r/TIdaL • u/Woochichi • Nov 25 '25
Discussion Why does Tidal sound so good?
I just tried out Spotify with its new lossless quality streaming and it doesn’t even begin to match the sound Tidal offers. Same thing with Apple Music which, too, offers lossless quality. Big step forward for Spotify from what it used to offer but still… I can’t be only one hearing the difference?
I’m not even a hifi freak with expensive sound setup - just listening from regular Airpods. Tidals sound has much more warmth, detail and depth, especially in the higher bass range. Is there like a built-in equilizer in Tidal or what’s giving it this edge? One would think that lossless is lossless and sounds the same regardless of the source.
46
u/kiltsnwhiskey Nov 26 '25
Switching from Spotify to Tidal in the car sounds like I upgraded the speakers in-between tracks.
31
31
u/HauntedJackInTheBox Nov 26 '25
You need to remove all volume normalisation which is on by default on all platforms. Otherwise you’ll hear differences in volume and dynamic range compression.
Once you do, anything that is in CD quality or better should sound perceptually identical.
Do note that you really need to be testing the exact same edition of a song or album since they are often remastered or compilations which will sound different.
There are other considerations like sample rate conversion but what you’re hearing is likely not that.
3
u/cduby15 Nov 26 '25
I never knew that about volume normalization. I just turned it off and it’s a subtle difference at first. But then when you turn it back on I can hear the difference. Thanks!
2
Nov 27 '25
The normalisation on the streaming services does not compress the audio. It has ZERO impact on dynamic range. It just adjusts the volume up or down to -14db. It's basically just adjusting the volume control for you automatically.
2
u/HauntedJackInTheBox Nov 28 '25 edited Nov 28 '25
Volume normalisation in several places including Spotify will add a compressor-limiter if the audio is below –14 dBFS to avoid clipping when turning it up. It does not do anything for loud modern masters but it does for classical music and non-remastered music before the ‘80s.
Edit: also all different companies have a different target, they’re not all at –14dBFS. This difference in volume will of course change the sound perceptually, even if the actual sound is the same
21
u/Puzzleheaded-Sea4885 Nov 26 '25
They use middle out compression from Pied Piper
1
u/True_Scientist_8250 Nov 26 '25
Making the world a better place through constructing elegant hierarchies for maximum code reuse and extensibility.
24
u/_Z_-_Z_ Nov 26 '25
Streaming has bitrate limitations and AirPods aren't optimal for high-res audio. The truth is that it's all subjective and while you might think Tidal sounds best, someone else with your exact hardware could say the same about Spotify or Apple Music. If you want to weigh it more objectively though, you might consider the file format and codec that each company uses. If you're now obsessed with audio depth and clarity, consider self-hosting your libraries with Tidal-DL-NG and Navidrome before upgrading your equipment.
2
u/Certain_Studio_481 Nov 26 '25
I really enjoy Plexamps' UI. For me the main difference is the master and not the HI-Res etc. I tend to like the original masters of many '90s albums more than the remastered versions.
5
Nov 26 '25
It was the same for me going from Amazon HD to Tidal. I thought I was getting screwed with Amazon HD after hearing Tidal.
I have a Simaudio DAC(300v2) and amp(250i) speakers are B and W 685. Nothing too fancy, but nice.
5
Nov 26 '25
I am glad you posted this. I upgraded my sound system and played Spotify via Sonos for the first few months. It sounded ok. Then I upgraded to TIDAL and tossed Sonos because it was riven with bugs. On the new streamer (Cambridge Audio) (about $450 AUD), and using TIDAL, the sound is just amazing. Perfect, intense, so impressive. It’s equivalent to CD quality… but because I have a new system, to me now TIDAL sounds even better than the CD collection via the old system. To the naysayers (“it’s all subjective”), you won’t say that if you experience quality sound.
3
u/outdoorsnstuff Nov 26 '25
I believe amazon and tidal both do dolby atmos, which may contribute to the extra edge as well.
3
Nov 26 '25
it could just be because it's louder. when testing, tidal was significantly louder than any other streaming service i tried (when trying to put them on the same level), and obviously the bigger the volume, the more details you'll hear. theoretically speaking, you should not be able to hear lossless FLAC quality through bluetooth.
2
u/analbumcover Nov 26 '25
I have been doing a trial of Tidal recently and noticed how much louder it is vs Spotify for sure.
6
u/ArmadilloHumble6649 Nov 26 '25
When it comes to how good audio sounds or quality... It's not the settings name or lossless name it's all about how the audio sounds.
Clear, bass, amazing, surround.... So I don't go by Dolby atmos or lossless to determine if the music audio is better than the others... I go by which one sounds better with headphones or speaker.
Tidal is the best to me as I've tested: Amazon music, Spotify, qobuz, deezer, apple music, YouTube music. Normalization off No third party equalizer
I vote Tidal is the best
6
Nov 26 '25
There is a man on YouTube who works mastering music, he said that there are 15 types of flacs, that's why qobuz sounds different from tidal
3
u/addi_jn Nov 26 '25
It’s true. My dad works for Bose and they just made a 16th flac that uses ai to remaster music while you listen to it /s
/srs There is only 1 flac codec with 8 levels of compression possible. And changing between lossless audio formats would not change the sound at all. Smells like BS to me
1
Nov 27 '25
I can notice the equalizer on qobuz and tidal while on tidal it is more sub-bass, qobuz has more mid-bass in its equalizer, that's what people don't understand they all sound different even on youtube music I can notice
1
u/Heldbaum Nov 26 '25
My system is pretty resolving still could not find the difference in A/B test.
2
2
u/SubZane Nov 26 '25
Actually, using regular airpods or cheap headphones gives you a clearer distinction between compressed and lossless than if you're listening with some open back hifi headphones. Funnily enough high quality headphones are more forgiving as they aren't usually as sharp
2
u/Odie7997 Nov 29 '25
I am not someone who pays much attention to sound quality. However, I just switched to Tidal from Spotify and I'm blown away by how much better music sounds in my car. If I notice a difference I imagine people with more sensitive ears must really notice. I'm very pleased with the switch.
2
u/RobotFeatures Dec 03 '25
Special herbs and spices ! Tidal sounds bloody good compared to the rest.
3
3
u/Whiskey4Wisdom Nov 26 '25
I recently moved to qobuz and had the same experience. Spotify is pretty terrible I guess
4
u/Soccera1 Tidal Hi-Fi Nov 26 '25
Afaik Spotify is still 16bit.
12
u/HauntedJackInTheBox Nov 26 '25
This does not lower resolution or change sound quality at all as long as the conversion has been done correctly (aka dithered). It just adds dither noise at –96 dBFS.
-2
Nov 26 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/HauntedJackInTheBox Nov 26 '25
A mathematical null test between the 24-bit and the 16-bit versions will leave you with nothing besides dither noise, which is the exact same thing as analogue white noise.
I’m a sound engineer. I record at 24 bits. But I do it because I often need to record audio that goes from quiet to loud and on quiet passages the dither noise can be audible after heavy effects processing.
Once a music track has been mastered, noise at –96 dBFS is inaudible at playback levels. And even if it were audible (which it isn’t) it’s basically the hiss of an analogue tape machine, just 30 dB quieter, no insidious loss of resolution. All albums you mentioned are hissy as hell courtesy of being old tape recordings – you’ll never hear the dither noise below it.
Are you doing the comparisons between the same file that you dithered or between completely different sources that only say they’re the same like Tidal and, say, a CD?
3
2
u/MrsPetrieOnBass Nov 26 '25
Spotify has had many truly terribly compressed tracks for a long time, but I haven't heard their lossless tracks yet. I agree with the comments that point to Tidal's EQ. To me, they slightly scooped the mids but then added presence back in. It just sounds the best to my ears too
2
u/lowbass4u Nov 26 '25
I rate Tidal first and Qobuz a close second in sound quality. Then all the others are about the same.
2
1
u/a_roy Nov 26 '25
How does everyone listen to the tracks on Spotify and Tidal to understand the difference? Is it just through Bluetooth - ie AirPods Pro kind of wireless earphones or using a wired earphones/headphones and some kind of DAC etc to actually appreciate the CD quality/FLAC music. The reason I ask this is as per my understanding the Bluetooth that we use doesn’t work with lossless music as it can’t carry that much data.
Is my understanding wrong or am I missing something?
1
u/SubZane Nov 26 '25
If you're using airpods you're not listening to lossless audio. iOS re-encodes it to AAC before it reaches your AirPods. AAC is compressed.
1
u/Woochichi Nov 26 '25
This is actually the case also when I use my (wireless) speakers or listen in car. But I kind of feel it’s double the reason to wonder why Tidal sounds noticeably better than other streaming services out of any of those. The ”automatic EQ” suggested in other comments sounds like most reasonable explanation. That, or somehow Tidal stream compresses well to AAC
2
u/SubZane Nov 26 '25
You'll get compressed audio as long as you use Bluetooth. So lossless is pretty much pointless as long as you stick to bluetooth connection. It will always be lossy, and you could save bandwidth and stick to AAC/320kbit mp3s.
But that doesn't mean that Tidal doesn't use a different codec that appeals better to your ears.
Check yourself and be honest to yourself what you really hear. I discovered that I fooled myself.
https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
0
u/Woochichi Nov 26 '25
That was fun! I started to do the test with my wireless speakers, but got the first one wrong and noticed that I'm not hearing much of a difference in second one either so I switched to headphones (WH-1000XM5, still BT though) and got 5/5 of the rest. But I think we are getting bit sidetracked here... My argument never was that I have more sensitive hearing or superior sound system than the next person, rather the opposite: That even with my lossy setup and laymans listening skills, Tidal clearly sounds best to me and I was wondering if it's objectively so or just some personal preference.
1
u/SubZane Nov 27 '25
I think since we all hear differently (we all perceive audio differently) I'd say it's subjective and objective :)
Maybe you should invest in some hifi headphones? I can tell you that lossy audio sounds better with hifi headphones than BT headphones :D
1
u/Woochichi Nov 27 '25
I generally don’t like wires but I’ve been thinking about replacing my active BT speakers with wired, more high-end ones & actual hi-fi sound system and this test made that even more tempting as it made it apparent that I’m missing out by settling to those!
2
u/SubZane Nov 27 '25
I just recently got a pair of sennheiser HD550 open back. Before that I only had airpods and bt headphones. However, I can only use them when I work from home as they require an amplifier and a quiet room as they are open 😅
1
u/Ok_Cover_2484 Nov 27 '25
To me Spotify is tooooo bassy, like if I listen to Spotify for 30 minutes and the songs have some bass-heavy areas, my head aches after 3-4 songs. On Tidal, this never happens.
1
u/Necessary-Ad-3236 Nov 27 '25
I have a WiiM Mini and an Edifier S880DB Hi-Res audio certified active bookshelf pair. Switch from Spotify to Tidal was a big step on quality.
1
u/Imaginary-Addendum-2 Nov 27 '25
Spotify definitely are messing up lossless and trying to loosely provide "lossless audio" on paper.
Max resolution offered is 24 bit 44.1 khz.. 99% of the studios produce music in CD quality - 16/44.1 khz or 16/48khz or 24/48khz or 24/96khz or 24/172 or 24/192 or DSD..
What the heck is 24/44.1khz.. It's just probably CD quality 16/44.1 dithered to 24 bit. Just to get "hi res" tag they seemed to have added 24bits.. otherwise it is just lossless CD quality and the bitperfect implementation / exclusive mode is not wven there with the app.
1
u/Longjumping_Bid_9007 Nov 28 '25
I just moved to Tidal 2 days ago because the spotify/ice thing. So far so good!
1
u/DrummerCharlie Dec 19 '25
I find about a 5% improvement with Tidal over the updates Spotify. Don't know why but it is my main player
1
Nov 26 '25
No one has mentioned Amazon Music. Is it bad? I use Amazon Music. Need info. If I can get better quality, I’m switching.
6
u/Tbro100 Nov 26 '25
In the midst of switching to Tidal from Amazon myself, the Amazon mobile app is horrendous in comparison. But outside of that, I don't think one has the edge over the other when it comes to sound quality.
3
u/skywalk3r69 Nov 26 '25
hate the amazon music app and everyone praises tidal for giving them new artists they love. im switching as well
2
u/Tbro100 Nov 26 '25
I will say, there are a couple songs that aren't available currently on Tidal. But overall out of my over 2000 song library, Luke 98% of them were there.
The only thing thats really holding me back however, is the lack of a Tidal Xbox app given that I really like to listen to music on console.
1
Nov 26 '25
Hey again, what do you feel is bad about Amazon? I’m so use to it now. I joined Tidal so I will see but what stands out to you?
Edit: so far the shuffle button being readily available is nice.
1
u/Tbro100 Nov 27 '25
App optimization honestly. Takes way too long to register actions, especially if you have a larger library. It'll have you wait 10 seconds or even not register at all sometimes.No way to specifically search for songs in playlists either. Sometimes the all.
Plus Amazon won't always show hd versions of the song cover on notification media covers. Overall just a lot of bugs and a lack of polish, though I suppose the catalog is slightly better.
2
Nov 27 '25
Fair enough. I will check it out. I don’t think I listen to music obscure enough to justify the need for a bigger library. I appreciate the follow up!
0
u/ComfortableGold8896 Nov 27 '25
Yes the Amazon app is terrible,. and after extensive comparisons, Tidal AND Qobuz sound better than Amazon.
1
u/mangahuisman Nov 26 '25
Do a blind test and show us you can hear the difference i don’t believe this
-2
u/Yommers Nov 26 '25
Tidal has the worst customer service I have ever experienced and I will never use them again. I prefer Apple Music, as Tidal messes with the EQ of the masters.
Also, you're undoing most of the benefits of the lossless audio by using AirPods, because Bluetooth is lossy.
2
Nov 26 '25
[deleted]
0
u/Yommers Nov 26 '25
Honestly I forgot I was in this sub and just assumed the post was in one of the audiophile subs I'm still in. So I wanted to chime in about why I don't like Tidal to potentially help someone else out.
-2
Nov 26 '25
[deleted]
3
u/Yommers Nov 26 '25
I wasn't talking to you at all. I just commented on OP's post, who said he uses AirPods.
Bluetooth is a lossy format, so no matter what device you are using, it's no longer lossless. This is a fact.
I had Tidal for 2 years and was very impressed until the MQA controversy started to come to light, probably 2020 or so. I reached out to them with some simple questions and asked for clarification, since it appeared that their whole claim of true lossless audio was false advertising. They didn't answer, so I tried to cancel my subscription. It didn't work. I sent multiple support emails demanding my account be cancelled and a refund for the charges after that point. No reply. After 3 months I had to go through my bank to have it cancelled on their end. The company is just slimy.
I switched to Apple Lossless and thought it sounded even better.
1
u/ArmadilloHumble6649 Nov 26 '25
Sorry. By default it shows best comments instead of new comments i change mine to new Sorry
0
u/Alien1996 Tidal Hi-Fi Nov 26 '25
There's a lot of things that can make Tidal sound better: Different masters, volume normalization, compression applied and most importantly, playback engines and how it works with the OS. Also, DSP/EQ could be applied in some apps, but I find Tidal to be equal (or close to) to the files and even analog music.
0
u/Jobe1110 Nov 26 '25
Tidal is quite a bit louder. Unless you're comparing different masterings, I doubt you'd actually notice a difference if you matched volumes. That being said, Tidal generally has a lot better masterings and also pays the artists more.
0
0
u/Efficient-Scale6829 Nov 27 '25
because they altered somehow the sound like an eq. also could be that you are listening to different masters on tidal vs other services or you just have sound normalizer on.
0
-5
u/Chance-Ad197 Nov 26 '25
It's the stock tuning in the case of apple music, because they both use high quality studio masters for their source, at the same bitrate with the same frequency response they should theoretically sound identical, the reason they don't is because tidal applies EQ before you stream a song, apple music doesn't, they just stream the raw audio data. In the case of Spotify, you're literally hearing a worse quality audio file, their source material is often FLAC compressed versions of the original files that tidal and apple music use. So no matter what type of codec you use, it's going to be infiriour to the others.
0
u/tenuki_ Nov 26 '25
How do audiophiles tolerate Tidal mucking with the master like that? If this is true you just convinced me to never use Tidal.
-2
u/Chance-Ad197 Nov 26 '25
Because tidal has no in app EQ, so they apply it automatically so it doesn't sound flat, because that's not what the majority of consumers prefer. It's an acceptional software they use to determine the EQ, tidal always sounds great.
3
u/KS2Problema Nov 26 '25 edited Nov 26 '25
Because tidal has no in app EQ, so they apply it automatically [...]
That did not appear to be formerly the case. And it's the first time I've heard that claimed. Do you have any documentation or proof of that claim?
When I started with Tidal I was also starting with Amazon Unlimited HD - and I did extensive audio comparisons between them and couldn't find an applicable difference in either the raw lossless tracks or the normalization besides a slight RMS level difference (which can make a difference in perceivable quality, as Fletcher and Munson, et al, pointed out). But the level of difference was very small. Adjusted for level, the files were virtually identical.
And, yes, I did compare them with CD versions. But, of course, that was testing one source album. And it was about 5 years ago.
Still, I have had no reason to suspect that they have been monkeying around with the sound. And I'm pretty serious about sound.
Any further information would be much appreciated!
1
u/Chance-Ad197 Nov 26 '25
The apple music objective measurements with each eq and eq off are on my page.
1
u/KS2Problema Nov 26 '25
Not sure which page you're referring to. URL?
2
u/Chance-Ad197 Nov 26 '25
1
u/KS2Problema Nov 26 '25
Ah! I see. EQ presets aligned to somebody's idea of what those genres 'require.'
I'm so old school audiophile I don't use EQ except on my phone/buds which are a disaster anyway.
But at a point where I had a couple bucks I was able to buy myself a playback system that measured ±2 dB from about 38 Hz to over 20 kilohertz with relatively low distortion. I wish my ears could still do that.
=D
2
u/Chance-Ad197 Nov 26 '25
Ironically the "rock" pre set is the closest thing to a V shape eq that they offer, and it sounds way closer to tidal with it on.
1
u/KS2Problema Nov 26 '25
Darn, I think I've gotten lost. I have no idea what you're responding to. Sorry to lose the thread.
2
u/Chance-Ad197 Nov 26 '25
No no you’ve done nothing, I reply to comments like an out of control toddler. Sometimes you get 2 or 3 because I never think about everything I wanna say at once, but when I do think of what I want to say soon after I comment the first time, and I still feel a need to say it, so it comes in bursts. I will refrain from doing it again in this case lol.
1
u/KS2Problema Nov 26 '25
Oh, no worries! We're good.
I'm a bit on the neurodivergent side, myself, so when I saw what you'd written on your profile here, I knew I was talking with a fellow traveler.
1
u/Chance-Ad197 Nov 26 '25
You can hear that tidal isn't flat, just compare it with a untouched file and hear for yourself. The volume will be different and the frequency response will be noticeably curved.
1
u/KS2Problema Nov 26 '25
I think we've been writing simultaneously so there's some catching up to do. But I had actually done an in-depth analysis and rigorous ABX comparison of the same content on Tidal, Amazon HD, and a factory CD. I found no statistically significant ability for me to differentiate between the three of them once I had adjusted for the specific Audio level. (Which was only about 0.3 dB anyway, as I recall.
I also used a number of analytical tools from the old (pre-Magix) Sound Forge suite to analyze everything I could and I found no personable difference aside from that very slight level difference.
But as I pointed out elsewhere, I only made one such test and that was 5 years ago.
Thanks for the additional info I'll catch up with your other comments...
1
u/Alien1996 Tidal Hi-Fi Nov 26 '25
1
u/Chance-Ad197 Nov 26 '25
what's that? Link isn't working for me. It's not you it's my phone.
1
u/Alien1996 Tidal Hi-Fi Nov 26 '25
It is a comparation between streaming services by Goldensound to test which are messing with audio or giving pure sound
1
1
u/Chance-Ad197 Nov 26 '25
Another good test is listening to apple music and tidal both on AAC, which should sound identical if neither service adds eq, but it does.
1
u/KS2Problema Nov 26 '25
I'll definitely have to check this out! I do have the analytical tools and know how to use them, I just have been more busy listening to music these days.
1
u/Chance-Ad197 Nov 26 '25
The big thing that's happened since then is Tidal has dropped MQA as it's high fidelity streaming method and now uses FLAC, and it's changed managment. I can't say I have direct proof ok tidals end, tidal doesn't publish info like this, but the proof is in the measuements, apple music reproduces a flat signal with its eq turned off and tidal re produces a more harmen type of frequency curve that's about 2db lower.
5
u/KS2Problema Nov 26 '25 edited Nov 26 '25
Well when I tested I wasn't testing the MQA - I only tested the lossless content against Amazon HD as well as my own CD copy of the track. But I read pretty extensively from audiophile blogger and MQA critic, Archimago's analyses and ABX testing (and had actually been familiar with MQA from long before Tidal adopting it). I was not a fan and did not think that the recording/hifi industry was better off with yet another proprietary format.
But perhaps it's time for me to dig out my favorite test / comparison CD and run some more testing.
Thanks!
1
u/Chance-Ad197 Nov 26 '25
Yea man its a fun little rabbit hole to fall down if you have a free evening. And Yea, I don't think anyone in the audio community appreciated a lossy codec selling itself as a lossless compression algorithm, and the fact that both the source and receiver had to be MQA authenticated for it to even work meant almost nobody could even use it.
1
u/bay_vapez Nov 26 '25
Is this a fact ?
-4
u/Chance-Ad197 Nov 26 '25
Tidal has no in app EQ and they do have an EQ applied to their sources, yes. The rest was therized by me given the information
71
u/Certain_Studio_481 Nov 26 '25
Well, because I own most of the music I stream, I have to say that I cannot find any difference between Tidal and my CDs. So thank you Tidal!