MQA and MP3 is unlistenable for me too. I'm using Quboz, now mainly to download hi-res. Streaming as a ways to go before it matches local files in quality. Surprised more people aren't talking about this ...
OK. I guess since I don't know what "last.fm" is, I probably wouldn't know "scrobble" (maybe I'm showing my age here, or my ignorance...or both!)
You're saying there is a difference in sound quality when you play the file back from a local source (e.g., hard drive off a PC) versus playing the same file via streaming? I'm trying to understand this. It would seem to me if the same digital file is sent to the same DAC (assuming no interruptions), what comes out the other end of the DAC should be identical. What am I missing?
It would seem to me if the same digital file is sent to the same DAC Likely it's not the same internal channel. The sources may also be processed different- if they are even same in first place. Too many variables to make guesses about. Basic Occam's razor is the best explanation for a difference is due to a difference.
I'll try clarify. 1) I stream a file, say 16 bit/44.1 khz, receiving it on my pc, sending it "live"via USB cable to my external DAC. 2) I download that same file to that same PC. I then read it off the PC's hard drive, sending through the same USB cable, to the same external DAC. You think there will be a difference in sound? The only way I can envision a difference between these two, is if somehow the digital file got changed or corrupted for either one. I'm not a computer engineer, but it has always been my understanding that a digital file, is a digital file, i.e., all "0"s and "1"s.
Hi, would need to know how your hardware does the processing internally for both methods. If they differ the sound could very well differ, if both are processed exactly same including by exact same internal circuitry then they will sound the same. As mentioned without the facts of your units machinations, any more is speculation. Which brings me back to the only logical explanation for a difference is a difference
I think we may have lost sight of my original question/point. I understand that if the file is sent via optical input in one instance, and USB in another, there is the potential (and I stress, "potential") for differences based on how the DAC is processing these different types of digital signals. But, I would assert with a pretty high degree of confidence (like, 99.9999999%) that, if the same digital file is received by the same DAC, in the same manner (e.g., in this case through the same USB port), there will be no difference in sound. The notion of simply saving the file to a hard drive, then retrieving it and sending to the DAC (again, through the exact same means) will not change the sound in any way.
Well my trial is up tomorrow and I can't decide. After ''testing" the sound btwn QB and Tidal, on my system QB sounds better. But there is so much music missing still I may have to stick with Tidal. I love the QB interface and interaction is so much better. It already ''knows" me. Tidal is just pandering hip hop and other music I detest into my face, but Roon does a great job of filtering all that out. QB ios app is REALLY slow, and lags in my car play unit. I know all these bugs and record deals will be fixed, but when? I've yet to see one update to desktop or IOS. I have weeks left on my Tidal trial so was going to just pay QB and use both a few more weeks and hope QB will have more catalog and less bugs by then and drop Tidal. But now thinking that won't happen very quickly. Hmmm. What to do? What are you QB trial runners going to do?
I joined Qobuz because they have been 100% honest with me with their limitations. They are growing in the US, and the Europe and US market tastes are quite different. I would recommend getting in contact with requests and such. I enjoy that they have real hi-res material, and don't try to pander hiphop and MQA everywhere. Also, the curated lists are awesome (bowie, beatles, etc).
I abandoned my previous desktop audio system because, over time, too much was riding on the PCI bus. There was the soundcard itself (an M-Audio 192), and, due to a motherboard failure, a PCI network interface card that wasn't there when this mothership launched; IIRC there was also an external storage controller. Any Hi-Res I tried to play sounded like a bowl of Rice Krispies. Changing the values for how many bytes I wanted to cache in hardware helped slightly, but the chatter still overwhelmed a clean experience. Moved the PCI soundcard to a system with 1 single PCI 2.0 connector (a bit old-school) and never had that problem again. Less contention on the bus. I've tried a USB DAC once and I was not surprised at all to find that a susbsystem (USB) which keeps polling for new and pulled devices, and possibly controls the human I/O (keyboard and mouse), was gonna have problems. (I was also not using a top-of-the-line DAC, but I was not about to become a hardware reviewer so I just decided, "Well, that's nice, dear.") So in a nutshell, your music is not going to slow down so that every last bit gets "on the bus", so to speak, and put through. Some stuff goes overboard. Sometimes it will be audibly noticeable. (Although, this is highly unlikely to manifest on a 16bit/44.1 source). And that's before taking into account network interruptions while streaming vs. a copy of a file locally stored on a local, speedy disk. Maximize throughput. Minimize contention. If your system is chiprping and buzzing and whatnot when no music is playing - the old problem that results in people warning you to not rely on vendor-supplied motherboard audio components found on a consumer PC - you've got more basic problems to attend to.
Yep, if one can assure an uninterrupted digital signal to a given DAC, the quality (meaning, bass, treble, depth, i.e., what comes out of the DAC) will be identical, regardless of where that digital signal originates from. Jitter, clicking, pausing, etc., are signs the signal is being interrupted, or corrupted. It helps to use a DAC with asynchronous processing as well (as most audio focused DACs will be, like my Musical Fidelity v90).
Yeah I get that. I much prefer QB all around, but the lack of catalog is a bummer and they don't even begin to suggest how long it will take. I've asked on their FB group page and got no reply. I mean, a couple months? A year? Makes a big diff to me.
I mean - they add stuff every Friday. But, I use it in conjunction with Roon personally. So, any gaps are remediated by my personal rips/files.
Yeah, I bailed out on my trial of Qobuz after 2 or 3 weeks, before it could roll over to a paid sub. I liked the sound and interface, and I could put up with the tech bugs while they were being ironed out (though they were annoying and, considering that this is hardly a start up company, a little surprising), but I couldn't justify spending the money (never mind the premium price over Tidal HiFi), given the vast amount of music that I wanted to listen to that was not available on the platform. I'm talking about tons and tons of contemporary jazz: stuff on the Hat Art labels, the Firehouse 12 label, the Clean Feed label, the Greenleaf label, from figures like Anthony Braxton, Myra Melford, Dave Douglas, Mary Halvorson, Tyshawn Sorey. These might not be household names, but they're major figures in the world of contemporary jazz and the material IS available on the competing platforms. I was really looking forward to replacing Tidal Hifi with Qobuz, but for now it's not worth it to me, and it wasn't even a difficult decision to drop it. When and if the library grows, I'll maybe revisit the service. But first and foremost for any streaming service -- it's gotta have the music I want to hear!
I keep seeing this.. they are the same price Tidal HiFi is $20. Qobuz 16/44.1 is $20. Does Tidal even offer lossless 24/96? Edit: Qobuz, the Top tier is up to 24/196 (if available) - which is $25 USD Tidal: Doesn't say bitdepth - only MQA "Master" From Roon forums " 25% of the MQA albums on Tidal are 44k and 32% are less 48k or less…aka not really hi-rez"
Like you note, top tier for Qobuz with access to its hi-res library -- $25; top tier for Tidal -- $20, but the hi-res is lossy MQA. The reason though to subscribe to Qobuz is improved audio quality, so top tier is the difference maker but it comes at a 25% premium over the costs of Tidal 16/44.1 and I'm not sure what percentage of titles are available at hi res on the platform, but it's not that high, still, for some of the classical and ECM jazz I might subscribe. However at any price I won't be a Qobuz subscriber today because the the available music library is inadequate for me compared to the other services.
Any opinions on how deep the Qobuz library is for Classic Rock, Classic Jazz, and Classical (the "classic" triumvirate!)? I've had it a little over a week, and it seems OK, especially if you just consider 16/44.1khz tracks.
Well I went to listen to The Waterboys "Fisherman's Blues" and QB did not have any of their best albums. Too many missing from so many great albeit esoteric artists. I cancelled QB sad to say. Gonna stick with Tidal for now. At the end of the day music choice wins out over sound for me as far as streaming goes. BTW just watched this video. It's very good...
Qobuz classical music lover’s best friend. New releases, updates, hi res, play lists, and discounted purchases of the hi res.
Currently too many holes in direct comparison between Tidal & Qobuz for me to consider a full switch to Qobuz at this time, beta status notwithstanding. I do enjoy any and all genres, and, in my particular case, after spending a slightly unreasonable amount of time doing direct comparisons, I've personally found Qobuz to come up well short in the library department.
I contacted my Qobuz contact to see if they can address this issue, since it seems to be the most common one. But again, there are going to be some growing pains expected. We have an American managing launch and startup in the US, so I let him know about your complaints. Rest assured, it will be addressed. In the meantime, enjoy your beta tests/trials. I pay for the Studio service, I love it. I pefer its clean looking/feeling UI to Tidal, for some reason it feels way less crowded to me. I can easily navigate around for something. With Tidal, I always felt like there were obstacles to get to where I wanted to go. Even with search. My opinion and experience.
