior to Qobuz’s. It feels more fundamental, possibly tied to the servers Tidal uses-maybe there’s some signal loss through multiple switches and circuits-or something in the software itself. Alternatively, perhaps Qobuz adds a subtle touch of EQ magic to compensate for any degradation from network transmission.
@24kHERTZ it's just data at the network level. And a compressed signal until after it reaches you. If the network transfer failed, well there's network protocols that should handle that. But if a network issue actually reached you the compressed signal would be corrupted. The result would not sound slightly wrong. It would sound like digital garbage. I'm not saying there isn't a difference. Just that it would be somewhere else. I've been a software engineer long enough to know that ruling out one cause doesn't mean there isn't another you haven't found yet.
@@24kHERTZ I suspect that Qobuz does not receive permission from music companies to make any adjustments. Perhaps it is the companies themselves that provide a somewhat more colorful file to the streaming services to protect and resell their original vinyl and CD pressings. In the end it's all about money.
I use Qobuz. I found it to be the best combination of sound quality, selection, ease of use and annual cost. I’ve tried all of the major systems and I stay with the Q.
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."
What is extremely disturbing, however, is that the DSD album by Chick Corea I bought there had a different file size every time I downloaded it using the latest version of the Quobuz Download Manager. Only after I downloaded each track individually without this manager did I achieve the same download sizes.
@@Alexandra-Rex No - I have not had good experiences with their support in the past. In fact, when I downloaded the album “Return to Forever” via the manager, all tagging had disappeared and the tracks had a much louder noise than the “old” CDs. However, this could of course be due to the fact that really old master tapes without noise filtering had been used.
@@methanatmer Did you ever get ans answer on any question from the Qobuz support? I would be gladly pay for a copy of the old master tapes without any additional mastering or filtering. You get the real thing.
@@christee2908 I had bought a Hires download there years ago and complained about a clearly audible noise on one track and contacted support. I received the reply that I was imagining it. Since then, I only buy there if I can't get what I want from a competitor. But I have repeatedly found that the download sizes are always different, so I repeat downloads several times and compare them. I'm suspicious of the DSD albums because I couldn't find any real information about the basis on which they were created. DSD albums may simply have been created from inferior sources.
Morten Lindberg from 2L wrote a few weeks ago on the mqa FB page (the one run by Peter Veth) that in the process to quickly remove mqa... Tidal simply truncated the 24 bit mqa files to 16 bit. And if the mqa files were 48kHz ones (so 48 96 or 192 mqas) these were downsampled to 44.1kHz. The result is that 44.1 files that are not downsampled. (44.1, 88.1 176.4 and 352 mqas) will still show mqa on an mqa dac and in roon. However since the upper 8 bits were truncated (24 bit to 16 bit) they can no longer "unfold". Tidal is one mess now qince you can't know if a 16/44 is a genuine pcm flac or downgraded mqa. It's a joke.
That makes sense, gettin' rid of MQA without encoding all these albums anew must have major drawbacks, like the one you explained. It's only logical. The whole thing of what truely happens in that process of conversion of master files is as intransparent as it could be, and yet we haven not seen thorough investigation and data analysis dealing with that question - by anyone. So many questions left unanswered. For example, what about these slightly older albums from roughly around 2008 to let's say 2014, encoded just when streaming took off. Would these be encoded again (and again) once improved encoding software was available (routinely? manually? automatically? by special request? did they keep all source data for purposes like "automatic refresh" based on improved technology?), or will it remain then-time "state of the art" like forever, so even when played in 2035 itt would be what the made out of that source file some 25 years ago. Well, that's the black box thing I hate about streaming and non-possession of files realesed and sold by artists or record labels e/g via bandcamp.
The encoder used is likely exactly it. When I upload concerts to the Internet Live Music Archive, I can encode them using an old program called "Trader's Little Helper" as everything from FLAC (0) having zero compression, to FLAC (8) having the "best or maximum" compression to make the file sizes smaller. Note this is not LOSSY at all, it is not an algorithm throwing out bits like say conversion to mp3 or ogg. It is a mathematical method to simply make the file sizes being transmitted and received smaller while giving the exact same file when it is extracted and played.
I used dbpoweramp (Ithink that was the name) to rip all my CDs to flac. It also had the same 1 to 8 compression settings which would make the resulting file size different for each setting. No conspiracy here. Paul is right.
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.
@slyspy9819 Sure. The most important reason is that Qobuz immediately forgot what it was playing when paused. For instance, I was playing music in my car, got a call and Qobuz had reset the playlist. So each time it paused, I had to find the album again.
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
This may have already been addressed in the comments, but not only are there different FLAC encoders, but different levels of FLAC compression. The same file can be lightly compressed or highly compressed, and the size of the file will be smaller or larger accordingly. And though the bit rate will remain the same as the source file, I find the less compressed FLAC files have a tiny bit more presence. ymmv...
Assuming Tidal and Qobuz start with a bit-identical source (possibly a magnanimous assumption given comments here regarding Tidal’s MQA legacy), I think FLAC compression is a valid explanation. As you say, while still remaining lossless, a FLAC file maybe larger or smaller (generally a modest difference) depending on the aggressiveness of the compression algorithm. If the playback bandwidth reported is simply the FLAC file size divided by the recording time, two bit-identical recordings encoded with differing FLAC compression would report different bandwidths.
My experience with Tidal is when they switched from MQA to FLAC, there was a loss in quality. I feel like the record labels refused to maintain that same quality without MQA's DRM. Tidal is being given lower quality files to then encode in FLAC.
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.
I agree ThikingBetter. I have tried one (maybe two) encoders and tools. Flacs files and WAV/CD files were exactly the same; I checked sample by sample (thousands of points) with the null test. Probably different files or any algorithm to sound different (quite the opposite of high fidelity). I didn't trust MQA business and some "experts with better ears" that didn't hear the elephant in the room, nor businesses which draw fake stairs with bigger and smaller steps. Misinformation is not good for us, we need transparency and information.
@@Jorge-Fernandez-Lopez Yes, let’s avoid misinformation. Lossless FLAC and WAV can transfer the exact music data with zero change to the sound. The reason we used lossy compression such as MP3 earlier was to reduce the data size allowing music over the slower Internet of that era. Also mobile music players and mobile phones had less data storage back in the days some 20 years ago.
@@clickbeetle2720 No, those are different things. Sample rate conversion means your source sample rate, for example, 44.1kHz, is re-sampled by mathematics to another sample rate of your device, very often, 48kHz. In such case software in your device has to generate new sample values in time and different algorithms exist for doing this. The simplest algorithm is using linear approximation and doesn’t sound great but saves the CPU load. Level resolution scaling changes has been an issue in some gear when your, for example, 16 bit music, went through some volume attenuation on the digital side, resulting in a lower bit quantity, for example, 12 bits. Nowadays that is less common of an issue as digital audio architectures have improved with higher dynamic range.
I like Tidal, I've been using it for years, and am more than happy with its sound quality, especially compared to the junk MP3 files used on other services. That's why I was attracted to it in the first place.
I don't think the different encoders give a different output (as Paul said) but the compression ratio might be slightly different. FLAC is lossless so the output = input. However, different encoders might have slightly different compression ratios depending on the algorithms used. The output should nevertheless be the same.
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?
@@mk0x55 I guess it could be like that - kind of post-processing. "Whatever you record company throw at us, whatever you upload into our system, when it comes to sounding, we know better, leave it to us, and we won't tell you BTW". - It's just tempting to do things like that from a marketing perspective. It's still a business, not a "data backup archive".
That is very interesting. Aside of streaming services, i did notice ripped cds sound different dependent on ripping programs used: EAC & Lame for conversion into flac was more energetic and at times edgy, while dBp rip & conversion sounds more smooth but also a bit less exciting (slapping bass shows that very well). And this is what my ears tell me, and I had no clue about any remote justification. Now if flac is not equal flac that would explain ALOT. I shall add mp3 definitely is not mp3, not only because of bit rate but also because of the quality setting of conversion, and it does pay off selecting the slowest possible setting which results in the most accurate approximation of the original file.
Tidal still have some MQA file without you knowing it, probably the reason why they don't sound the same, some track show MQA on the DAC without any mention on the tidal app
It might be either one of these two things or both: 1) Tidal app has a loudness normalization option and Qobuz doesn't. This tends to restrict the dynamics of the track making it sound flat and dull 2) Tidal's app no longer allows bitperfect playback from USB DACs while the Qobuz app does . I've listened to recent albums on Tidal and compared them with my FLAC rips of the same albums and have found no difference in the sound quality
I strongly suspect that Tidal does some processing of the stream prior to compression; not as much as Spotify, seemingly more than Amazon. If Tidal and Qobuz process differently, if at all, their output settings might result in what he's seeing.
I wish we knew more about the source of the files for each song and album on all the streaming services. Spotify just says "Magical Mystery Tour (remastered 2009)" but does that mean they ripped a CD? The 24bit files from the Apple USB stick? A vinyl rip? Probably an MP3 ripped from uToob
'flac basically cuts a track in half so it's about half the size' had me really perplexed. If delve into flac command line stuff, like when setting up EAC, there's many ways to get different sized outputs. A pretty standard start to that is the -8 -V -T, which is so common to use that I actually forget what happens when change the number.
This is an approximate value: As I've often noticed, the bit rate of FLAC files in 16/44.1 is around 700 Kbps. The corresponding original WAV file (or Audio CD .cda file) is always 1411 Kbps, i.e. about twice as high as FLAC. This must be what Paul is referring to.
@@earlyNova That's not quite how flac works though. Wav/cd is that constant bitrate of 1411Kbps (for 16/44.1). Flac basically strips the empty parts out. Rip a 74 minute audiobook, and probably going to get a 220Kbps flac or less.. rip a generic pop album and likely are hitting that 700Kbps... rip an album like Slayer - South of Heaven and looking at around 930 Kbps
I used to subscribed to both on my Roon Nucleus Plus server and doing a number of A-B compares, I found Qobuz sounded a little better, clearer, better bass and a little better soundstage.
No this is a good question. I dropped title a long time ago after I was using both Qobuz and Tidal for comparison. There was no comparison. Tidal sound is strange
Thanks 🙏 Paul You Did it Again You Managed To Lull Me To Sleep 💤 with Yet Another Earth 🌎 Shattering Question and Answer Moment That Will Be Filed In The Annals of The P.S. Audio Shoe 👞 Box of History with All Your Marbles…Old Baseball Cards…and Your Hop/Along Cassidy Cap Gun…It’s Such a Simple Treat to Sit With You Why’ll I Enjoy a Dads Root Beer Float Ready To Call It a Day…😮 Thanks Paul and all You’re Infinite ♾️ Wisdom….😮
I use Music. It has lossless and high resolution files. They sound really good! Why isn’t Music part of the discussion in the audiophile community?
Question: I wanna digitise my dad's 200 CD collection of mostly classical music, Frank Sinatra, Michael Bublée etc. If storage and time is not an issue, is there some software that does the CD reading multiple times (aka multisampling?) to remove any potential missed bit in the 16-bit 44 Khz signal. Why all this effort for me? Dad's Volvo XC60 has B&W sound system, and at the moment he is streaming through the car's Spotify app. I want him to really experience what his sound system could do. With hismown cd collection. (Important: I never read answers to my comments, so Id be grateful for a video on this topic)
It seems to me that since FLAC is lossless encoding, so you get back what you started with. So if the source is the same, the playback should be the same, even for different encoders.
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".
I did exhaustive testing between Tidal and Qobuz on two different streamers, I chose Qobuz for sound quality (monitored on Quad 2812 electrostatics). However, Qobuz for classical albums is deficient in track information....to the point that, on albums of more than one composer, not even the composer of the track being listened to is identified!! This cannot be right - I've told them several times over the last year, to no effect!!
The original recording is far more influential on the sound than the "Container" it's stored in.... There are plenty of CD's that sound like 'AM Radio' where its hard pushed to tell that it's even recorded in Stereo... That said, if it's good music it's great to listen to irrespective of the medium.
I have a very high quality system playing Roon and HQ Player. I have been using Tidal, but after reading comments below, tried a Qobuz trial. Although I have only done a few comparisons, there is no difference in SQ. So, maybe the difference could be between their players (I am taking that out of the equation). Tidal is half the price and works better with Roon. So, Tidal it is
We just don't know what streaming services REALLY do with that raw data provided by record labels. Telling people about lossless quality is one thing, mandatory post processing, like "nano sweetening", "nano branding" or "nano flavouring" - another. Why do people expect perfect honesty? It's not a "data backup archive", it's a business!
Now a bit of time has passed and maybe you already got a glimpse of how FLAC works but roughly, this is the way it works. Lets say, your Wave file has 00000 as bit values somewhere. With FLAC, you have to store all five zeros. With FLAC, the five zeros get replaced by a value indicating: „I have five zeros here.“ Thus, you have to store less. If you would compress a simple sine wave of constant frequency and amplitude using FLAC, the file would be very very small (because, it is always repeating itself). But you would still be able to decompress it and get the original data back. I hope it helps ;)
I ran both for year. For the same track (given the same release), it was quite obvious to me over the year that Qobuz always offered the better quality output, one that was more comparable to the local ripped files I had if I had the same album ripped. I'm in this for the SQ, and Qobuz is quite clearly better to my ears so Tidal has been gone for me now for some time.
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.
Preference btwn Tidal vs Qobuz is perhaps more than anything justified by musical taste & preferred genres: Qobuz has a bit more to offer wrt Jazz & Classics and some modern styles, while Tidal apparently has more in the latter genres.
Strange, they sound different. With FLAC the resultant audio should be bit perfect (maybe someone should try this - I don't have accounts) So that only leaves timing and buffering on their servers, or playback solutions - as above I don't have accounts with them
There’s a noticeable quality difference in favor of Qobuz, without a doubt. I currently subscribe to both services, but something about the Tidal FLAC files just doesn’t measure up to the same files on Qobuz. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly, but Tidal has a sort of “veiled” sound by comparison. One theory I have is that Qobuz might apply subtle EQ adjustments to create a brighter, more open sound, or perhaps it comes down to the software coding differences. While Tidal’s app and library management are top-notch-one reason I keep both subscriptions-Qobuz genuinely sounds more like a CD. By contrast, Tidal’s audio feels capped, as if it’s limited to around 800 kbps from a purely perceptual standpoint.
Why are FLAC files not always the same filesize despite from containing data which is identical bit by bit as they are always lossless? The answer is: several FLAC encoders allow individual adjustment of the compression level during encoding process, e.g. FLAC level 0-8. You basically trade computing resources for higher compression rate, meaning level 0 gives you comparably bigger files yet eating up a minimum of CPU resources during encoding while level 8 eats up the maximum of resources yet leading to the most efficiently compressed therefore smallest file. Difference is usually within a range of 10% of the comparable WAV filesize. FLAC encoders are always meant to provide bit-identical i.e. mathematically lossless files as no reduction algorithm must be used. Once decoded, there should not be any difference between the files.
Why are they using an encoder? The digital file is supposed to stream bit for bit. The encoder should only be on the user end. I’m no flax expert. Question where they get the files. Are they the same? We can hear CD’s that are supposed to be the same album sound differently, I’m not talking about remastering. RIP MQA. Maybe Spotify will find an affordable way to upgrade.
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.
FLAC has different compression levels you can choose while creating the FLAC. No marvel, open Information. I don't know why this is presented as mystery in this Video. A heavier compressed file results in more computing power needed when uncompressed for playback. Still each compression level has to deliver a bit perfect Version of the uncompressed Original.
FLAC compression/decompression is asymmetric: compression is (or can be depending on the level chosen) computationally “hard”, but decompression is computationally simple and is independent of the compression level chosen. The selection of FLAC compression level is a time/space trade off which may have been different between Qobuz and Tidal.
guys, the difference between the two is very but very slight, almost not noticeable, there are too many variants involved, maybe, something is done to handle the impressive amount of data that is streamed that costs so much money! but the real test I did and that gives me thought is related to an album I bought in dsd - (from NativeDSD) - both Tidal and Qobuz sound really bad and the same when compared to the real and only quality format. the DSD
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.
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.
@@Strange_Kid-f3f 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.
Qobuz improved over the last few months. I have tried both Tidal and Qobuz this year. About a year ago i went for Tidal but i ditched it yesterday for Qobuz because it sounds a lot better now then Tidal. And i always liked the Qobuz interface where i hated the Tidal interface.
Tidal app, library, and artist royalties are all superior. To me, the difference in quality is a smaller delta than all the other factors, so I stick with Tidal.
@@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 is not yet available in my country, however when I compare Tidal Max sound quality vs Amazon Music Ultra HD sound quality, Amazon's sound superior to me. Bass is tighter and more defined, overall sound signature sounds more Cohesive. To me Tidal Max is good, I like it, but the sound to my ears feels Equalized, sound boomier, over emphasized bass and treble is a bit brighter. However, Tidals app interface is by far superior, is really good, intuitive and user friendly, Amazon Music App app interface is very poor and not logical, sometimes is a burden to use. That's my experience. I adopted Tidal since it came out, been using it for many years.
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..😢
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.
@@PSA78 Any DAW should be able to do it. There are TH-cam channels that use them to compare recorded & live music to uncover lipsynced performances. Comparing raw PCM should be easy.
@ernunnos I'm not sure what kind of capabilies they have, but it's not about analysing fundamentals of the analog as that should be the same, I'm guessing it's more about minute details of harmonics. A software that could compare two images of PCM might work.
It Would Be Nice Too Live in a Elongated Universe That Compelled Me To Write ✍️ Paul About The Virtues of Tidal vs Qobuz Bottom Line… “” You May Not Get All That You Paid For….! ….But You Will Certainly Pay For All That You Get…””! 😮
I still prefer the sound of most tracks on Qobuz more than Tidal :( it's a bummer because I was hoping tidal's move to Flac would make it sound the same and then I could stop paying for both :( No luck
Qobuz, Tidal, Deezer or any lossless streaming service are identical. Recently made a null test between Tidal, Qobuz, Deezer and CD rip of the same master. THey are all the same, and they all sound the same. Beter sounding Qobuz is a myth which has roots in the time Tidal was forcing MQA.
Qbuz direct connect rather than WIFI or you can have buffer issues with high Flaq files. I like Qbuz better. Some songs are crap quality though with each service. You have to listen to each song and build a library of quality over time. I wish Qbuz had a community where they automatically share a list with each other on high quality files they have listened to. You just can't go by the 192k files or whatever most of those sound like crap. I find the I think 48/96 or whatever it is tend to have the best sound.
Paul Has Got To Market Himself Better We All Get The Old Blue Jean 👖 Pants Business Yet I Can’t Wait For The P.S. Audio Paul McGowan Bobble Heads Paul Could Be The New Dashboard Saint or He Could Sit Next to Nipper The RCA Victrola Dog 🐶 I Tell You Paul it’s a Winner You Would Sell Millions of Your Bobble Heads or I Would Re/Market The JBL Poster Where The Guy is Sitting on The Couch 🛋️ With His Hair Blowing Back His Martini 🍸 Falling Off The Table and The Lamp is Tilting Over But We Superimpose You Paul Instead of The 70’s Dude and You Are Sitting In Front of a P.S. Audio Sound System 😮 Rolling a Joint and Instead of a Martini 🍸 You’re Bong is Falling Off The Table …I Got Too Toughen Up Paul….
Tidal cuts corners and has manipulated facts to it's customers often and been caught doing so. I used to be on Tidal but once I tried Qobuz and did extensive comparisons, I cancelled Tidal and have never looked back.
Records sound the best in my opinion. Digital music has a sluggish feeling that no amount of detail can compensate for. If music was recorded in the analog era; I think it sounds best played back on analog equipment. Contemporary digital musical productions may sound better played back on digital systems. Sadly, most contemporary pop music is hyper simplified, dull and dim witted - perfect for the average American (I’m off topic).
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. 🙁
Hi @bamber2000: You've learned wrong from the comments or you interpreted the comments wrong. You simply can Google FLAC and you'll learn that FLAC is lossless. Nothing mythical about it. It is a lossless compression like ZIP compression, but then optimized for audio. If you compare a decompressed FLAC file with to original file they are bit for bit the same. Also if you lay the 2 waveforms on top of each other they are identical.
I might have another explanation ( possibly). My daughter used to work at Universal Music in the digital platforms service. She knew I was a loyal Qobuz subscriber, and she told me that they were very strict in checking if the digital format that was transferred to them was absolutely accurate, they’d rather wait a few days to get the best resolution available than to release it at a lesser quality. That maybe part of the explanation. Hope it helps understand. Cheers
this was my boyfriends question! he was so delighted to see that you answered his questions 😊 God bless and happy holidays!
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
Compared to my actual CD , Tidal was adding something in the mastering on some CDs... All classical piano music. I switched to Qobuz, it just sounds better and purer to my ears ..Ive never looked back.
The goal of the Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC) project is to provide lossless compression. There are different encoders, but typically all use the same open-source FLAC codec library to achieve consistent results.This means that no matter encoder is used, the audio data remains entirely intact. When you decompress a FLAC file, it will be identical to the original audio file bit for bit. What compression level, or encoder you use doesn't alter the final result.
Decompresion in real time ads some difficulties , you need some bufer for flac to play perfect
Think about unzipping a text file. The words won't change. More than likely the source is different if there's an actual difference in output. Or one service modifies the source before compressing. It's been shown that even CD mastering studios will sometimes modify the source provided to them without telling the customer when producing an uncompressed CD. This happened to Stereophile when making a test CD meant to showcase minor differences. So you're right that it isn't the compression. But it could be any number of other things. If real.
I agree; it’s unlikely to be the encoder since this applies across the entire library. All Tidal tracks sound inferior to Qobuz’s. It feels more fundamental, possibly tied to the servers Tidal uses-maybe there’s some signal loss through multiple switches and circuits-or something in the software itself. Alternatively, perhaps Qobuz adds a subtle touch of EQ magic to compensate for any degradation from network transmission.
@24kHERTZ it's just data at the network level. And a compressed signal until after it reaches you. If the network transfer failed, well there's network protocols that should handle that. But if a network issue actually reached you the compressed signal would be corrupted. The result would not sound slightly wrong. It would sound like digital garbage. I'm not saying there isn't a difference. Just that it would be somewhere else. I've been a software engineer long enough to know that ruling out one cause doesn't mean there isn't another you haven't found yet.
@@24kHERTZ I suspect that Qobuz does not receive permission from music companies to make any adjustments. Perhaps it is the companies themselves that provide a somewhat more colorful file to the streaming services to protect and resell their original vinyl and CD pressings. In the end it's all about money.
I use Qobuz. I found it to be the best combination of sound quality, selection, ease of use and annual cost. I’ve tried all of the major systems and I stay with the Q.
Oh! It’s 2am, and here is Paul’s video, right on time! 😊
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."
What is extremely disturbing, however, is that the DSD album by Chick Corea I bought there had a different file size every time I downloaded it using the latest version of the Quobuz Download Manager. Only after I downloaded each track individually without this manager did I achieve the same download sizes.
@methanatmer That is odd. Did you ask them about it?
@@Alexandra-Rex No - I have not had good experiences with their support in the past. In fact, when I downloaded the album “Return to Forever” via the manager, all tagging had disappeared and the tracks had a much louder noise than the “old” CDs. However, this could of course be due to the fact that really old master tapes without noise filtering had been used.
@@methanatmer Did you ever get ans answer on any question from the Qobuz support? I would be gladly pay for a copy of the old master tapes without any additional mastering or filtering. You get the real thing.
@@christee2908 I had bought a Hires download there years ago and complained about a clearly audible noise on one track and contacted support. I received the reply that I was imagining it. Since then, I only buy there if I can't get what I want from a competitor. But I have repeatedly found that the download sizes are always different, so I repeat downloads several times and compare them. I'm suspicious of the DSD albums because I couldn't find any real information about the basis on which they were created. DSD albums may simply have been created from inferior sources.
Morten Lindberg from 2L wrote a few weeks ago on the mqa FB page (the one run by Peter Veth) that in the process to quickly remove mqa... Tidal simply truncated the 24 bit mqa files to 16 bit. And if the mqa files were 48kHz ones (so 48 96 or 192 mqas) these were downsampled to 44.1kHz.
The result is that 44.1 files that are not downsampled. (44.1, 88.1 176.4 and 352 mqas) will still show mqa on an mqa dac and in roon.
However since the upper 8 bits were truncated (24 bit to 16 bit) they can no longer "unfold".
Tidal is one mess now qince you can't know if a 16/44 is a genuine pcm flac or downgraded mqa.
It's a joke.
I also wondered why Tidal still shows MQA for an acquaintance of mine, this explains everything.
That makes sense, gettin' rid of MQA without encoding all these albums anew must have major drawbacks, like the one you explained. It's only logical. The whole thing of what truely happens in that process of conversion of master files is as intransparent as it could be, and yet we haven not seen thorough investigation and data analysis dealing with that question - by anyone. So many questions left unanswered. For example, what about these slightly older albums from roughly around 2008 to let's say 2014, encoded just when streaming took off. Would these be encoded again (and again) once improved encoding software was available (routinely? manually? automatically? by special request? did they keep all source data for purposes like "automatic refresh" based on improved technology?), or will it remain then-time "state of the art" like forever, so even when played in 2035 itt would be what the made out of that source file some 25 years ago. Well, that's the black box thing I hate about streaming and non-possession of files realesed and sold by artists or record labels e/g via bandcamp.
The encoder used is likely exactly it. When I upload concerts to the Internet Live Music Archive, I can encode them using an old program called "Trader's Little Helper" as everything from FLAC (0) having zero compression, to FLAC (8) having the "best or maximum" compression to make the file sizes smaller. Note this is not LOSSY at all, it is not an algorithm throwing out bits like say conversion to mp3 or ogg. It is a mathematical method to simply make the file sizes being transmitted and received smaller while giving the exact same file when it is extracted and played.
I used dbpoweramp (Ithink that was the name) to rip all my CDs to flac. It also had the same 1 to 8 compression settings which would make the resulting file size different for each setting. No conspiracy here. Paul is right.
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.
Qobuz sounds better, I left Tidal a while ago
qobuz bigger file size that is the conclusion
Is it really that noticeable ...I'm looking into streaming services and am struggling which to choose
Qobuz took forever to come to Canada (not even sure whether they're available) so Tidal will remain the go to for many.
@@slyspy9819 yes very noticable. 16/44 from Qobuz is better than hi res Tidal. My dac is audio gd r7he mk3.
Qobuz sounds like a cd, Tidal sounds like Spotify. Imo.
I use Tidal but I agree that Qobuz sounds better. However, I prefer the Tidal app.
Please explain why I'm in the process of choosing and it's between Tidal and Qobuz
@slyspy9819 Sure. The most important reason is that Qobuz immediately forgot what it was playing when paused. For instance, I was playing music in my car, got a call and Qobuz had reset the playlist. So each time it paused, I had to find the album again.
@@PieterBreda Thx Peter , That's quite a flaw I would think and pretty annoying . That can be a deal breaker for me
@@slyspy9819That was a couple of years ago so it's worth checking. I also found that Tidal had much more choice.
@@PieterBreda OK , cool thx
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
This may have already been addressed in the comments, but not only are there different FLAC encoders, but different levels of FLAC compression. The same file can be lightly compressed or highly compressed, and the size of the file will be smaller or larger accordingly. And though the bit rate will remain the same as the source file, I find the less compressed FLAC files have a tiny bit more presence. ymmv...
Assuming Tidal and Qobuz start with a bit-identical source (possibly a magnanimous assumption given comments here regarding Tidal’s MQA legacy), I think FLAC compression is a valid explanation. As you say, while still remaining lossless, a FLAC file maybe larger or smaller (generally a modest difference) depending on the aggressiveness of the compression algorithm. If the playback bandwidth reported is simply the FLAC file size divided by the recording time, two bit-identical recordings encoded with differing FLAC compression would report different bandwidths.
Qoubuz sounds a bit fuller with more bass but to me it seems some kinda EQ filter is used like Riaa for vinyl
Qobuz probably using a Power Plant.
How can different lossless encoders sound different, if is not down to processing power or noise created by CPU/processing unit?
Tracks will be different sizes depending on the compression ratio selected.
My experience with Tidal is when they switched from MQA to FLAC, there was a loss in quality. I feel like the record labels refused to maintain that same quality without MQA's DRM. Tidal is being given lower quality files to then encode in FLAC.
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.
I agree ThikingBetter. I have tried one (maybe two) encoders and tools. Flacs files and WAV/CD files were exactly the same; I checked sample by sample (thousands of points) with the null test. Probably different files or any algorithm to sound different (quite the opposite of high fidelity). I didn't trust MQA business and some "experts with better ears" that didn't hear the elephant in the room, nor businesses which draw fake stairs with bigger and smaller steps. Misinformation is not good for us, we need transparency and information.
@@Jorge-Fernandez-Lopez Yes, let’s avoid misinformation. Lossless FLAC and WAV can transfer the exact music data with zero change to the sound. The reason we used lossy compression such as MP3 earlier was to reduce the data size allowing music over the slower Internet of that era. Also mobile music players and mobile phones had less data storage back in the days some 20 years ago.
@@clickbeetle2720 No, those are different things. Sample rate conversion means your source sample rate, for example, 44.1kHz, is re-sampled by mathematics to another sample rate of your device, very often, 48kHz. In such case software in your device has to generate new sample values in time and different algorithms exist for doing this. The simplest algorithm is using linear approximation and doesn’t sound great but saves the CPU load. Level resolution scaling changes has been an issue in some gear when your, for example, 16 bit music, went through some volume attenuation on the digital side, resulting in a lower bit quantity, for example, 12 bits. Nowadays that is less common of an issue as digital audio architectures have improved with higher dynamic range.
I like Tidal, I've been using it for years, and am more than happy with its sound quality, especially compared to the junk MP3 files used on other services. That's why I was attracted to it in the first place.
I don't think the different encoders give a different output (as Paul said) but the compression ratio might be slightly different. FLAC is lossless so the output = input. However, different encoders might have slightly different compression ratios depending on the algorithms used. The output should nevertheless be the same.
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?
@@mk0x55 I guess it could be like that - kind of post-processing. "Whatever you record company throw at us, whatever you upload into our system, when it comes to sounding, we know better, leave it to us, and we won't tell you BTW". - It's just tempting to do things like that from a marketing perspective. It's still a business, not a "data backup archive".
That is very interesting. Aside of streaming services, i did notice ripped cds sound different dependent on ripping programs used: EAC & Lame for conversion into flac was more energetic and at times edgy, while dBp rip & conversion sounds more smooth but also a bit less exciting (slapping bass shows that very well). And this is what my ears tell me, and I had no clue about any remote justification. Now if flac is not equal flac that would explain ALOT.
I shall add mp3 definitely is not mp3, not only because of bit rate but also because of the quality setting of conversion, and it does pay off selecting the slowest possible setting which results in the most accurate approximation of the original file.
Tidal still have some MQA file without you knowing it, probably the reason why they don't sound the same, some track show MQA on the DAC without any mention on the tidal app
I would imagine it also has to do with storage limitations. They have to store enormous amounts of music so you can select what you want.
Thanks for the video. Qobuz isn't available in all countries. Unfortunately.
It might be either one of these two things or both:
1) Tidal app has a loudness normalization option and Qobuz doesn't. This tends to restrict the dynamics of the track making it sound flat and dull
2) Tidal's app no longer allows bitperfect playback from USB DACs while the Qobuz app does .
I've listened to recent albums on Tidal and compared them with my FLAC rips of the same albums and have found no difference in the sound quality
I strongly suspect that Tidal does some processing of the stream prior to compression; not as much as Spotify, seemingly more than Amazon. If Tidal and Qobuz process differently, if at all, their output settings might result in what he's seeing.
I wish we knew more about the source of the files for each song and album on all the streaming services. Spotify just says "Magical Mystery Tour (remastered 2009)" but does that mean they ripped a CD? The 24bit files from the Apple USB stick? A vinyl rip? Probably an MP3 ripped from uToob
My MQA light came up when listening to FLAC and support told me that their FLAC files are from the MQA originals and encoded as FLAC
'flac basically cuts a track in half so it's about half the size' had me really perplexed.
If delve into flac command line stuff, like when setting up EAC, there's many ways to get different sized outputs.
A pretty standard start to that is the -8 -V -T, which is so common to use that I actually forget what happens when change the number.
This is an approximate value: As I've often noticed, the bit rate of FLAC files in 16/44.1 is around 700 Kbps.
The corresponding original WAV file (or Audio CD .cda file) is always 1411 Kbps, i.e. about twice as high as FLAC.
This must be what Paul is referring to.
@@earlyNova That's not quite how flac works though. Wav/cd is that constant bitrate of 1411Kbps (for 16/44.1).
Flac basically strips the empty parts out.
Rip a 74 minute audiobook, and probably going to get a 220Kbps flac or less.. rip a generic pop album and likely are hitting that 700Kbps... rip an album like Slayer - South of Heaven and looking at around 930 Kbps
It’s network configuration only.
I appreciate this question as I am just beginning to look into streaming. I have a lot to learn.
Me too. I’m a little lost but I’ll get there.
I used to subscribed to both on my Roon Nucleus Plus server and doing a number of A-B compares, I found Qobuz sounded a little better, clearer, better bass and a little better soundstage.
No this is a good question. I dropped title a long time ago after I was using both Qobuz and Tidal for comparison. There was no comparison. Tidal sound is strange
Thanks 🙏 Paul
You Did it Again
You Managed To
Lull Me To Sleep 💤 with Yet Another Earth 🌎 Shattering Question and Answer Moment That Will
Be Filed In The Annals of
The P.S. Audio
Shoe 👞 Box
of History with All Your
Marbles…Old Baseball Cards…and Your
Hop/Along Cassidy
Cap Gun…It’s Such a Simple
Treat to Sit With You
Why’ll I Enjoy a
Dads Root Beer Float
Ready To Call It a Day…😮
Thanks Paul and all
You’re Infinite ♾️
Wisdom….😮
Totally agree...I think we are guilding the lily.
First world problems he is solving... We are so fortunate !
Ahhh hipster dweeb calling out Zuckerberg's 'Luddites'. You'll have your day as well if you live long enough.......
I support title because it pays the artist much better than any other streaming service.
It’s called Tidal 👍
@@shaynesparkes8740 it is called "autocorrect" when you do voice to text and say Tidal.
Tidal is the second best at paying artists, Qobuz is by far the best.
And now goes diddler news
I have both, and also found qobuz to be slighly better sounding, but I do like the Tidal UI more.
Spend a bit more money and purchase Roon. There’s nothing like it in my humble opinion.
What about Amazon Music HD?
I think it has the best sound.
I use Music. It has lossless and high resolution files. They sound really good!
Why isn’t Music part of the discussion in the audiophile community?
Agreed with you 👍
Probably because apple is way too proprietary and a lot of users are reduced to airplay or Bluetooth which are really lossy.
What are your thoughts on Amazon HD?
It has the great audio quality. Sometimes I think it s better than Qobuz. I hear more micro details.
Question: I wanna digitise my dad's 200 CD collection of mostly classical music, Frank Sinatra, Michael Bublée etc. If storage and time is not an issue, is there some software that does the CD reading multiple times (aka multisampling?) to remove any potential missed bit in the 16-bit 44 Khz signal. Why all this effort for me? Dad's Volvo XC60 has B&W sound system, and at the moment he is streaming through the car's Spotify app. I want him to really experience what his sound system could do. With hismown cd collection.
(Important: I never read answers to my comments, so Id be grateful for a video on this topic)
It seems to me that since FLAC is lossless encoding, so you get back what you started with. So if the source is the same, the playback should be the same, even for different encoders.
Very, VERY, interesting!
- Thank you so much for sharing!
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".
*QOBUZ offers DSD download albums since October*
Have you compared the two since Tidal stopped using MQA?
Could it also be different servers and that it depends on your location?
I did exhaustive testing between Tidal and Qobuz on two different streamers, I chose Qobuz for sound quality (monitored on Quad 2812 electrostatics). However, Qobuz for classical albums is deficient in track information....to the point that, on albums of more than one composer, not even the composer of the track being listened to is identified!! This cannot be right - I've told them several times over the last year, to no effect!!
The original recording is far more influential on the sound than the "Container" it's stored in....
There are plenty of CD's that sound like 'AM Radio' where its hard pushed to tell that it's even recorded in Stereo...
That said, if it's good music it's great to listen to irrespective of the medium.
Excellent as always, thanks
I have a very high quality system playing Roon and HQ Player. I have been using Tidal, but after reading comments below, tried a Qobuz trial. Although I have only done a few comparisons, there is no difference in SQ. So, maybe the difference could be between their players (I am taking that out of the equation). Tidal is half the price and works better with Roon. So, Tidal it is
We just don't know what streaming services REALLY do with that raw data provided by record labels. Telling people about lossless quality is one thing, mandatory post processing, like "nano sweetening", "nano branding" or "nano flavouring" - another. Why do people expect perfect honesty? It's not a "data backup archive", it's a business!
Why do we assume Tidal uses the same original files as Qobuz?
The Qobuz app on Mac does *not* support an exclusive mode like Tidal. Thats worse than having a bit more or less.
Bits are bits, yet some bits may be redundant.
How can flac claim to be lossless if, according to Paul, it compresses an original file by half? Does it get "unpacked" at the output end?
Just as a zip file is lossless. Yes FLACS gets unpacked while playing.
Now a bit of time has passed and maybe you already got a glimpse of how FLAC works but roughly, this is the way it works. Lets say, your Wave file has 00000 as bit values somewhere. With FLAC, you have to store all five zeros. With FLAC, the five zeros get replaced by a value indicating: „I have five zeros here.“ Thus, you have to store less. If you would compress a simple sine wave of constant frequency and amplitude using FLAC, the file would be very very small (because, it is always repeating itself). But you would still be able to decompress it and get the original data back. I hope it helps ;)
I ran both for year. For the same track (given the same release), it was quite obvious to me over the year that Qobuz always offered the better quality output, one that was more comparable to the local ripped files I had if I had the same album ripped.
I'm in this for the SQ, and Qobuz is quite clearly better to my ears so Tidal has been gone for me now for some time.
Loud is not better. Just equalize the volume and play at the same output level.
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.
Preference btwn Tidal vs Qobuz is perhaps more than anything justified by musical taste & preferred genres: Qobuz has a bit more to offer wrt Jazz & Classics and some modern styles, while Tidal apparently has more in the latter genres.
What opinion do you including anyone who may have a opinion about SPOTIFY?
Strange, they sound different. With FLAC the resultant audio should be bit perfect (maybe someone should try this - I don't have accounts)
So that only leaves timing and buffering on their servers, or playback solutions - as above I don't have accounts with them
Tidal but that's only because I prefer the UI.
Then again, does qobuz support "exclusive mode" as Tidal does, example for MacOS to switch the "audio midi" frequency to match the file ?
Yes
There’s a noticeable quality difference in favor of Qobuz, without a doubt. I currently subscribe to both services, but something about the Tidal FLAC files just doesn’t measure up to the same files on Qobuz. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly, but Tidal has a sort of “veiled” sound by comparison. One theory I have is that Qobuz might apply subtle EQ adjustments to create a brighter, more open sound, or perhaps it comes down to the software coding differences. While Tidal’s app and library management are top-notch-one reason I keep both subscriptions-Qobuz genuinely sounds more like a CD. By contrast, Tidal’s audio feels capped, as if it’s limited to around 800 kbps from a purely perceptual standpoint.
I rip my cds flac uncompressed. Love it
Why are FLAC files not always the same filesize despite from containing data which is identical bit by bit as they are always lossless? The answer is: several FLAC encoders allow individual adjustment of the compression level during encoding process, e.g. FLAC level 0-8. You basically trade computing resources for higher compression rate, meaning level 0 gives you comparably bigger files yet eating up a minimum of CPU resources during encoding while level 8 eats up the maximum of resources yet leading to the most efficiently compressed therefore smallest file. Difference is usually within a range of 10% of the comparable WAV filesize.
FLAC encoders are always meant to provide bit-identical i.e. mathematically lossless files as no reduction algorithm must be used. Once decoded, there should not be any difference between the files.
Why are they using an encoder? The digital file is supposed to stream bit for bit. The encoder should only be on the user end. I’m no flax expert.
Question where they get the files. Are they the same? We can hear CD’s that are supposed to be the same album sound differently, I’m not talking about remastering. RIP MQA. Maybe Spotify will find an affordable way to upgrade.
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.
FLAC is not lossless; by definition, it is not a format but a container. It can contain anything, including a lossy format.
FLAC is lossless by Definition. It doesn't matter that it is only a Container.
@@goodsound4756You don't understand, do you?
If you compress lossy, you will get lossy.
@ LOL, but that's the fault of MP3 etc, not of FLAC. FLAC itself's not lossy. You cannot blame the container for bad content.
@@goodsound4756FLAC is a container. Such an entity cannot be declared as lossless on lossy. It contains what you put into it.
Qobuz sounds better indeed. Even I noticed it on my kef ls50w2 kc62 setup.
I find turning off normalize music makes a difference on tidal
I'm too cheap to pay a monthly subscription charger. I use a Echo dot as a streamer/tuner in my main system.
FLAC has different compression levels you can choose while creating the FLAC. No marvel, open Information. I don't know why this is presented as mystery in this Video.
A heavier compressed file results in more computing power needed when uncompressed for playback. Still each compression level has to deliver a bit perfect Version of the uncompressed Original.
FLAC compression/decompression is asymmetric: compression is (or can be depending on the level chosen) computationally “hard”, but decompression is computationally simple and is independent of the compression level chosen. The selection of FLAC compression level is a time/space trade off which may have been different between Qobuz and Tidal.
guys, the difference between the two is very but very slight, almost not noticeable, there are too many variants involved, maybe, something is done to handle the impressive amount of data that is streamed that costs so much money! but the real test I did and that gives me thought is related to an album I bought in dsd - (from NativeDSD) - both Tidal and Qobuz sound really bad and the same when compared to the real and only quality format. the DSD
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.
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.
@@Strange_Kid-f3f 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.
Qobuz improved over the last few months. I have tried both Tidal and Qobuz this year. About a year ago i went for Tidal but i ditched it yesterday for Qobuz because it sounds a lot better now then Tidal. And i always liked the Qobuz interface where i hated the Tidal interface.
😊
Qobuz sounds the best out of them all.
Qobuz sounds better in my tests
I totally agree! I currently use both and my ears hear more clarity and separation.
Tidal app, library, and artist royalties are all superior. To me, the difference in quality is a smaller delta than all the other factors, so I stick with Tidal.
I say the same.
I’ve had tidal from its beginning and I think it sounds great and the ui is excellent
Check headphone show I think he is. The guy that showed that mqa was cheating us. He said Tidal still has mqa files under flac advertising
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 is not yet available in my country, however when I compare Tidal Max sound quality vs Amazon Music Ultra HD sound quality, Amazon's sound superior to me. Bass is tighter and more defined, overall sound signature sounds more Cohesive. To me Tidal Max is good, I like it, but the sound to my ears feels Equalized, sound boomier, over emphasized bass and treble is a bit brighter.
However, Tidals app interface is by far superior, is really good, intuitive and user friendly, Amazon Music App app interface is very poor and not logical, sometimes is a burden to use. That's my experience.
I adopted Tidal since it came out, been using it for many years.
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..😢
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.
It's a difference on all, even on new recordings.
@PSA78 It would be interesting to capture & compare the PCM streams. With each other and CD.
@@ernunnos There's probably a way, I only know of software for analog analysis, but perhaps there is one.
@@PSA78 Any DAW should be able to do it. There are TH-cam channels that use them to compare recorded & live music to uncover lipsynced performances. Comparing raw PCM should be easy.
@ernunnos I'm not sure what kind of capabilies they have, but it's not about analysing fundamentals of the analog as that should be the same, I'm guessing it's more about minute details of harmonics. A software that could compare two images of PCM might work.
I have significantly reduced my signal path. I use a Samsung tablet, ($90). "Discuss"...
Moral of this seems to be ; stay away from those compressed files !!
It Would Be Nice Too
Live in a Elongated Universe That Compelled
Me To Write ✍️ Paul About The Virtues of
Tidal vs Qobuz
Bottom Line…
“” You May Not Get All
That You Paid For….!
….But You Will Certainly Pay For All That
You Get…””!
😮
I still prefer the sound of most tracks on Qobuz more than Tidal :( it's a bummer because I was hoping tidal's move to Flac would make it sound the same and then I could stop paying for both :( No luck
Qobuz, Tidal, Deezer or any lossless streaming service are identical. Recently made a null test between Tidal, Qobuz, Deezer and CD rip of the same master. THey are all the same, and they all sound the same. Beter sounding Qobuz is a myth which has roots in the time Tidal was forcing MQA.
Qobuz supports asio and I always think that sounds best if the DAC supports it.
Qbuz direct connect rather than WIFI or you can have buffer issues with high Flaq files. I like Qbuz better. Some songs are crap quality though with each service. You have to listen to each song and build a library of quality over time. I wish Qbuz had a community where they automatically share a list with each other on high quality files they have listened to. You just can't go by the 192k files or whatever most of those sound like crap. I find the I think 48/96 or whatever it is tend to have the best sound.
OMG I miss a bit!... lol
Paul Has Got To Market Himself Better
We All Get The Old
Blue Jean 👖 Pants Business
Yet I Can’t Wait For
The P.S. Audio
Paul McGowan
Bobble Heads
Paul Could Be The New
Dashboard Saint or
He Could Sit Next to
Nipper The RCA Victrola
Dog 🐶
I Tell You Paul it’s a Winner
You Would Sell
Millions of Your
Bobble Heads or
I Would Re/Market
The JBL Poster Where The Guy is Sitting on
The Couch 🛋️ With His Hair Blowing Back His
Martini 🍸 Falling Off The Table and The
Lamp is Tilting Over
But We Superimpose You
Paul Instead of The 70’s Dude and You Are Sitting In Front of a P.S. Audio
Sound System 😮 Rolling a Joint and Instead of a
Martini 🍸 You’re Bong is
Falling Off The Table
…I Got Too Toughen Up
Paul….
Tidal cuts corners and has manipulated facts to it's customers often and been caught doing so.
I used to be on Tidal but once I tried Qobuz and did extensive comparisons, I cancelled Tidal and have never looked back.
Records sound the best in my opinion. Digital music has a sluggish feeling that no amount of detail can compensate for.
If music was recorded in the analog era; I think it sounds best played back on analog equipment.
Contemporary digital musical productions may sound better played back on digital systems.
Sadly, most contemporary pop music is hyper simplified, dull and dim witted - perfect for the average American (I’m off topic).
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. 🙁
Nope. FLAC by definition, is lossless.
I know what the L in FLAC stand for,but can I trust those who do the encoding?
Hi @bamber2000: You've learned wrong from the comments or you interpreted the comments wrong. You simply can Google FLAC and you'll learn that FLAC is lossless. Nothing mythical about it. It is a lossless compression like ZIP compression, but then optimized for audio. If you compare a decompressed FLAC file with to original file they are bit for bit the same. Also if you lay the 2 waveforms on top of each other they are identical.
Thanks. That’s a good point.