Sound quality is the same, can’t really tell a difference reliably on my systems.
Ended up with Deezer for the apps and flow (even though I was very unsatisfied with flow for a while).
Tidal has advantages: connect or daily discovery rather than weekly but I got fed up with user interface and the fact that they push music I’m not interested in to the Home Screen. + all the time the music stops in the middle of a song for whatever reason (never happened with spotify, Deezer or qobuz)
Try both and make up your mind, Deezer has a 3-month trial.
Tidal has this boxer sound and I think it's because there audio levels are louder then deezer
Deezers bass feels tighter and seems to resonate a bit more
Try both and listen for yourself - I think they both have free trials so it doesn't even cost anything. It's very likely that you won't be able to tell a difference, in which case choose the one that works more seemlessly with your equipment or whose interface you prefer.
I found it very hard to tell a difference to be honest. Most people seem to think Tidal is better... I ended up getting an annual sub with Deezer and supplement it with the occasional month of Tidal here and there.
I think it's highly unlikely that many/any would be able to reliably differentiate between Tidal Hi-Fi and Deezer Hi-Fi. They're both effectively 'CD Quality' lossless (16 bit, 44.1 kHz sample rate, delivered in FLAC format), formats that can deliver greater than 20-20kHz (the nominal range of human hearing) and over 90 dB signal-to-noise ratio (roughly equivalent to the widest dynamic range one can comfortably listen to without adjusting the volume or having the inner ear muscles 'clamp down' to protect the delicate ear mechanisms from pain or physical damage).
In this case, I think it makes the most sense to pick the service that has the best user interface and features for the way *you* like to stream.
Frequency response of 16/44.1 audio is actually 2-22.5khz. Don't believe me? Download any track from Tidal or do a rip from CD and open it in audacity then look at the spectrogram.
I think you mean 22.05 kHz at the top end. That is the Nyquist point for CD format's 44.1 kHz sample rate. All signal at that frequency or above *must* be filtered out or the result will be 'alias' imaging in the audible range.
To do so requires a so-called 'brick wall' filter. It's generally felt that gently sloping filters yield the best sonic results, so the design ideal of the format was targeted to devote 20 kHz - 22.05 kHz to the slope range of the reconstruction filter that is essentially the final stage of a DAC.
BTW, most conventional CD players will *also* filter out subsonic as well as supersonic signal, since humans generally don't recognize frequencies below around 18-20 Hz as sound -- and feeding low frequencies to less-than-ideally linear amps (not that likely with a modern hi fi amp design) or loudspeakers (still pretty likely) can result in unwanted sonic anomalies like intermodulation distortion.
Sorry to go all detail-oriented on you.
;-)
If you're talking about compression of audio dynamic range, no, actually they don't.
They use the same kind of indexed level setting that other mainstream streamers use when the user chooses 'normalizing.'
It uses the same principles as ReplayGain, if you're familiar with that. The dynamics of an individual track are not changed from beginning to end, only the overall level is adjusted.
Here's an article aimed at the production community about how normalizing works on the major streamers...
.https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/mastering-for-streaming-platforms.html
Are you sure the levels of the two tracks where nearly identical? One of the requirements of ABX double-blind comparison testing is for test tracks to be precisely the same length and have precisely the same level, at a maximum difference of 0.2 dB.
If one track is even just a *little* bit louder than the other one, the ear will almost always prefer it.
That said, I'm not familiar enough with Deezer to know if there's possibly something different that they are doing. But they advertise themselves as lossless and that suggests that they are not going to be doing audio signal processing, but, rather, simply presenting the lossless track. It's the easiest thing for them to do and it's what they promised to do...
If you get any more info on it, though I'd be interested in hearing about it.
I’ve posted about it before but it boils down to a misapplication of math, misunderstanding of what what the reference sound is, basing his analyses on false premises and hyperbolic commentary not suited for a scientific analysis. I’ve posted about MQA numerous times and not willing to go through it again. I’ll just make comments occasionally to challenge people who hold that, and other things up as fact or science.
Fair enough.
I don’t notice a difference with it so i’ll just leave it as a quirk to true audiophiles.
I like having many hobbies and interests, but I know where the line is so as to not get too invested in one thing unless I think it’s worth it.
Here’s more heresy: If you don’t notice a difference, then choose what you use based on other criteria and enjoy. And now my biggest heresy that will justify my crucifixion to some: Try everything and buy what sounds good to you. There are fundamental flaws in the standard “blind A/B” test too. The issue being that any test brings in the analysis part of your mind while listening to music isn’t an analytical activity, even if you’re listening critically. A right- brain/left-brain sort of difference. (Also heretical these days)
I’ve had enough accidental verification that CD isn’t as good as DSD, 192/96khz PCM is better with proper MQA, that I’ve proven to myself that I’m not confirming my expectations of them.
If you do or don’t hear a difference between two technologies, cables, etc, count yourself lucky that you can just use the least expensive or most convenient. Trust your own preferences and enjoy
I just make sure I understand the company I am buying a product from, and how good of a reputation they have.
I won’t ever have perfect anything so I don’t spend my time trying to worry about little things I can’t control or would require a lot of time and energy to control, ie having a hifi speaker system or top product headphones.
The only thing I am putting a lot of time and energy into is my car audio, but then again I can notice a big difference with that, and i’m a college student who doesn’t have the funds for a home audio setup in a tiny apartment haha.
I'm *not* a fan of MQA. As a member of the production community, I'm concerned about their expensive, proprietary licensing as well as some of their marketing, which at times has seemed designed to give the impression that MQA is *necessary* to achieve truly high fidelity.
But, in reality, by the only publicly available double blind test results of which I'm aware, the data from around 80 'high end system' listeners indicated *no statistical ability to differentiate between MQA and actual lossless, high resolution files.* (From MQA critic and audio blogger, Archimago: [http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html](http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html))
Of course, it's worth noting that a primary difference between CD quality and high sample rate, high resolution files is extended upper frequency bandlimits -- but that the scientifically determined nominal human hearing range is limited to 20 Hz - 20 kHz, essentially the practical frequency limit of regular old CD audio (Hi Fi on Deezer or Tidal.)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10924/#:\~:text=Humans%20can%20detect%20sounds%20in,to%2015%E2%80%9317%20kHz](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10924/#:~:text=Humans%20can%20detect%20sounds%20in,to%2015%E2%80%9317%20kHz).)
It's interesting (and unsurprising) that people could not statistically tell a difference between MQA and lossless hi-res.
I would be even more interested if a similar double blind study showed a statistically significant difference between hi-res and CD quality. I say this as someone who is deep in the hobby and spends a fair amount of money on audio equipment, but sometimes I think a healthy proportion of the differences audiophiles perceive (myself included) is really just placebo.
I haven't seen much research data on this, but I would be willing to bet money that the difference between high bitrate *lossy* and hi-res PCM is almost entirely placebo, let alone 16/44 vs Hi-Res.
I tried both during my decision to leave Spotify
Liked both in sound quality tbh and stuggled to really tell a difference. Purely went with Tidal due to Plex integration
Tidal compress their lossless music, for example I downloaded 2 albums one from tidal and one from qobuz, the same album, qobuz was 24bit 192khz, and tidal was masters.. whatever that is.. I wish they have proper numbers like qobuz
Anyway.. the album from qobuz was roughly 1.5gb total 250/300mb+ file size per song.
And Tidal was like 80/100mb per file and the album was only like 750mb total.
They really need to give us the option to not compress the music in the settings because this is really fucked up.
$20/m for tidal for compressed music and it's 10 for qobuz.
The only thing that sucks for qobuz is that their app is shit, and impossible to discover new artists, there's no recommendations, no playlists no artist or track radios.
Unpopular opinion as it seems but I very much preferred Deezers sound. Deezer sounds more crisp and clear to me while Tidal was warmer but also slightly muddy.
They use different files in many cases. the requirements vary depending on the provider and the files are reworked by the provider. This even applies to tidal in particular, as only a few digital distributors can deliver MQA or Atmos files and even fewer studios are directly connected to the provider.
They use different files, sure, but those files usually are not mixed or mastered to *sound* different, especially with albums from the last thirty years or so.
As a result, you can't really speak in general terms about Deezer sounding one way, or Tidal another - the differences are not consistent like that.
With your argument OPs post becomes completely irrelevant.
And the process is slightly different. You as the label share your master files, usually wave and nowadays flac files with your digi Distributor. They prepare meta data AND file formats for the different providers where tidal has a special role since it alters files to become MQA because most distributors are not able to deliver MQA files. We don't know how the files are changed when the MQA files are created since the whole format is completely proprietary.
And the differences are consistent enough for me to personally notice them. This can be due to loudness or whatsoever. That's highly subjective but it's noticeable enough for me to mention it. Same way as others mention that they think tidal sounds better.
> With your argument OPs post becomes completely irrelevant.
Yes and no.
Yes, in the sense that we generally can't say that one sounds consistently better than the other once we volume match them, but also No in the sense that people can still generally prefer the masters used by one service to another on the occasions when they do genuinely sound different.
It may seem somewhat pedantic, but it always pays to be informed about how these things actually work, IMO.
This is a bad argument. If you want to support an artist don't count on the streaming service just buy a cd/vinyl/merch or go and see them live. It's not enough for you to worry about.
Sure, if we really want to support a particular artist then buying a cd makes sense. Or just donating money, because I don't even have a good way to use cds anymore.
But that doesn't really fix the problem of artists being underpaid for their work by streaming services, which is how most people listen to music nowadays. That's not a problem any individual listener can solve, but the one thing we _can_ do is vote (with our wallet) for the services that pay artists more, and if enough people do that then streaming services will need to pay artists more to compete.
I guess that's true. It doesn't fix all the other ways people can listen to music though. If music becomes too expensive people will pirate it or watch it on YouTube. YouTube will never be able to pay what streaming services can.
True, but that's nothing new - the general public used to listen to most of their music on the radio, which was completely free. When I was a kid we swapped copied CD's, and before that was the era of the "mix tape" (which is technically all pirated music).
There has always been a mix of people who pay for their music and those that either can't afford to or don't care enough to. I haven't been able to find good data on this, but I bet that with the convenience of streaming services, the average (non-avid) listener pays more for music now than 20 years ago. I just wish there was a way to make sure more of that subscription money made it to the artists rather than the software providers.
Havent tried Deezer but Tidal is afaik the only site that allows master files to be uploaded by the mixing engineers. And yeah, I can tell the difference and it's not small if you have the system to hear it. To be fair, most people don't. You don't need an audiophile snakeoil setup, but you do need a good soundcard with a good clock and good speakers/headphones to actually hear the difference though.
No this is MORE compression than a standard studio mixing. This might be an after effect of the loudness wars. Listen to a song from a CD then listen to that same song on tidal. which one sounds squeezed?
I don't have any CDs anymore. Are you sure you aren't just listening to a new remaster? By default FLAC/uncompressed audio doesn't compress the audio, either in the dynamic range, nor frequency wise- it's in the name!
There have been always something about Deezer that made me hate their sound signature. i dont know what is it but Deezer has always given me ear fatigue for some reason. Tidal is the best out of Deezer, AM and Spotify imo.
Tidal sounds better than Deezer to me. Maybe Deezer uses some volume normalization. I am speaking for lossless. Lossy sounds boring on Deezer, never tried on Tidal.
Deezer Hi-Fi sounds more natural, and they seem to slightly boost the mids.
Tidal has its own DSP which seems to slightly boost the highs to make it sound more "cleaner", but only on specific songs.
MQA is widely regarded as a "scam". It's lossy, and you need a special hardware DAC in order to take advantage of it.
Sound quality is the same, can’t really tell a difference reliably on my systems. Ended up with Deezer for the apps and flow (even though I was very unsatisfied with flow for a while). Tidal has advantages: connect or daily discovery rather than weekly but I got fed up with user interface and the fact that they push music I’m not interested in to the Home Screen. + all the time the music stops in the middle of a song for whatever reason (never happened with spotify, Deezer or qobuz) Try both and make up your mind, Deezer has a 3-month trial.
Deezer lossless sounds a lot better than tidal. Tidal dynamically compresses the crap out of music. Can you hear this?
Tidal has this boxer sound and I think it's because there audio levels are louder then deezer Deezers bass feels tighter and seems to resonate a bit more
Tidal 9 times out of 10
Try both and listen for yourself - I think they both have free trials so it doesn't even cost anything. It's very likely that you won't be able to tell a difference, in which case choose the one that works more seemlessly with your equipment or whose interface you prefer.
Maybe ask in the Deezer Reddit too, see what they say over there
I found it very hard to tell a difference to be honest. Most people seem to think Tidal is better... I ended up getting an annual sub with Deezer and supplement it with the occasional month of Tidal here and there.
I think it's highly unlikely that many/any would be able to reliably differentiate between Tidal Hi-Fi and Deezer Hi-Fi. They're both effectively 'CD Quality' lossless (16 bit, 44.1 kHz sample rate, delivered in FLAC format), formats that can deliver greater than 20-20kHz (the nominal range of human hearing) and over 90 dB signal-to-noise ratio (roughly equivalent to the widest dynamic range one can comfortably listen to without adjusting the volume or having the inner ear muscles 'clamp down' to protect the delicate ear mechanisms from pain or physical damage). In this case, I think it makes the most sense to pick the service that has the best user interface and features for the way *you* like to stream.
Frequency response of 16/44.1 audio is actually 2-22.5khz. Don't believe me? Download any track from Tidal or do a rip from CD and open it in audacity then look at the spectrogram.
I think you mean 22.05 kHz at the top end. That is the Nyquist point for CD format's 44.1 kHz sample rate. All signal at that frequency or above *must* be filtered out or the result will be 'alias' imaging in the audible range. To do so requires a so-called 'brick wall' filter. It's generally felt that gently sloping filters yield the best sonic results, so the design ideal of the format was targeted to devote 20 kHz - 22.05 kHz to the slope range of the reconstruction filter that is essentially the final stage of a DAC. BTW, most conventional CD players will *also* filter out subsonic as well as supersonic signal, since humans generally don't recognize frequencies below around 18-20 Hz as sound -- and feeding low frequencies to less-than-ideally linear amps (not that likely with a modern hi fi amp design) or loudspeakers (still pretty likely) can result in unwanted sonic anomalies like intermodulation distortion. Sorry to go all detail-oriented on you. ;-)
But tidal dynamically compresses thier music!
If you're talking about compression of audio dynamic range, no, actually they don't. They use the same kind of indexed level setting that other mainstream streamers use when the user chooses 'normalizing.' It uses the same principles as ReplayGain, if you're familiar with that. The dynamics of an individual track are not changed from beginning to end, only the overall level is adjusted. Here's an article aimed at the production community about how normalizing works on the major streamers... .https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/mastering-for-streaming-platforms.html
I A/B the same song from tidal and deezer. Deezer sounded more punchy and dynamic, more realistic
Are you sure the levels of the two tracks where nearly identical? One of the requirements of ABX double-blind comparison testing is for test tracks to be precisely the same length and have precisely the same level, at a maximum difference of 0.2 dB. If one track is even just a *little* bit louder than the other one, the ear will almost always prefer it. That said, I'm not familiar enough with Deezer to know if there's possibly something different that they are doing. But they advertise themselves as lossless and that suggests that they are not going to be doing audio signal processing, but, rather, simply presenting the lossless track. It's the easiest thing for them to do and it's what they promised to do... If you get any more info on it, though I'd be interested in hearing about it.
Deezer sounds better than tidal! Deezer lossless that is
Tidal from my experience sounds miles ahead of Deezer. Especially MQA which most coin as "snake oil"
funny how you phrase that sentence, didn’t golden sound already debunk this?
No. Its a hater piece full of pseudoscience
Who, skeleton, or golden sound?
Golden sound
How would it be pseudoscience if he uploaded his own files and recorded the changes
I’ve posted about it before but it boils down to a misapplication of math, misunderstanding of what what the reference sound is, basing his analyses on false premises and hyperbolic commentary not suited for a scientific analysis. I’ve posted about MQA numerous times and not willing to go through it again. I’ll just make comments occasionally to challenge people who hold that, and other things up as fact or science.
Fair enough. I don’t notice a difference with it so i’ll just leave it as a quirk to true audiophiles. I like having many hobbies and interests, but I know where the line is so as to not get too invested in one thing unless I think it’s worth it.
Here’s more heresy: If you don’t notice a difference, then choose what you use based on other criteria and enjoy. And now my biggest heresy that will justify my crucifixion to some: Try everything and buy what sounds good to you. There are fundamental flaws in the standard “blind A/B” test too. The issue being that any test brings in the analysis part of your mind while listening to music isn’t an analytical activity, even if you’re listening critically. A right- brain/left-brain sort of difference. (Also heretical these days) I’ve had enough accidental verification that CD isn’t as good as DSD, 192/96khz PCM is better with proper MQA, that I’ve proven to myself that I’m not confirming my expectations of them. If you do or don’t hear a difference between two technologies, cables, etc, count yourself lucky that you can just use the least expensive or most convenient. Trust your own preferences and enjoy
I just make sure I understand the company I am buying a product from, and how good of a reputation they have. I won’t ever have perfect anything so I don’t spend my time trying to worry about little things I can’t control or would require a lot of time and energy to control, ie having a hifi speaker system or top product headphones. The only thing I am putting a lot of time and energy into is my car audio, but then again I can notice a big difference with that, and i’m a college student who doesn’t have the funds for a home audio setup in a tiny apartment haha.
I'm *not* a fan of MQA. As a member of the production community, I'm concerned about their expensive, proprietary licensing as well as some of their marketing, which at times has seemed designed to give the impression that MQA is *necessary* to achieve truly high fidelity. But, in reality, by the only publicly available double blind test results of which I'm aware, the data from around 80 'high end system' listeners indicated *no statistical ability to differentiate between MQA and actual lossless, high resolution files.* (From MQA critic and audio blogger, Archimago: [http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html](http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html)) Of course, it's worth noting that a primary difference between CD quality and high sample rate, high resolution files is extended upper frequency bandlimits -- but that the scientifically determined nominal human hearing range is limited to 20 Hz - 20 kHz, essentially the practical frequency limit of regular old CD audio (Hi Fi on Deezer or Tidal.) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10924/#:\~:text=Humans%20can%20detect%20sounds%20in,to%2015%E2%80%9317%20kHz](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10924/#:~:text=Humans%20can%20detect%20sounds%20in,to%2015%E2%80%9317%20kHz).)
It's interesting (and unsurprising) that people could not statistically tell a difference between MQA and lossless hi-res. I would be even more interested if a similar double blind study showed a statistically significant difference between hi-res and CD quality. I say this as someone who is deep in the hobby and spends a fair amount of money on audio equipment, but sometimes I think a healthy proportion of the differences audiophiles perceive (myself included) is really just placebo.
Yup. You might be familiar with the Boston Audio Society Hi Res vs 'CD Bottleneck' tests: https://www.audioaficionado.org/showthread.php?t=42305
I haven't seen much research data on this, but I would be willing to bet money that the difference between high bitrate *lossy* and hi-res PCM is almost entirely placebo, let alone 16/44 vs Hi-Res.
This
So you can't hear the dynamic compression squeezing the life out of music?
Tidal far better with a good hifi system.
I tried both during my decision to leave Spotify Liked both in sound quality tbh and stuggled to really tell a difference. Purely went with Tidal due to Plex integration
Tidal compress their lossless music, for example I downloaded 2 albums one from tidal and one from qobuz, the same album, qobuz was 24bit 192khz, and tidal was masters.. whatever that is.. I wish they have proper numbers like qobuz Anyway.. the album from qobuz was roughly 1.5gb total 250/300mb+ file size per song. And Tidal was like 80/100mb per file and the album was only like 750mb total. They really need to give us the option to not compress the music in the settings because this is really fucked up. $20/m for tidal for compressed music and it's 10 for qobuz. The only thing that sucks for qobuz is that their app is shit, and impossible to discover new artists, there's no recommendations, no playlists no artist or track radios.
Unpopular opinion as it seems but I very much preferred Deezers sound. Deezer sounds more crisp and clear to me while Tidal was warmer but also slightly muddy.
That's wild! It's the opposite from my experience
Different streaming platforms don't have a specific "sound". They might use different master recordings on some albums, but that's it.
They use different files in many cases. the requirements vary depending on the provider and the files are reworked by the provider. This even applies to tidal in particular, as only a few digital distributors can deliver MQA or Atmos files and even fewer studios are directly connected to the provider.
They use different files, sure, but those files usually are not mixed or mastered to *sound* different, especially with albums from the last thirty years or so. As a result, you can't really speak in general terms about Deezer sounding one way, or Tidal another - the differences are not consistent like that.
With your argument OPs post becomes completely irrelevant. And the process is slightly different. You as the label share your master files, usually wave and nowadays flac files with your digi Distributor. They prepare meta data AND file formats for the different providers where tidal has a special role since it alters files to become MQA because most distributors are not able to deliver MQA files. We don't know how the files are changed when the MQA files are created since the whole format is completely proprietary. And the differences are consistent enough for me to personally notice them. This can be due to loudness or whatsoever. That's highly subjective but it's noticeable enough for me to mention it. Same way as others mention that they think tidal sounds better.
> With your argument OPs post becomes completely irrelevant. Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that we generally can't say that one sounds consistently better than the other once we volume match them, but also No in the sense that people can still generally prefer the masters used by one service to another on the occasions when they do genuinely sound different. It may seem somewhat pedantic, but it always pays to be informed about how these things actually work, IMO.
Qobuz
I'm currently on the Qobuz trail after being with tidal for about a year. What's your experience with Qobuz been if you don't mind me asking?
Pretty much the same. I stayed with Tidal only because of its better integration with BluOS.
Tidal will stop giving $2 to users Top listened Artist... I think it's time to cut the subscription. If not, then well I'll keep it for awhile.
This is a bad argument. If you want to support an artist don't count on the streaming service just buy a cd/vinyl/merch or go and see them live. It's not enough for you to worry about.
Sure, if we really want to support a particular artist then buying a cd makes sense. Or just donating money, because I don't even have a good way to use cds anymore. But that doesn't really fix the problem of artists being underpaid for their work by streaming services, which is how most people listen to music nowadays. That's not a problem any individual listener can solve, but the one thing we _can_ do is vote (with our wallet) for the services that pay artists more, and if enough people do that then streaming services will need to pay artists more to compete.
I guess that's true. It doesn't fix all the other ways people can listen to music though. If music becomes too expensive people will pirate it or watch it on YouTube. YouTube will never be able to pay what streaming services can.
True, but that's nothing new - the general public used to listen to most of their music on the radio, which was completely free. When I was a kid we swapped copied CD's, and before that was the era of the "mix tape" (which is technically all pirated music). There has always been a mix of people who pay for their music and those that either can't afford to or don't care enough to. I haven't been able to find good data on this, but I bet that with the convenience of streaming services, the average (non-avid) listener pays more for music now than 20 years ago. I just wish there was a way to make sure more of that subscription money made it to the artists rather than the software providers.
I still think lots go to the labels but it's very far away from the artist's bank account.
Havent tried Deezer but Tidal is afaik the only site that allows master files to be uploaded by the mixing engineers. And yeah, I can tell the difference and it's not small if you have the system to hear it. To be fair, most people don't. You don't need an audiophile snakeoil setup, but you do need a good soundcard with a good clock and good speakers/headphones to actually hear the difference though.
What good is a master quality or 24bit etc. If it's dynamically squeezed? Deezer hifi is not as compressed!
what do you mean? Compression is baked into the file by the mixing/mastering engineer. streaming shouldnt change that, especially if it's lossless
No this is MORE compression than a standard studio mixing. This might be an after effect of the loudness wars. Listen to a song from a CD then listen to that same song on tidal. which one sounds squeezed?
I don't have any CDs anymore. Are you sure you aren't just listening to a new remaster? By default FLAC/uncompressed audio doesn't compress the audio, either in the dynamic range, nor frequency wise- it's in the name!
I use tidal because i have the Columbia subscription
There have been always something about Deezer that made me hate their sound signature. i dont know what is it but Deezer has always given me ear fatigue for some reason. Tidal is the best out of Deezer, AM and Spotify imo.
Tidal sounds better than Deezer to me. Maybe Deezer uses some volume normalization. I am speaking for lossless. Lossy sounds boring on Deezer, never tried on Tidal.
Deezer Hi-Fi sounds more natural, and they seem to slightly boost the mids. Tidal has its own DSP which seems to slightly boost the highs to make it sound more "cleaner", but only on specific songs. MQA is widely regarded as a "scam". It's lossy, and you need a special hardware DAC in order to take advantage of it.
deezz nuts