3/6, i either got wav or 128, no 320

Sometimes.

Let me see.

Wav is lossless better than 320

Tidal HiFi teas

Would I get an accurate score if I listen through my iPhone speakers?

4/6

that was kinda the irony

I remember doing this before. I think I got like 5/6.

I got 2/6

There goes any chance of a Tidal subscription

Always

Edit: NOPE. I got a 0/6, apparently all the time I spend trying to find HQ audio is a waste

4/6
The other 2 were 320

6/6

I got 4/6, and the 2 I missed I chose 320 Kbps

I tested this with my iPhone 6 Plus's speakers though. I probably could've done better with headphones.

JAY Z didn't lie. Let me subscribe to TIDAL.

6/6

3/6, it's REALLY easy to discern a 128 kbps MP3 file from a 320kbps MP3 file or a lossless WAV file, but picking between a 320kbps file or a lossless WAV file is much trickier by ear when using earphones on computer.

Basically, I didn't pick any of the 128 kbps files because they sounded like ****, but it was hard to choose between the WAV or 320 MP3.

0/6. Tidal flop

I listened on surround sound speakers w/ a sub. I think my ears only are able to process the quality of bass (years of urban stanning I guess) because I got the WAV files right on Tom Ford and Dark Horse and that Neil Young song that had really low tones, but got 320 on Tom's Diner and Mozart and 128 on Speed of Sound. I did it a second time and got the WAV files on only Tom Ford and Dark Horse again. Pretty accurate assessment of my ears since the bass richness is usually the thing I look for most; I will toss or give away some headphones in a sec if the bass doesn't really kick the way I want it to.