Will Tidal Continue

[MrC]

12 hours ago, A J said:

I think for me - Roon would be much less value without Tidal integration, so it would I imagine be a threat to them unless they manage to negotiate another deal. The Roon/Tidal pair is perfect as far as I'm concerned.

 

AJ

Completely agree on that.  Roon would definitely suffer if not for Tidal.

As to asking people whether Tidal is worth it .... you can get any response under the sun.  It depends on how you value your music.

[aussievintage]

Just now, Sime said:

This is where I have the issue. Cost vs value to the customer? 

Regardless of the competition, $25 a month for that extensive library! I think it’s undervalued. 

The extensive library means less than you think.  I am not buying it because of the library- though that is necessary that they have it in order to provide the service.  I am buying it because of the service it provides to me - music I wish to listen to and the cost of that vs other means at my disposal to obtain the same.   Combining my own 5000 +   records, and various legit free listening (radio, streaming etc),   then they are up against strong "competition".  They even miss out on the portable music aspect.  I like to listen in my car as I do a lot of travelling, so radio and files on CD and USB win out here.  

[Guest Sime]

My real opinion, all music for personal consumption should be paid for upfront and in full. 

 

Language alert 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Sime

[aussievintage]

12 minutes ago, Sime said:

My real opinion, all music for personal consumption should be paid for upfront and in full. 

 

My feelings towards artists and their plight makes me want to agree.   This means   Tidal and Spotify , streaming radio, etc  should cease to exist, and I'll continue to support live performances, and buy my music as required.  I would not be unhappy if this happened - no great loss.

[PKay]

33 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

The extensive library means less than you think.  I am not buying it because of the library- though that is necessary that they have it in order to provide the service.  I am buying it because of the service it provides to me - music I wish to listen to and the cost of that vs other means at my disposal to obtain the same.   Combining my own 5000 +   records, and various legit free listening (radio, streaming etc),   then they are up against strong "competition".  They even miss out on the portable music aspect.  I like to listen in my car as I do a lot of travelling, so radio and files on CD and USB win out here.  

My wife’s new car has Bluetooth connectivity so I can use Tidal in her car. Over time I expect most cars will have internet connections.  I have at least 2000 CDs and lots of hires music I have bought. Since I subscribed to Tidal I haven’t bought a hires file and am now only buying vinyl. 

[aussievintage]

5 minutes ago, PKay said:

My wife’s new car has Bluetooth connectivity so I can use Tidal in her car. Over time I expect most cars will have internet connections.  I have at least 2000 CDs and lots of hires music I have bought. Since I subscribed to Tidal I haven’t bought a hires file and am now only buying vinyl. 

Mine has bluetooth as well, but how can you use Tidal?   Most of the time I have no phone service, and no Internet - unless I am in a city, and then data costs are horrendous.

 

I have not bought any hires files either, but do not subscribe to Tidal, because vinyl is my source for high quality.  Hires sample files I have tried don't sound sufficiently better than good vinyl to justify, and to be honest, a flac or high bitrate MP3 is heaps good enough for the car too.

 

[Wimbo]

22 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

My feelings towards artists and their plight makes me want to agree.   This means   Tidal and Spotify , streaming radio, etc  should cease to exist, and I'll continue to support live performances, and buy my music as required.  I would not be unhappy if this happened - no great loss.

I'm a member of Spotify Premium. I use it for background music.I have no problems using it as I buy software as well.

I would love the musicians to get together and take the bastards to court that are ripping them off.

Just remember, this **** has been going on forever. Musicians being ripped off by managers. Pete Ham and Tom Evans, committing suicide. We saw what the members of the Easybeats ended up with after they split up. Radio stations holding Musos for ransom. And so it goes on.

[Guest Sime]

34 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

radio

 

This is fine imo, they need this so the can at least be heard, but not on “demand”

[Andrews_melb]

33 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

Mine has bluetooth as well, but how can you use Tidal?   Most of the time I have no phone service, and no Internet - unless I am in a city, and then data costs are horrendous.

 

 

You just save your albums to offline mode, works a treat.  My Tidal app on iphone is 42gig cause of all the albums i listen to without using data when out and about.

downloading over wifi at home when im searching for new tunes

[aussievintage]

1 hour ago, Andrews_melb said:

You just save your albums to offline mode, works a treat.  My Tidal app on iphone is 42gig cause of all the albums i listen to without using data when out and about.

downloading over wifi at home when im searching for new tunes

Right, forgot about offline mode.

[soundfan]

18 hours ago, awayward said:

I disagree, I have always thought that music streaming was too cheap for the service they provide, and for them to survive. I pay the price of one new CD per month and get access to millions of albums, all at CD quality or better. New releases appear weekly, I listen to those that look interesting and most are not my preferred genre, expanding my musical taste in the process, and then I purchase CD/vinyl/download those I really like.

 

 

Agree.

[Guest thathifiguy]

With the recent news that Tidal has been failing to pay royalties, I’m preparing myself for the inevitable.

 

Fortunately, Deezer’s lossless option is available via Bluesound now, so I have a fallback.

 

Only issue is I’m on Tidal’s family plan of $36/month which supplies myself, my partner, her sister as well my three sisters with independent accounts.

Edited May 27, 2018 by thathifiguy

[JukKluk2]

I don't know if it's just me but even though I subscribe to both Spotify and Tidal I hardy ever use either of them. The common assertion is that they are great for discovering new music which, for me, isn't the case. I use them to preview recently released albums from artists in which I have an interest and a few that I see discussed in these fora, as well as those reviewed in the Hi-Fi magazines. Beyond that, I am wondering if I should cancel and drink the five or six cups of coffee that is equated to the subscription price*.

A new head unit in my car means that I can now access them when I am driving, and I do, but it is early days so I will see how much data it is using in the next few months which will be the basis upon which I decide to continue, or not.

 

 

*Standard candles for mass understanding.

 

Olympic Swimming Pools for volume, Football Pitches for area, Cups of Coffee for subscription rates.

[Guest jakeyb77]

I use Tidal and happily pay for it. No bulky media. I have thousands of CDs that I haven’t used in a decade.. not do I want to. For hard copies I buy vinyl. 

To have thousands of albums at my finger tips controlled by my phone is worth every cent. No storage required. 

I switched from Spotify premium and haven’t found a lack of albums on Tidal. 

[Tobes]

6 hours ago, aussievintage said:

It's not about what's right.  Not a moral issue at all.  The topic is whether Tidal will continue.  I don't think it will because of it's cost vs the value to the consumer.

This is exactly why it should continue - the value to me is off the chart.

I know value for money is a personal thing, but I can't get my head around the idea that Tidal represents poor value.

 

I still buy vinyl occasionally, the last batch I bought cost me just over $200 for 5 records. That's almost what I pay for a years subscription to Tidal.

If I want to buy a physical CD I find it's typically not available in local stores, so I have to buy online (assuming I find it) and wait for it to arrive - generally from OS.

I'd buy more downloaded music, but find it extremely frustrating to find the titles I'm after in CD quality - sites like HD Tracks are a joke in terms of available catalogue - and often I'm stymied by regional restrictions (though you can get around this on some sites). 

I do buy Indy stuff off Bandcamp (which is great) and just find myself wondering why something like this can't be available for all the Record Label content??

 

The truth is that buying music is frustrating and expensive - Tidal is neither of those things.

[PKay]

3 hours ago, thathifiguy said:

With the recent news that Tidal has been failing to pay royalties, I’m preparing myself for the inevitable.

 

Fortunately, Deezer’s lossless option is available via Bluesound now, so I have a fallback.

 

Only issue is I’m on Tidal’s family plan of $36/month which supplies myself, my partner, her sister as well my three sisters with independent accounts.

The family model of allowing 5 additional users for  $12 extra makes no commercial sense to me, possibly one reason they are going broke. Allowing one more user at that price is okay. 

[aussievintage]

13 minutes ago, Tobes said:

This is exactly why it should continue - the value to me is off the chart.

I know value for money is a personal thing, but I can't get my head around the idea that Tidal represents poor value.

 

But not to me.  See, that's what will determine if it survives - whether there are enough customers like you that see it as good value.        

 

14 minutes ago, Tobes said:

 

I still buy vinyl occasionally, the last batch I bought cost me just over $200 for 5 records. That's almost what I pay for a years subscription to Tidal.

 

New vinyl is also bad value.  

 

18 minutes ago, Tobes said:

I still buy vinyl occasionally, the last batch I bought cost me just over $200 for 5 records. That's almost what I pay for a years subscription to Tidal.

If I want to buy a physical CD I find it's typically not available in local stores, so I have to buy online (assuming I find it) and wait for it to arrive - generally from OS.

I'd buy more downloaded music, but find it extremely frustrating to find the titles I'm after in CD quality - sites like HD Tracks are a joke in terms of available catalogue - and often I'm stymied by regional restrictions (though you can get around this on some sites). 

I do buy Indy stuff off Bandcamp (which is great) and just find myself wondering why something like this can't be available for all the Record Label content??

 

The truth is that buying music is frustrating and expensive - Tidal is neither of those things.

 

It sounds as though the frustration you experienced is the main reason you find Tidal of value.   That's a good reason for you, but I don't have this frustration.  For whatever reason, I seem to be able to buy what I want easily enough.

[aussievintage]

1 minute ago, PKay said:

The family model of allowing 5 additional users for  $12 extra makes no commercial sense to me, possibly one reason they are going broke. Allowing one more user at that price is okay. 

It tells me that the real price should be closer to       (normal subscription+$12)/6

[Guest thathifiguy]

12 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

It tells me that the real price should be closer to       (normal subscription+$12)/6

If they can’t pay royalties to artists as it is, how could they based off that logic?

[Tobes]

3 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

It sounds as though the frustration you experienced is the main reason you find Tidal of value.   That's a good reason for you, but I don't have this frustration.  For whatever reason, I seem to be able to buy what I want easily enough.

Yes that's part of it.

Tidal (and other streaming services) make you aware of how much great music is available. I find my music interest being far more diverse. 

This means (to me) that buying music - except for particular favourites - no longer makes sense for the limited number of times I will play an album.

I can listen any music that interests me in CD quality at my leisure and then move onto something else - ie without buying an album I will play a limited number of times and then store. If I really like something, I can then purchase it (or not).

For the music lover this offers tremendous value IMO.

[Guest Sime]

Very selfish responses coming through. No wonder now ones getting paid. 

 

Tidal wants to Survive? Introduce an on demand user pays, what’s the cost to listen to one album where everyone in the food chain gets paid the correct amount?

 

Id pay 50c per album if that’ll stop me from wasting $25 to buy it unheard. 

[aussievintage]

16 minutes ago, thathifiguy said:

If they can’t pay royalties to artists as it is, how could they based off that logic?

I wasn't commenting on whether what they do is moral, royalties wise,  - just that whatever they are doing, they can do it a lot cheaper.

 

[aussievintage]

7 minutes ago, Sime said:

Very selfish responses coming through. No wonder now ones getting paid. 

 

Tidal wants to Survive? Introduce an on demand user pays, what’s the cost to listen to one album where everyone in the food chain gets paid the correct amount?

 

Id pay 50c per album if that’ll stop me from wasting $25 to buy it unheard. 

 

There's a couple of issues getting mixed up here, but the OP was asking will Tidal survive.  I find I can discuss that issue separately from whether it should survive given that it isn't paying appropriately to the artists etc.

[Guest Sime]

Unless you have a crystal ball, WILL Tidal survive is guesswork, but don’t let that get in the way of a good conversation. 

[bob_m_54]

7 hours ago, Sime said:

My real opinion, all music for personal consumption should be paid for upfront and in full. 

 

Language alert 

 

 

That's the best argument against streamed music I've heard.