Cd audio vs Tidal Audio 16bit/44 khz flac

rs172

Standard Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2023
Messages
38
Reaction score
9
Points
32
Age
51
Location
Israel
I have been wondering
The past few days I have gone back listening to CD's using a Playstation3 connected via HDMI to my Denon avr-x4400h receiver (using the receiver's DAC in order to produce sound to the front speakers).
I gather that while transmitting the signal digitally it doesn't realy matter what CD player I'm playing (well maybe a bit but not like when sending analogue signal to the receiver or amp)
After streaming the same track and exactly the same remaster/mix/edition or whatever through Tidal which built in my receiver the music is much more lively, meaning more dynamics, the bass is much deeper and stronger and the treble sounds more crisper thus making the music more detailed and fun.
The volume also raises so I used a db meter to equalize the volume between the two sources,
the audessey setting that is used is exactly the same between the two sources (f/r bypass)
while using "pure mode" the differences are not that audible but are still there. Some could call the CD audio more neutral and maybe more loyal to the source but I'm not sure that's the case since I haven't heard the track in the studio while it was being recorded ( I suppose that is rarely the case with most of us). Since I play the drums, play the piano with a band and even had the priviledge to record music with some artists, I do know how to recognize true fidelity of instruments.
has anyone else had a similar experience?
Please share your thoughts
 
@rs172 FLAC is lossless - the clue is in the name Free Lossless Audio Codec. This has been proven many times by ripping files to FLAC and converting them back to WAV and using audio difference programs to match the original WAV to the ripped and converted to WAV files. They are the same. I think you might be confusing bit depth and sample rate with a file container.
please read my response again, I think you misunderstood it. that's exactly what I wrote.
 
Upvote 0
Apologies - it was the way it read. It made it sound like FLAC was only lossless if you selected it to be lossless.
 
Upvote 0
As long as it's ripped correctly
There you go!
The ripping software allows equalisation, therefore you never know with a .flac file ... and as you say it is compressed!
 
Upvote 0
There you go!
The ripping software allows equalisation, therefore you never know with a .flac file ... and as you say it is compressed!

Any decent software for ripping CD's to FLAC will be fine, you can't EQ a FLAC file during import.

You could rip to WAV, add some processing, then convert to FLAC - but that's a different matter.

The compression has nothing to do with quality, all the data is exactly the same as the CD version.
 
Upvote 0
Any decent software for ripping CD's to FLAC will be fine, you can't EQ a FLAC file during import.

You could rip to WAV, add some processing, then convert to FLAC - but that's a different matter.

The compression has nothing to do with quality, all the data is exactly the same as the CD version.
That's what I said!
 
Upvote 0
That's what I said!

Don't download suspect/unknown origin FLAC files then ;)

Unless you are ripping to WAV, adding some form of processing, and then converting to FLAC, at which point you only have yourself to blame if it sounds different as you are singlehandedly manipulating the file.

Rip your own CD's to FLAC, and they won't be any different to the original CD data stream.
 
Upvote 0
I have gone back listening to CD's using a Playstation3 connected via HDMI to my Denon avr-x4400h

HDMI was fundamentally designed around AV material , where audio is embedded into the video stream and is in multiples of 48Khz.
Its perfect for that.

However CD is 44.1khz which HDMI is not perfect with , it must generate a dummy video signal and shoehorn a 44.1khz audio track into a 48khz audio space.
This , especially in the early days of HDMI , circa PS3 times , was mostly done by altering or upscaling the audio to 48khz.

The PS3 can play CD's , but it is not "bitperfect" , the signal is altered on the way to the amp.

After streaming the same track and exactly the same remaster/mix/edition or whatever through Tidal which built in my receiver the music is much more lively

Streaming services require Server space to store their libraries , and Server Storage space is expensive.
Consequently , it is highly unlikely that streaming services store multiple versions of the same album in multiple quality formats and from multiple masters.
If its a good service it will be a high res version of the album that is scaled down according as to whatever the user requested.

If its a bad one , then it will be the smallest lossy version ( mp3 , ogg vorbis etc. ) upscaled to whatever the user requested.

CD's played properly on a good CD player almost always outperform the same release played from a streaming service where it exists.

Note that CD's are undoubtedly dying out , and there are now a lot of new releases that appear only on Vinyl and "dropped" on the various streaming services.

EAC and DBpoweramp are the two gold standard pieces of software for ripping CD's to flac and both will by default do this in a lossless way to produce a bitperfect copy.

You can drill down into settings and turn "normalise" on , which is useful for DJ's and the like trying not to have loud audio jumps during a set , but it is not bitperfect and you will be warned multiple times upon turning it on that the resulting tracks will be altered from their original.
This will also be noted in the log files for the album rip.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I haven't ripped any CD, I was using the original cd as the source.
If you've got the time, @jamieu 's point 4. suggestion is certainly worth a go, as it would eliminate any potential difference due to the TIDAL music source (including anything that the TIDAL Connect receiver in the Marantz's firmware may perhaps be doing) issue.

I would even go one further and also test out what happens if you stream the ripped files from another device on the network (eg your PC) running a trusted UPnP/DLNA media server, such as the free starter edition version of MinimServer, that won't unknowingly transcode the files (without you configuring it to).
 
Upvote 0
Streaming services require Server space to store their libraries , and Server Storage space is expensive.
Consequently , it is highly unlikely that streaming services store multiple versions of the same album in multiple quality formats and from multiple masters.
If its a good service it will be a high res version of the album that is scaled down according as to whatever the user requested.

If its a bad one , then it will be the smallest lossy version ( mp3 , ogg vorbis etc. ) upscaled to whatever the user requested.
Indeed - specifically TIDAL always supply you with the same MQA file track, if you happen to select one, bit depth reduced & resampled as necessary to match the user connection's audio quality setting (eg 16bit/44.1kHz on a TIDAL HiFi account).
 
Upvote 0
2/ Are you sure the Tidal version isn't using MQA encoding?

MQA is a lossless codec, which would likely explain a difference.

Oops, just spotted this rather obvious typo on a re-read! It's so wrong, my brain must have subconsciously autocorrected when I first read it. :D
 
Upvote 0
I don't think the Denon is capable of unpicking MQA, my X6500 is certainly not. I'll steer clear of any arguments that format as I've never listened to it nor am likely to.
It doesn't matter, as only the ultrasonic (frequency >~20kHz) part of the audio is contained in the undecoded (lower 8 bits or so) portion of an MQA encoded hi-res signal, 'cleverly' disguised as very low level random noise to a device not capable of decoding MQA.

Hence, you are still getting some of the 'MQA sound' from the audible frequency (upper 15 or so bits) portion of an MQA encoded hi-res signal, from a player not capable of decoding MQA - it's one of MQA's supposed main selling points.
 
Upvote 0
Oops, just spotted this rather obvious typo on a re-read! It's so wrong, my brain must have subconsciously autocorrected when I first read it. :D
Ha! Yes, obviously....well spotted, have corrected it in the original post.

I think my brain must have also subconsciously mis-read what I had typed too.
 
Upvote 0
The master as far as I can tell is the same master but I can never be 100% sure, I am only using the details described in Tidal.

That's the problem, you can't tell from the details that Tidal provides online if it is the same data.

It may indicate what recording/mastering it came from, which might correlate to a particular CD of that recording/mastering you own.

But you have no way of knowing for sure (from the information Tidal supplies) what happened to that recording between it being mastered and being sent to Tidal and then, what if anything, Tidal have done before they streamed it to you. As Gibbsy points out above, has it been compressed, has it been volume adjusted, it's hard to tell without loading both files into a DAW and comparing them. Ditto you have no way of knowing that the original recording wasn't adjusted before being mastered onto your CD.

This is all really important information to know, just saying 'CD's are always better' isn't really helpful, the data we have suggests it varies.

What you can do (not suggesting you do this, it's more how I'd approach a question like this) is rip a track from your CD to a lossless FLAC file and then also capture the Tidal stream to a lossless FLAC file (not going to say how on here; but it's relatively easily achieved). You then have two digital files that you can compare, both at a bit-perfect data level and as an audio waveform, once loaded into a DAW or similar tool. That will allow you to see if and how they differ.

Obviously this will only make sense if the encoding you're looking at on Tidal is lossless. If it's encoded in MQA then it will never match the data on the CD as MQA is a lossy codec.

I don't have a Tidal account, or else I'd give this a go myself out of morbid curiosity. But I'd be interested to see the findings of anyone who has the time and skill to do the above. I haven't done a detailed Google search, but I expect someone on the Internet has already done something similar, again be interesting to see their process and findings.

---

There's a separate question of whether the non Tidal Connect inputs on your Denon are handled differently, or if your PS3 or its connection method is affecting things.

That's a relatively (compared to some things) easy thing to test, as you can play the same CD (that you also ripped from a CD to a lossless FLAC file) back though various combinations of players/inputs and connection methods (including the inbuilt UPnP/DLNA feature and USB inputs), record the output (step 6 in my post above) and then see if the choice of players/inputs or connection methods changes the captured recording.

It's difficult doing any of this by ear, unless it's a real night-and-day difference ie. one input has a buzz, a really obvious dip in volume, or some fairly dramatic DSP/EQ applied. Your brain just isn't going to remember the difference in the time it take you to change things around, you're also likely to be affected by bias as you'll know what combination or source / input you're listening to.

--

This is an interesting subject, but to get to clear conclusions you need to be somewhat methodical and scientific about it, otherwise it's just a lot of anecdotal evidence, guesswork and hearsay that leads nowhere.

If you (not you specifically) can show that Tidal is heavily compressing or volume boosting say X% of their recordings from a particular label that's REALLY interesting to know, especially if you can back it up with hard, reproducible data. If you can show that Denon handles it's Tidal Connect input differently, and again can back it up with hard, reproducible data then that might be something you could get Denon to fix in a future firmware release.

This isn't to pick on your question or observations, I know the above isn't all easily achievable. It's more to point out that there are just so many factor involved that it's hard to say for sure without eliminating the various factors.

The other option is to just swap stuff around till your happy or bored, you won't have a clear answer, but hopefully you'll be listening to some music :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
That's the problem, you can't tell from the details that Tidal provides online if it is the same data.

It may indicate what recording/mastering it came from, which might correlate to a particular CD of that recording/mastering you own.

But you have no way of knowing for sure what happened to that recording between it being sent to Tidal and Tidal streaming it to you. As Gibbsy points out above, has it been compressed, has it been volume adjusted, it's hard to tell without loading both into a DAW and comparing them. Ditto you have no way of knowing that the original recording wasn't adjusted before being mastered onto your CD.

This is all really important information to know, just saying 'CD's are always better' isn't really helpful, the data we have suggests it varies.

What you can do (not suggesting you do this, it's more how I'd approach a question like this) is rip a track from your CD to a lossless FLAC file and then also capture the Tidal stream to a lossless FLAC file (not going to say how on here; but it's relatively easily achieved). You then have two digital files that you can compare, both at a bit-perfect data level and as an audio waveform, once loaded into a DAW or similar tool. That will allow you to see if and how they differ.

Obviously this will only make sense if the encoding you're looking at on Tidal is lossless. If it's encoded in MQA then it will never match the data on the CD as MQA is a lossy codec.

I don't have a Tidal account, or else I'd give this a go myself out of morbid curiosity. But I'd be interested to see the findings of anyone who has the time and skill to do the above. I haven't done a detailed Google search, but I expect someone on the Internet has already done something similar, again be interesting to see their process and findings.

---

There's a separate question of whether the non Tidal Connect inputs on your Denon are handled differently, or if your PS3 or its connection method is affecting things.

That's a relatively (compared to some things) easy thing to test, as you can play the same CD (that you also ripped from a CD to a lossless FLAC file) back though various combinations of players/inputs and connection methods (including the inbuilt UPnP/DLNA feature and USB inputs), record the output (step 6 in my post above) and then see if the choice of players/inputs or connection methods changes the captured recording.

It's difficult doing any of this by ear, unless it's a real night-and-day difference ie. one input has a buzz, a really obvious dip in volume, or some fairly dramatic DSP/EQ applied. Your brain just isn't going to remember the difference in the time it take you to change things around, you're also likely to be affected by bias as you'll know what combination or source / input you're listening to.

--

This is an interesting subject, but to get to clear conclusions you need to be somewhat methodical and scientific about it, otherwise it's just a lot of anecdotal evidence, guesswork and hearsay that leads nowhere.

If you (not you specifically) can show that Tidal is heavily compressing or volume boosting say X% of their recordings from a particular label that's REALLY interesting to know, especially if you can back it up with hard, reproducible data. If you can show that Denon handles it's Tidal Connect input differently, and again can back it up with hard, reproducible data then that might be something you could get Denon to fix in a future firmware release.

This isn't to pick on your question or observations, I know the above isn't all easily achievable. It's more to point out that there are just so many factor involved that it's hard to say for sure without eliminating the various factors.

The other option is to just swap stuff around till your happy or bored, you won't have a clear answer, but hopefully you'll be listening to some music :)

All you need to google is: "MQA Deep Dive - I published music on tidal to test MQA"
 
Upvote 0
Or just search our very own forums, eg (post #31 onwards):
 
Upvote 0
Or just search our very own forums, eg (post #31 onwards):

I use Qobuz and FLAC rips from my own CDs personally :)

I shall take a look at that thread
 
Upvote 0
All you need to google is: "MQA Deep Dive - I published music on tidal to test MQA"

Oh yes...I remember that video, was a superb piece of methodical analysis.

I was wondering why they didn't or couldn't upload a copy of their own tracks onto Tidal that weren't encoded / streamed as MQA. But then noticed they aleady answered that question too.

So in short, if I understand this correctly, you've never going to be comparing like for like with Tidal as their streams are always encoded using a lossy codec.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
Most likely he’s listing to MQA files. They’re boosted in the bass and treble.

At least that’s what I am hearing.

I don’t like Tidal whatsoever! MQA is nonsense!

Really? Some examples?

If you have some examples then great, else you seem to be spreading misinformation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I have been wondering
The past few days I have gone back listening to CD's using a Playstation3 connected via HDMI to my Denon avr-x4400h receiver (using the receiver's DAC in order to produce sound to the front speakers).
I gather that while transmitting the signal digitally it doesn't realy matter what CD player I'm playing (well maybe a bit but not like when sending analogue signal to the receiver or amp)
After streaming the same track and exactly the same remaster/mix/edition or whatever through Tidal which built in my receiver the music is much more lively, meaning more dynamics, the bass is much deeper and stronger and the treble sounds more crisper thus making the music more detailed and fun.
The volume also raises so I used a db meter to equalize the volume between the two sources,
the audessey setting that is used is exactly the same between the two sources (f/r bypass)
while using "pure mode" the differences are not that audible but are still there. Some could call the CD audio more neutral and maybe more loyal to the source but I'm not sure that's the case since I haven't heard the track in the studio while it was being recorded ( I suppose that is rarely the case with most of us). Since I play the drums, play the piano with a band and even had the priviledge to record music with some artists, I do know how to recognize true fidelity of instruments.
has anyone else had a similar experience?
Please share your thoughts

Can you check what sample rate is being received by the AVR when playing from the PS3? I thought they up sampled?
 
Upvote 0
Really? Some examples?

If you have some examples then great, else you seem to be spreading misinformation.
I don’t think I am spreading misinformation. This isn’t Bond-movie.

To my defense it was more pronounced on the Silver 300 speakers.

Not so much on my Evoke speakers.

If you listen closely you’ll hear bit more bass and treble on MQA files. This is via RP on my node streamer.
 
Upvote 0
If you listen closely you’ll hear bit more bass and treble on MQA files. This is via RP on my node streamer.

Radio Paradise's special (made for BluOS devices only) MQA streams have certainly been reported in its forums to be about 5dB louder than Radio Paradise's normal FLAC streams that they are sourced from:

However, unlike TIDAL, Radio Paradise aren't actually using studio label provided MQA tracks and are instead using an MQA encoder to produce custom MQA streams from the same normal (non-MQA) tracks that are in their FLAC streams:

So (& I'm not defending TIDAL's MQA tracks sound in any way), Radio Paradise's MQA streams are probably not the best example to use when making general comments about what MQA sounds like.
 
Upvote 0
I wasn’t aware of this. That’s probably why I hear bass boost.

Is the normal cd files from RP flac?
 
Upvote 0

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom