Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
Showing 1 of 23 conversations about:
rdodev
632
Jul 7, 2018
bookmark_border
Nice play list. For those w/o a turntable or other source of analog music: I generally use TIDAL as they are the only ones, at the moment, who offer hi-fi lossless and master quality downloads. At least to my ears they sound vastly superior to any other streaming service I've tried (including Spotify high quality downloads).
Jul 7, 2018
Rulexen
0
Jul 8, 2018
bookmark_border
rdodevSpotify is it good to testing music?
Jul 8, 2018
rdodev
632
Jul 8, 2018
bookmark_border
RulexenDepending how hi-fi demanding you are, yes, their high-quality downloads are a good stop-gap testbed. If you're the type that drops thousands on a pair of headphnes with ultra fastidious audio expectations then no, obviously not.
Jul 8, 2018
ImemewhatImeme
1
Jul 12, 2018
bookmark_border
rdodevDeezer is another service that provides lossless quality streaming however deezer uses FLAC not MQA, which tidal uses; which isn't freeware. I'd recommend deezer over tidal for that reason otherwise they're both the same quality. Also it's not a case of 'if you don't have vinyl' - digital lossless will always and forever be better quality than vinyl because it's read with a laser not with a needle.
Jul 12, 2018
ElectronicVices
2937
Jul 15, 2018
bookmark_border
ImemewhatImemeI dropped Tidal before they rolled out MQA but to my understanding you will still get at least 16bit/44.1kHz even without an MQA decoder. As that is cd-quality and not using lossy encoding it is meets the "lossless" threshold. A more current user may be able to confirm/deny this.
Jul 15, 2018
rdodev
632
Jul 15, 2018
bookmark_border
ElectronicVicesYes, that's how it works. However I decided to drop them in favor of Deezer. Tidal is way too pushy on the hip-hop side of things. So far, I'm really enjoying Deezer.
Jul 15, 2018
ProfessorPat
380
Aug 5, 2018
bookmark_border
ImemewhatImeme"digital lossless will always and forever be better quality than vinyl because..."
Because nothing. Lossless alone means nothing. If you have a terrible master, it's terrible, regardless of how pure and high res your digital playback is. I have plenty of lossy material that is better than a lot of terribly mastered lossless files.
I have a vinyl rip of a few different albums as my digital copy, because the CD versions suck and the vinyl copies had a different master, which was done better. You can't claim lossless is better, or digital is better, or any method of doing something is better here, because it all comes down to how well it was done.
Anyone expecting a lossless file to make their music sound magically better needs to understand that lossless containers only preserve the content they were given. If it's trash, it's trash. 24/192 trash is still trash, it's just really big trash now.
A vinyl record deteriorates due to the physical nature of playback, but it is not automatically inferior due to that, especially since a good needle on a properly set up table causes such little wear that your album will sound fantastic (if it did from the start) for decades, easily.
Aug 5, 2018
ImemewhatImeme
1
Aug 5, 2018
bookmark_border
ProfessorPat@ProfessorPat I never said anything about mixing and mastering, I said digital lossless is better quality than vinyl. By that I mean it will always remain the same while vinyl is subject to change. You want to jump into an argument for no reason? sounds like it.
Aug 5, 2018
ProfessorPat
380
Aug 5, 2018
bookmark_border
ImemewhatImemeWhat you meant doesn’t change my point. Digital is not inherently better because it does boil down to the source material. Digital should (though disc and data rot exist) have more longevity, but that doesn’t automatically mean you will get a better reproduction from a digital file, lossless or not, than pulling it from a vinyl disc.
You seem to be offended that I’m taking issue with your statement. You may have meant digital can maintain its initial quality better than analog, but in saying it is higher quality, and leaving it at that, it’s an overgeneralized claim that I disagree with, for exactly the reason I said the first time.
A good bit of my last post wasn’t really targeted at you, so much as explaining some things because so many here seem to be disappointed that their terrible masters don’t sound significantly better on better gear... but that ties back to my point about the content being key.
Aug 5, 2018
View Full Discussion
Related Posts
Trending Posts in Audiophile