What's the difference between Tidal's "High quality" and "High Fidelity"?

  • I saw Jay-Z's music service launched last night and I found one of their mini-games online asking you to spot the difference between "high quality" music and "high fidelity" music as that's its unique selling point.

    Terms are defined here:

    How good is the sound quality on TIDAL?
    Normal quality: 96 kbps (AAC+)
    High quality: 320 kbps (AAC)
    HiFi: Flac 1411 kbps - Lossless (16/44.1 khz)
    How do I change the quality? Go to ‘Settings’ to select sound quality.

    Personally, I couldn't hear a difference (but scored 2 out of 5 from pure guess work) so it's tough for me as a user to want to sign-up - especially when Spotify is half the price.

    So my question is: what's the physical difference between high quality and high fidelity? Is it a higher bitrate or something more?

    I couldn't hear much of a difference on my work computer and cheap headphones, though I got 4/5 from picking randomly...

    With current streaming technology, the only valid reason for having two tiers is financial.

    Edited the title to correspond with the bitrates mentioned in the test and the terminology at https://tidalsupport.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201594722-How-good-is-the-sound-quality-on-TIDAL

    @user3169: Sorry, but that's utter BS. _Current streaming technology_? You can easily stream a 24-bit FLAC on today's bandwidth – hell, you could probably even try streaming a 96kHz version of it and you would be fine. "Streaming technology" has nothing to do with it.

  • user16

    user16 Correct answer

    7 years ago

    If you believe http://test.tidalhifi.com/about, what the test is asking is if you can tell the difference between a lossless (FLAC/ALAC) file and an AAC 320 kbps file for those five songs. So yes, the difference is (probably) a higher bitrate, and a different (lossless) compression method for the 'high fidelity' file.
    (FLAC files manage to fit all the data in a smaller size, and hence lower bitrate, than the equivalent uncompressed audio without losing any quality, but they are usually higher than 320kbps - hence why I say 'probably').

    There are no details on whether they've treated the files the same in every way so I don't know how scientific the test is. In general it is hard to tell the difference between a good 320kbps encoding and a losslessly-compressed or uncompressed encoding for most music, so if it is a fair test I wouldn't be surprised if most people found it hard to tell the difference.

    But a lot of people will not settle for "standard" quality, as this almost always implies there is something better.

    @user3169 that could well be a pertinent marketing consideration, though I can't see that Tidal use the word 'standard' on the linked page. It's worth noting that Tidal say that their 'High Fidelity' is 1411kbps - in other words, the FLAC files decompress to the same , 44 100 Hz, 16 bit stereo 'CD quality' that we've had for years - it's not some special 'high definition' (i.e. 'better than CD') audio.

    Pretty sure I saw "standard" on the news this morning. This article 3 reasons why Jay Z's new Tidal streaming service is stupid says "The service is also available at two plans: a $9.99 per month option which gets you the standard quality, or $19.99 per month HiFi plan that gets you the highest quality, which is lossless audio." Most people will not have the expertise to understand the technical details.

    Anyway it seems that from https://tidalsupport.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201594722-How-good-is-the-sound-quality-on-TIDAL- the test is actually between what tidal call 'High' and 'High Fidelity' quality.

    @user3169 Don't forget that also most people don't have the speakers/headphones nor the ear to tell the difference. Not saying I *do* have one.

License under CC-BY-SA with attribution


Content dated before 7/24/2021 11:53 AM