d.j. adequate wrote: »
I'll out myself as "one of those, too " I don't judge you for not hearing a difference, but I definately do. Having Tidal as an option doesn't really harm you, and right now I like it better than Beats -- though I'm anxious to see what Apple does with it. I don't understand the "there can only be one" mentality.
Anyone who uses dolt BF in his signature should just retire from this site right away. Simple as that. Unless you haven't been paying attention that is...
Unfortunately Tidal doesn't accept checks. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
thewhitefalcon wrote: »
Well, having the infamous Benjamin Frost in your sig is not exactly lending credence to your argument.
Tidal is horse shit, it's going to fail no matter what. Apple isn't the reason why they're failing, they're already on the spiral downward.
chadmatic wrote: »
Apparently I am one of those guys... A music lover. Trust me, I like my iPhone, iPad, MacBook Pro, iMac, Apple TV, and Apple Watch as much as the next guy, but when it comes to listening to hi-fidelity music none of my Apple products cut it. And neither does the lossy music that you claim is as good as hi-res. If you too are a music lover, you should do yourself a huge favor and go to your local hi-fi shop and listen to a good system. They will help you to understand which part of the listening experience you don't understand based on your uneducated statement.
freerange wrote: »
So Apple owns the ecosystem and they just might not allow competitors to some of THEIR core services on their system, or might slow them down when using APPLE'S infrastructure. And they shouldn't do this because....? Seriously, they have every right to slow down or block competitors. It's their system!!!!!!
Just a wild thought out there :-) Maybe the new proposed Apple Beats Music service might deliver better quality, especially for streaming music. Just the way the video quality is different when your down stream speed it better, Apple Beats Music might be able to detect what kind of headset the user is listening on (I am sure they can detect this for BlueTooth Beats headsets) and downstream high resolution music. Another way for getting Beats on their eco-system and increase sell of their Beats headphones. You think Apple bought Beats just for their Music Service - I don't think so!
hittrj01 wrote: »
The struggle is real. I feel so terrible for you that you have to suffer through the agony of lossy audio. Those of us who are "fake" music lovers with our disgusting lossy audio are so inferior to your superhuman ears.
Seriously, "audiophiles" and "PC gamers" need to stop it with these delusions of grandeur and realize they aren't better than other people just because they can't properly deal with the epitome of first-world problems. If you are such the audiophile that can hear even the slightest difference in sound quality, why are you subscribing to streaming music at all?
manfrommars wrote: »
And who is Spotify or Beats benefiting exactly, starving children?
And Beats streaming or Apple Radio are for the benefit of paupers who only have a few hundred million to their name.
Ah, you're one of those types. You realize that 256kbps AAC is better than you can hear, right? And "HD Streaming" is a load of bunk?
Maybe that would be the case if the music was recorded in 256kbps in the first place. But in most cases, it's not. The music started out at a much higher bit rate and info was toss in order to make for smaller file sizes along the way. Info had to be toss in order to get what was on the master recording (not sure if they still use tape now of days.) so that the music can fit (and play) on a CD. And 75% of the info had to be toss in order to shrink the "lossless" file size on a CD to that of a 256kbps file. So the real question is not whether you can hear the difference between music on a CD and the same music on 256kbps AAC on a MP3 device, as the vast majority of the actual music wasn't tossed out. The real question is …... could you have heard the info that was tossed out, in order to shrink the CD music by 75% to 256kbps, on a good stereo system? Info that may be useful for imaging or ambience background noise or playing extended lows and highs on a good stereo system but useless for headphones on a MP3 player or the average stereo system.
If you're listening to CD's on a stereo system that couldn't make use of the info that was tossed, then you will not hear a difference between a CD and 256kbps file and declare they sound the same. However, if you were listening to CD's on a stereo system that could make use of the info that was tossed, then you will hear a difference. Whether that difference matters or not, is up to the listener. (The cheaper the stereo system, the less it matters.)
And there's no guarantee that hearing the toss info will actually make the music sound any better. To me, none of Rihanna music would sound any better from a CD on my high end stereo system, than from a bootlegged mono 32kbps file on an iPod. You need to toss out 100% of the info for that to happen. All the audiophile is trying to do is to play back as much info from their media as possible and as accurately as possible. They can't add any more info than what's already there. And in some cases, not all, playing those extra 75% of info that was tossed can easily be heard. But it may not always or maybe not most of the time, make the music sound any better. But for sure, they won't know if the info was tossed to make a 256kbps file in the first place.
So even if you heard just one CD that sounded better (or worst) than the 256kbps version of it, on a good stereo system, then the statement that 256kbps ACC is better than you can hear must be false. And the difference doesn't have to make the whole CD sound better or at the expense of music beyond our hearing ability. Just one instance of hearing the decay of a cymbal crash lasting a bit longer or the sound of a triangle being heard more clearly over the playing orchestra or the feeling that low bass is still being played, even if one can't hear it, is all it takes to count as a difference. I have heard that one CD, and my hearing is no where near perfect.
That being said, I'm perfectly happy when listening to my music collection on an iPod, (thru a headphone amp and good headphones when possible) or on one of my average stereo systems. Even at 128kbps. 90% of my music listening is done this way. Good music transcends a good stereo system. Convenience matters. Our brain is funny in that we tend to hear our favorite music as we remember it from the best we heard it. Whether live, from a CD, tape or vinyl. So that even a compressed version will sound just as good as the version we remember, when played thru an iPod. (Of course if all you ever heard was the compressed 128kbps version on an iPod, then there is no missing info for your brain to fill in and it will sound as the way you always remembered it.)
It's only about 5% (maybe less) of my music that I listen to on my high end system. Either from a CD or vinyl. The only streaming I trust are lossless files (AIFF) from CD's, in my Mac music server, to an Apple Express and using an iPad as a remote. Most of the times, I only want to listen to a few songs or just one, from a CD. (I use to get a lot more exercise, from switching CD's, when listening to music on my high end system.) Even though nearly all of the music in my collection will benefit from being played on my high end system, (than on my average stereo systems or iPod), there's only about 5% that I really care to listen to, when as much info as my system can possibly extract is being played, because the difference it makes is worth it.
I bet not one person here will say that a CD sounds as good as the studio master it came from because a CD is also better than what we can hear. But just like listening to a CD of the studio master, when listening to a 256kbps version of a CD, it's not about the music that is there, it's about the "music" that is no longer there, that may matter.
That is pure BS.
The darn platform had been dead and buried to begin with.
The foolish musicians thought they could just buy it and turn it in to an overnight success?
Get a clue and get to work boys & girls...
Most people don't care to pay extra for audiophile quality sound and most sound systems cannot output the difference anyway.
The artists are gonna lose some money and hopefully learn something.
manfrommars wrote: »
I'm with you on this, Tidal is a decent app and a promising service. Plus it's owned by musicians, and regardless what one thinks of Jay Z, I feel more affinity for him than the Swedish businessmen busy screwing artists with Spotify.
Whether Beats will improve on what's out there remains to be seen. I doubt Apple intentionally stalled Tidal. Tidal's shaky roll-out has gotten some pretty surprising smack-downs on social media (largely from people who never so much as launched the app), so I suspect Apple is more worried about unhorsing Spotify right now.
I'm looking forward to Beats for sure, but I hope Tidal can get its PR act together. It's nice to see some competition finally in this sector.