Who has tried "TIDAL" vs other streaming applications?

A college student listening to Dire Straits, Brothers in Arms?  Ain't that kind of old hat?  Nothing with sound quality worth A/B'ing from this decade???  :-)  The illuminati here will definitely tell you Tidal is better...vastly better.  Even your system can "tell" the difference.

Tidal vs Spotify has been discussed in various threads here, you will probably benefit entering either of those names in the "Search Discussions" box.
  
By the way, welcome to Audiogon where there is no shortage of  
O-pinions, some informed, some not.  Best advice starting out: trust your own ears and judgement.  BTW as jond said, nice system for a student (or anyone!).  Again, welcome.

grm - 
BTW & FWIW...
I'm a happy SPOTIFY subscriber.  

Chubaka - you need a DAC (digital analog converter).  Toslink from computer to DAC.  RCA (or XLR) from DAC to pre-amp or amp.

A minority opinion here, I suspect.  You can attribute it to what you will...inadequate gear, the wrong set up, old ears and degraded hearing.  Just spent a good amount of time over several days of a "free" 30 day Tidal HIFI trial A/B-ing tracks (and small sections of the same track) on Tidal vs Spotify Premium.  Took pains to get volume levels the same (RadioShack SPL meter). Listened on the main system with Gungnir DAC (not Albert Porter's but good enough to hear cable changes and differences in various issues of an album) as well as headphones (Senn 600/AQ Dragonfly/Asgard 2 amp).  Based on enthusiasm from the Tidal fans here and elsewhere in A'gon, was expecting a night and day difference.  Personally, I was underwhelmed.  I thought I might have heard a tiny, tiny bit more hi end, separation, and density to the music but emphasis on tiny.  Switching back to the same track or section on Spotify Premium and that "remembered improvement" evaporated in a second.  It wasn't like the sound stage shrank or high end started sounding rolled off accompanying a noticeable degradation in SQ..  I doubt I could pick out Tidal vs Spotify in a blind test.  So FWIW, that's my story.  Was really hoping Tidal would bring a step up change in sonics but it didn't for me.  Cancelled the trial.  Saved myself $20/month and kept Spotify which I find very satisfying.  Happy listening to you in which ever format you choose.  

cerrot - I thought any difference between Spotify Premium and Tidal HiFi two was tiny and not something I’d necessarily be able to pick out in a blind test. Now, Tidal HiFi vs the "free" non-premium Spotify? - sure that brings a definite improvement.

Re was Tidal set for HiFi? YES, it was. Paid (gave security) for a Tidal HIFI trial, confirmed things in settings and noted the HIFI indicator at the bottom right was "lighting up" when playing a track. The bit rate numbers look like they should make a big difference but in my experience, they didn’t translate to a significant improvement in SQ. Believe me, I would love something that delivered a step change improvement in sonics and was hoping Tidal could provide that. While maybe a minority here and elsewhere, I did find another comment (at HeadFi) to the effect, "Spotify Premium does not give up that much to Tidal HiFi". That would certainly be my conclusion too.

Now...I’m no computer genius but I’ve been learning by trial and error. I do use a Musical Fidelity V-Link 192 USB/Spdif converter that upsamples to 192Hz. Do you think that might "narrow the gap" between the two services? I know up sampling comes in for criticism by some. My experience does have me wondering what the excitement with Tidal is all about. Maybe the tiny improvement I thought I maybe heard is the basis for that. If you have some insight, let me know. Either way, Tidal OR Spotify, it’s great to have access to such vast libraries of music.

BTW - the MF VLink 192 is only on the big system. With headphones do use an Audioquest Dragonfly v1.2. That will upsample to 96Hz. Not a huge difference from Tidal with cans, either.

Hi Folks - Thanks for the consideration given my remarks.  A couple of additional points:
- The V-Link was not part of the headphone listening that compared Spotify Premium vs Tidal HiFi.
- I doubt distortion played a role.  Both formats sounded EXCELLENT with only slight advantage to Tidal HiFi as noted above.  I'll add that I actually liked the bass from Spotify Premium a little better.  
- For me any difference between the two was not significant and not worth the 2x price differential for Tidal.  If you judge the differences otherwise,  no problem.  I am certainly not offended...or convinced to revive my Tidal subscription  ;-)
- I did not report Tidal to be buggy.
- Not all MP3 files are created equal...MP3 is only a "container"; it doesn't speak to "contents".
- Based on listening tests, mp3s at 256 kbps were found indistinguishable from CD (G Mitchell citing testing by Fraunhofer and Thomson; see link below).  I know, "HERESY"!
- Do I think there are individuals with exceptional hearing acuity or who have developed listening skills that make them outliers on the bell curve?  Yes.  Doubt I'm one of them, though....and yet, strangely content.
- Bit rate is not the absolute and certainly not the sole determinant of audio quality from a digital file.
- "A low-res file in a hi-res bucket is still..... low res." 
- Spotify Premium is not an MP3 service. It uses compression software called Ogg Vorbis.
- It is claimed an Ogg Vorbis file will "sound" better than an MP3 file of the same bit rate.
- Just posted elsewhere on Audiogon by Pokey77:
 "High Resolution Audio Demystified"
This a great, though lengthy, presentation by Dr. Mark Waldrep.

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/high-resolution-audio-demystified-mark-waldrep

http://grahammitchell.com/writings/vorbis_intro.html 
(see especially the section "Just Say No To Bit rates")

Enjoy the music whatever medium you choose.

There is a mistaken notion among "audiophiles" that format is a reliable predictor of audio quality .  It is not.  See the above referenced presentation by Dr. Mark Waldrep.  

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/when-high-resolution-audio-isnt-hd/

The link here is worth reading.
A text-based, summary of some of Dr. Waldrep’s key points and a good explanation for why calling something hi res don’t always make it so. The sampling rate of the format won’t create data that isn’t present in the source material. Conversely, it won’t necessarily lose data that wasn’t captured in the source material and so lower res formats can sometimes sound as good as so-called, "hi res" formats.

Cerrot - I’ll not question your qualifications for speaking for "everyone in the audio industry" but I do think we continue to talk at cross purposes. You seem to be making judgements based on limitations of the package. I’m not saying those limitations are completely irrelevant but am saying it’s more critical to look first at what’s IN the package before we can evaluate the adequacy of the package.

The point I get from Dr. Waldrep’s discussions is that understanding "provenance" is a key determinant in predicting the likely sound quality of an audio file; that is, knowing the resolution of the original source material in comparison to actual specs of the resulting "file". If the source itself is "low res", an MP3 might possibly be adequate to faithfully convey that info while a "hi res" format won’t do anything to enhance it - using exaggeration to make a point. Again, not all MP3s are created equal because of differences in source material as well as differences in the as-presented-resolution. I’m not advocating everyone switch to MP3s or arguing they always sound as good as anything else. By the same token, not everything from Tidal HiFi is going to derive from a source of sufficient resolution/quality to benefit from their lossless delivery or (ultimately) sound much better than Spotify’s Ogg/Vorbis-based 320k bps Premium service.

Instead of format types or capabilities, our focus needs to be on the actual resolution of the source material and what meaningful data from that source is conveyed within the limits of the format. That’s a bit different than blanket claims of better SQ because something is packaged as lossless/hi res.

By the way, on a different but somewhat related topic...
I mostly avoid buying MP3s from Amazon due to their generally poor sound quality which, yes, I can hear vs CDs (or even Spotify!). What’s interesting to me is that if you compare the SQ of Amazon samples vs the purchased MP3, the samples sound markedly better! Don’t know details but that’s always struck me as a bit of a bait and switch.

Ciao (by the way, you’ve got some very nice gear in your posted systems).

jond - Please re-read my last post. I’m not saying that "compressing a signal and shaving off bits" can’t make it worse sounding. What did I say about the Amazon MP3s? Lossless/Hi Res is definitely to be preferred assuming there’s data in the original source to benefit from that "superior" format. BUT if there’s no meaningful data in the region that gets removed, hi res might not sound better that a lower res file.

It’s the old "can’t judge a book by its cover" - whether the "cover" is MP3 or Lossless/Hi Res. What matters is the content and how that compares to the original source (so think of the book we’re reading as a translation!).

OR to use another analogy (I’m no EE either) it’s like you have 2 boxes...one larger than the other. The boxes hold data. The data capacity of the larger box is greater than the small box so everybody wants the larger box. But that larger size only matters if the extra space of the larger box is actually filled with meaningful sonic info. If it’s just filled with a bunch of ’zeros’ the extra data carrying capacity won’t make things sound better. If the original source material didn’t have the data to fill the extra space, the extra space in the container won’t magically produce it. A smaller box might be adequate to convey all the data from the source.

Check out that longish YouTube video via the link a couple of posts above this one. Dr. Waldrep is saying it ain’t an automatic "given" that hi res offerings are always conveying a greater quantity of meaningful sonic data than more conventional lower res sources. "Quantity" might not be the best choice of words but it conveys the point I think. Hope that clears things up a bit.

jond - Thanks for sticking with this. I don’t pretend to know all about digital recording. I’m definitely learning from reading and the discussion here. I mostly agree with your point about "the larger box" if talking exclusively about modern recordings. Even there, however, while the technology might be capable of 24/96 how many studios are actually delivering final product consistent with that? And do all their recordings have sonic content across that range?? Mark Waldrep claims his AIX Records produces and delivers true hi res recordings. There are certainly others but they seem a minority. Big gap maybe between what the studio is capable of and what commercial product gets made available to you and me - hence the need to know "provenance".

My main knock on so-called hi res (using that adjective loosely) is back catalogs from decades ago being re-released as hi res. If the source is tape and not even first gen,, how hi-res is that? See what Waldrep has to say about "tape resolution" and the degradation accompanying production of multiple generations of tape.

Don’t get me wrong, the old master tapes can sound very good even if not "hi res". I certainly agree with you that someone can take an old but good sounding tape mastered recording and ’f’ it up making a crappy MP3 - but I have not been trying to defend MP3s in what I’ve written. I also agree, depending on care taken in a studio that fully utilizes a 24/96 capability, a lossless uncompressed file is going to sound better than something lossy and compressed - or at least that would be my expectation. But you have to consider how much of the library offered by a Tidal or Apple Music or Spotify is actually derived from such high quality sources. I think (my O-pinion) it’s a minority of the available library - regardless of what’s claimed. As a result, the difference between Tidal HiFi and Spotify Premium (to get this back to what I was initially commenting on) might not be that significant OR significant at all.
Let me know if you have a premo recording to experiment with. When I did the Spotify/Tidal comparison I did go back and forth between relatively recent recordings I was familiar with and that I though had great sonics.

Anyway, that’s where I’m at with my understanding right now. If you are hearing some benefit from a service you subscribe to, by all means, enjoy it. Please do check out the Waldrep presentation. It is very illuminating. What I will try to do is see if he has an AIX recording that’s also available in a conventional format. See if these old ears can pick up on that.

Ciao.

"And to be honest most music doesn’t even benefit from lossless too much if at all over full bitrate mp3. It’s those audiophile quality ones that do and those are much more few and far between."

EXACTLY. kacz - as far as I’m concerned, you are preaching to the choir. I doubt Tidal’s content managers have tapped into a hither to unknown and unavailable mother lode of high resolution masters for their mostly back catalog stuff. See my comments above. Something like OMI’s Me4U as commented on by grm (also above) might be one of those "few and far between" exceptions (or an argument for the placebo effect...if I spend 2x more, it must be better). Regardless, I use Spotify much like you do albeit when I find something exceptional I am purchasing most often as physical CD unless only available as a digital file. Haven’t run into many cases where only MP3 is available. The things I’ve purchased from Bandcamp, fortunately, have been available as WAV. But as always, whether it’s Spotify or Tidal that makes you happy - it’s the music that matters most.

Both Tidal and Spotify do allow downloading music for off-line listening.  I've only done this with Spotify.  I have no idea what the "professional Spotify Playlist Downloader" is.  I'm certainly not using such.  Whole albums or individual tracks can be downloaded.  Downloading and offline availability isn't limited to accessing a preexisting playlist.  Downloaded files can be accessed via laptop, iPhone or iPod.  If you are happy with how things are working now...great.  If you are running into limitations with your current method, see if this helps.

https://support.spotify.com/us/listen_everywhere/on_phone_tablet_desktop/listen-offline/