Lossless Streaming? Say hello to Tidal

The problem with hi-rez digital succeeding in any format (download or streaming) is that lots of people who 'love' digital music expect something for nothing. Some think all music should be free and many others think if they have to pay, it better not be much. Sometimes I just have to laugh when I read a statement from someone on a high-end audio forum bitching about paying $30 for a hi-rez recording when on the other side of the analog spectrum you have people paying over $500 for an album on 2 track/15 ips tape and they are complaining there is not enough selection of mainstream material otherwise they would buy many more tapes!

We all have to remember that the average person has no idea of the many different digital formats and they could care less about them anyway. Ask practically anyone you work with if they know what 16/44.1 means and I can almost guarantee you that not a one of them will answer that is the bit depth and sampling rate of CDs. I doubt most of them know that MP3 has different bit rates and the quality goes from simply horrible to merely wretched. Ask any of your fellow workers who aren't audiophiles if they know what SACDs are or if they have heard of DSD and see if they don't look at you like you have two heads. It's these same people who don't know and don't care about digital formats that other people are somehow hoping they will be able to educate them and make them care enough to join a premium streaming service that charges premium monthly fees.
 
bthomas9 said:
"Update: Turns out, that price drop is for an entirely new tier. The $10/month rate is for a regular version, while lossless streaming will still set you back $20."

No actual price drop....new tier level of service called"Tidal Premium" with "standard" sound quality...kinda hinky to me. Shouldn't standard sound quality be called, wait for it, Tidal Standard.
Click to expand...

Lossless is actually $25.99 per month with the new pricing.
 
Submitted request to tidal for clarification


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mep said:
This is exactly the attitude I was talking about in my post #121 above.
Click to expand...

That is not at all why I said that. It has nothing to do with cost alone. I don't even like hi-rez file sound. (Tidal doesn't do hi-rez by the way). In fact, even though I do not listen to streaming audio except for research, I was fixing to try TIDAL real soon. Not anymore!

I'm not going to bother explaining further either because it will come eventually on it's own.
 
MusicDirector said:
That is not at all why I said that. It has nothing to do with cost alone. I don't even like hi-rez file sound. (Tidal doesn't do hi-rez by the way).
I'm not going to bother explaining either because it will come eventually on it's own.
Click to expand...


You mentioned a price and then "Bye bye Tidal."
 
mep said:
You mentioned a price and then "Bye bye Tidal."
Click to expand...

Those two posts are not connected. I was only pointing out a correction to what BJThomas stated, nothing more. I could care less what TIDAL charges personally.
That will be all, thank you.
 
MusicDirector said:
Those two posts are not connected. I was only pointing out a correction to what BJThomas stated, nothing more. I could care less what TIDAL charges personally.
That will be all, thank you.
Click to expand...

No problem. There is no need to explain any posts you make on threads. I find it's always best to leave people guessing as to what you truly meant.
 
I'm weighing in late to this party...but I may be in a unique position. I've been streaming, for like 10 years.

I was with Rhapsody for years; then when they went belly-up, MOG. Then when they went belly-up...lol; Spotify...and now, with the purchase of the Aurender, I have hitched my wagon to TIDAL.

I'm holding my breathe about this Jay-Z news. I remember when it was first announced...months ago; I read a report or two, that it was the dumbest business move imaginable. That NONE of the current services, are profitable. The supposition of the articles was...if you were already invested, that's one thing; you hang in there and try to turn it around. But to buy a business, whose model has yet to prove a good investment. Well...it sounds a little, like a pissing contest between moguls (Dr. Dre bought MOG, and turned it into Beats).

If Jay-Z can a) bring increased content, and b) lower prices; who could mind that? But if his intent is "we're going to turn the recording industry on its ear"; well...that's not what I signed up for. I just want hi-fidelity streaming...even if it costs more, than say Spotify.

I would say this is a no-lose proposition; because whether TIDAL "wins", or pushes Spotify to "compete" (by going higher res. Yes...TIDAL is not hi-res; it's higher-res...redbook, vs. other services 320kbps). I would have said, I have no allegiance to one or the other; and to quote Toby Zeigler..."I'd like them when they win". But with my marriage to Aurender, and their hitching of wagons to TIDAL; I would say I have a rooting interest.
 
mep said:
:facepalm: Now there is a pack of genius business people.
Click to expand...

You might not like the music or the personalities, but those are massively successful business persons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
kev313 said:
You might not like the music or the personalities, but those are massively successful business persons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Are we confusing the fact they have made a lot of money as recording artists with being "massively successful business persons?" If the answer is no, what businesses have they been massively successful at running?
 
CDLehner said:
I'm weighing in late to this party...but I may be in a unique position. I've been streaming, for like 10 years.

I was with Rhapsody for years; then when they went belly-up, MOG. Then when they went belly-up...lol; Spotify...and now, with the purchase of the Aurender, I have hitched my wagon to TIDAL.

I'm holding my breathe about this Jay-Z news. I remember when it was first announced...months ago; I read a report or two, that it was the dumbest business move imaginable. That NONE of the current services, are profitable. The supposition of the articles was...if you were already invested, that's one thing; you hang in there and try to turn it around. But to buy a business, whose model has yet to prove a good investment. Well...it sounds a little, like a pissing contest between moguls (Dr. Dre bought MOG, and turned it into Beats).

If Jay-Z can a) bring increased content, and b) lower prices; who could mind that? But if his intent is "we're going to turn the recording industry on its ear"; well...that's not what I signed up for. I just want hi-fidelity streaming...even if it costs more, than say Spotify.

I would say this is a no-lose proposition; because whether TIDAL "wins", or pushes Spotify to "compete" (by going higher res. Yes...TIDAL is not hi-res; it's higher-res...redbook, vs. other services 320kbps). I would have said, I have no allegiance to one or the other; and to quote Toby Zeigler..."I'd like them when they win". But with my marriage to Aurender, and their hitching of wagons to TIDAL; I would say I have a rooting interest.
Click to expand...

I am too am rooting for Tidal, at least until I can determine if they will in fact deliver MQA content. Just as you noted I went thru Rhapsody, Spotify and MOG then back to Rhapsody due to its integration with Sooloos. I use it to try out new music before purchasing and tagging marginal recordings that I may want to occasionally listen to but not own. The SQ of Tidal via MDMS is very good and if they add content I will be very happy. If too many artists or titles are missing I might just go with Rhapsody and continue to purchase CD's from Amazon.
 
mep said:
Are we confusing the fact they have made a lot of money as recording artists with being "massively successful business persons?" If the answer is no, what businesses have they been massively successful at running?
Click to expand...

I suggest you read up on just how successful he has been in business. Besides music he has had his hands in clothing, owns sports bars, beauty products, had a stake in the Barclay Center, a co-brand director for Budwiser, was a part owner of a NBA franchise, the Arsenal FC, slot machines at Aqueduct, acquired a music label, launched a sports management agency and has signed some high profile athletes. I am sure there was more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top