Do people Cancel Their Tidal (or Qobuz) Accounts now that Spotify has Lossless?

Hmm, my way was difficult.
I had and still have Spotify family premium. My family has using the Spotify as podcasts source also so I can’t transfer them to different streaming.
I had to use Apple Music but stopped too as I have big stereo system and AirPlay quality wasn’t good enough for me. My oppinion - my PC, Mac, phhone shouldn’t be involved to music playing process as I want to listen standalone system and only set up and rule the music from my devices.

Now with Roon I’m using Tidal.
My vision - spotify was lying 8 years about high res. And I still not received it in my country at list 44/16 CD not present. Why I need return to it? :slight_smile:

1 Like

That’s cool though maybe still somewhat limited compared to Focus

Yeah, that would be cool. There is a feature request for that.

It would require moving Roon completely to the cloud. Our home computers are by far not powerful enough to run such searches on a database of hundreds of millions of tracks, or even to store such a database locally

Yes, some countries pay considerably less for tidal and also Qobuz, but is this really supporting them if you only pay $4 a month?

His video was slightly flawed IMO because he used methods of playback that are not bit perfect. Windows exclusive mode and android devices almost always we sample to 24/48.

And while bit perfect and lossless are not the same they go hand-in-hand. If you want true lossless (as most think of it) playback, it needs to be a bit perfect.

Just my views :innocent:

Edit: FWIW - most of the music I listen to these days is music I have purchased either on physical media over the years or digital downloads. So any additional playback via Spotify Qobuz, Tidal or others is just additional revenue for the artists I like. I used Spotify recently and it found an artist I’ve never heard of but really liked and have purchased the album.

I guess if you really want to support artists then buying their physical media, digital downloads and going to their concerts is probably better than any streaming service.

I guess choosing a streaming service is just down to individual needs tastes and what they seek in terms of features such as discovery catalogue native app use etc.

3 Likes

I think only time will tell you if Tidal is the service which bears the brunt of the exodus.

It is better, but in reality I’m 90+% catalog, and I would wager those artists I stream don’t own their masters / possibly haven’t recouped. Occasionally they will venture Down Under, and I can enjoy live (though I’d hope they get paid, given how expensive that route is for the consumer).

1 Like

Try the Big Mac index, for our currency $4 will compare well to the US rate

You can only imagine how expensive Roon is in real terms of purchasing power. If the Big Mac index is right I pay $283 equivalent per annum

Roon should mirror Tidal and Apple

1 Like

I agree this is key – and highly personal. Spotify shipping lossless is just another element in the mix. Choose your poison wisely. :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

Agree. Add Qobuz to the mix wherever it’s operating (at the same PPP adjusted rates).

Qobuz is fabulous, and they pay the artists at the highest rate of any streaming service. .

3 Likes

Hate to rain on your parade, but they pay the rights holders the highest rate. That may not translate to artist money.

1 Like

But that’s between the artist and their labels (if those are the rights holders), and the streaming service can’t do anything about that. Some/many labels ripping off artists shouldn’t be an excuse for the streaming service to add more rip-off.

4 Likes

Are the labels the villains, or is it the whole model? I never know whether it’s 50, 100 or 200 streams that equate to one iTunes download, not to mention the market for compact disc and (gasp) vinyl…

The whole model is questionable and has been for 100 years. Still, the fact that labels may not pay out to artists fairly doesn’t diminish the fact that Qobuz at least tries to pay out more to the rights holders (the only ones they can legally pay out to), nor can it serve as an excuse for Spotify shaving off even more in the first place

3 Likes

And at least with the advent of streaming services and no need for physical distribution, artists at least have the option not to sign with a label. So there’s some progress in this regard

2 Likes

I do think the label has a role with the marketing, and I am a fanboy of some labels whereas I’d need streaming to sample the independents.

But whether 85/15-splits are fair I can’t answer. Also I’ve had to make my peace with the fact streaming (even a good subscription model) ain’t the answer. Spotify does what it does, and more power to them, but it can’t be the future for records.

On the other hand, small artists didn’t make real money on physical media either, big artists don’t seem to do worse with streaming, and streaming has at least the potential of many more people paying onto the pot, rather than the 6 records my patents bought in their whole life - which was always the majority behavior.

Some do, some don’t, and most artists I’m interested in never got any promotion worth speaking of

And that’s fine, but it doesn’t warrant the initial statement that triggered me into replying

85/15 after recouping, but at least they can hit the playlists (groan).

I’m certain I’m far more engaged in the streaming / internet era, but my discretionary coin won’t keep up.

I’m in Portland, and my Parade is quite immune to rain. The Music Business has always been a parasite on the backs of the music makers, one way or another.