Tidal VS. Qobuz (US)

I use tidal over a year or so and last week started use Qobuz.
I like the youth spirit Tidal offers.
From the famous artists among the popular genres I could not find a difference in content.
From comments, it seems Qobuz library has less Jazz and Alternative..which I like.

I'm in the hunt for DAC and MQA restricts my options in the 1000$ area.
Leaning towards Qobuz + used 24/192 DAC instead of purchasing some entry level MQA-DAC.

Maybe in a year or two there will be more options for MQA-DAC, used and new.

 

I received my invite to try Qobuz yesterday. I also currently have a Tidal subscription.
I listen to music at work using headphones and my smartphone (LG V30) over a mobile network (T-Mobile). So far I have noticed that I have no problems streaming hi-res (24/96) using the Qobuz app. I do have some issues streaming Masters files using the Tidal app occasionally.
I thought that an MQA file was supposed to be smaller than a 24/96 hi-res file? What gives?!?

 

Currently with Tidal, but did receive the beta testing email yesterday.

I've been frustrated by the MQA fiasco: is it unfolded, half-folded, fully unfolded? I also don't understand why one really needs a DAC at all: with increases in WiFi coverage and speeds (wait until 5G) can't we just stream hi-rez files directly from a computer? I was all for MQA as a easy to use hi-rez alternative, but that's not quite how it turned out.

Also, I don't really understand what Roon brings to the picture: I suppose it just aggregates all of your digital media in one place? That's a lot of extra subscription for something that's not very important to me. Am I missing something here? Too bad Plex cloud support bit the dust: it worked pretty well.

I will probably try out Qobuz this weekend. I like Tidal, but definitely am interested in jumping through fewer hoops to get sound quality that is higher than CD quality.

 

Everyone needs a DAC to hear sound from digital music files. Your phone, your computer, have DACs built in. People buy external DACs to get better hardware than those built in implementation (typically with lower noise, better DAC chips, better power filtering, better analog sections, etc.).

 

The noise floor of a normal CD is as loud as a butterfly flapping its wings, lower is the sound of atoms colliding. I don't think either matters for any genre, it's more than enough.

On topic, I chose neither. When I stream I use Spotify and it's good enough. As presented above, I don't see a need for "hi-res" music, and transparency is definitely achieved at 320kbs Ogg which is what the paid Spotify uses. My issue is that catalogs are missing albums, and singles with b-sides are almost always omitted. But I have 100gb of music on my local drive to fill in the gaps.

 

try it - you will definitely enjoy it. I do, and am.

Its your money man. Have you ever listened to the null test of the individual Spotify files compared to hi-res PCM, and what you're losing from those? It is audible. Tidals good, MQA not so much. I don't want to support JayZ's sham anymore. I feel like the whole service revolves around advertising him, his buddies, and wife. No thanks.

 

Have you ever done a true ABX 320kbs mp3 against 24/96 lossless hi-res digital? I’m not trying to be snarky, but it seems no one on this forum has.

If 24/96 gives you “better sound” then I guess it’s worth it for you. For me, lossless CD quality is my goal, but I couldn’t ABX 320kbs AAC to the source file.

I’d link that Xiph.org article but it’s been on here a bunch and doesn’t seem to change anyone’s minds.

 

Yes, I have. I have also done double blind testing. Have you?

A lot of people cannot hear a difference, don't feel bad.

Let me know when you do, I'm always open to new ideas.

This is my professional assessment of Qobuz:

While to some it may lack the library of other streaming services, it relies on quality versus quantity.
Think of it as the Analogue Productions (Vinyl, SACD) of streaming. It is a curated selection, that if the quality of the album and mastering is subpar, they don't pursue it in Hi-Res.

There are 3 different tiers in case you or anyone wants to investigate further.
Qobuz – Music is Back – Music downloads and streaming

I have found pretty much everything (aside from some obscure special edition masterings) in my collection located on Qobuz's database. Where, I don't feel the need to constantly have my files with me at all times.

I use Qobuz at work, then it seamlessly integrates into my home hi-fi, with Roon (and without). I am getting way more use out of this functionality than say - Spotify or Google Music (which I used to subscribe to - I used to be on the road a lot). I suggest the HiFi (Studio) tier, but if you're not convinced, they have a 320 kbps tier, as well. The Sublime tier includes discounted HD downloads, which is great considering if you have to own some titles as well. All in one package, which is great.

Again, if you don't have something on there you would like to see them include;, I would shoot them an email and make a suggestion. They're very receptive.

Finally, no, I'm not paid by them to say this.

 

Out of curiosity, how did you do? (I have no further point to make, I'm just interested.)

 

I am currently running both, but common sense won't let me do that long term. I will wait until Q rolls out the full library; they say it is in the works to happen soon. Sound Quality? Q has a slight edge, with a few more higher-than-CD-quality files than T. If that trend continues, I will likely drop T for Q.

A word about MQA through Tidal. I have been living with it, first unfold through my Roon Nucleus, for several months. To me, there is a slight, but real, digital artifact in the playback that creeps into my speakers. I don't care for it, much.

The 24/96 on the same albums from Q, IMO, is better than the MQA from T.

As I say, just the opinion that comes through my 72 year old ears.

 

Curated my ass, nothing like AP. I have plenty of -sub-par mastering's I've purchased from them over the years. They get what everyone else gets...
The only thing I've seen them do over the years is drop the sample rate say from 192 to 96 if no info is above 48. Saves them storage, which is smart. But as far as mastering's go it's the same crap.

 

David Solomon of Qobuz has started a FB page called StreamingMusicMatters, FYI.

 

Ah, a real public beta? No invites required?

I currently sub to both Tidal and Spotify, with Spotify as "backup" because

1) the demise of Tidal has been imminent for about three years now, and
2) Tidal has gaps.

I do not plan to carry through this year that way, however.

Does the Qobuz client software include EQ?

 

This is what you can do currently. So, if you have JRiver you can run it through their DSP, EQ, etc. So, internally, no. Externally, yes.

I will see if I can hunt down both the ABX results, once I'm not at work for you.
The double blind - I did above 75% if I remember off the top, which is better than average. I wasn't the only one involved within my circle. I will try to find the actual paper results if you're interested.

 

Would you be willing to post the results of your ABX test? Once again, not being snarky, but if your results show you can tell the difference beyond a guess I’d like to see them.

And yes I have, my results for lossless vs 320 AAC, and then for 24/96 vs 16/44 lossless come out to be around 50%, basically a guess. So I can’t tell the difference. I don’t feel bad about that though, it means the lossy compression is doing its job, and that 16/44 really Does cover the spectrum of hunan hearing.

 

Ah, but the little blue light assures you it's NOT bit-perfect. MQA by design is anything but bit-perfect.

 

No, I certainly don't need the report. A 75% score means correctly distinguishing 3 out of 4 times?

 

Tidal also can work this way, so I'm used to the chain one has to create, but still wish for more simplicity. TY.

(O/T: I find huge parts of JRiver simply incomprehensible and frustrating. And also a bit of a PITA. But this capability may prove worth the license.)

 

I've never come across anything unique (where a worldwide release was done)

 

Here's what to look for, taken from
ABX/Shootout audio testing tool

• For ABX testing, the "Confidence" value is the percentage chance that your results are better than chance. E.g. if you got a 95% accuracy result but the Confidence value is 60%, that means that the accuracy result is not statistically significant. A common standard is to require 95% or better confidence in a result before considering it meaningful. For example, choosing 12 out of 16 correctly results in an accuracy of 75% with a a confidence of 96% -- this is a much more meaningful result, implying strongly that you can identify 75% correctly and that that result is not due to chance.
• Taking sets of tests over and over for the same pair of files until you get the result you are looking for renders your results meaningless (after all, even a 95% confidence result is wrong 5% of the time, so if you run sets of trials 20 times, guessing completely at random, one of them will give you that impressive-seeming result.) You should be able to reliably repeat a result for it to count. Pulling up a couple files and getting a 12 out of 15 doesn't mean much unless you can repeat it. Try doing multiple tests over several days (emphasis theirs)

 

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

Most people read it and say, "Why don't we just trust our ears?", and then don't back it up with ABX results.

 

Bro - it was for fun, to see if in fact we could hear a difference. We made a conscious decision to use the exact same mastering, no dither, no noise shaping. PCM only. It wasn't intended to be a scientific white paper. YMMV.

But, alas I will see if I can hunt down the results. Or whatever, don't take my word for it. All the same to me.

 

I do trust my ears, but they can also mislead me. Hence, why double blind was used. Anyway, as your were. Try the service, if you don't like it, don't use it just like anything. But this isn't a power cable we're talking about.

 

Quick and obvious question (he naively says):

The major difference between hearing hi-res music on Tidal and hi-res music on Qobuz is that Qobuz streams the hi-res file right away while Tidal requires hardware to unpack the MQA format. Additionally, Qobuz will stream hi-res files via mobile devices vs. Tidal will not.

If that's the case, I think my decision is made.

Why do you suppose the following article posits that "Tidal’s hi-res streams sound better"?

Qobuz review | What Hi-Fi?

 

Not entirely. Tidal will do a software unfold of the MQA file on the server side, which will get you high res, though not necessarily the highest res -- the first unfold can be done by a software unfold by Tidal, the second would have to be done at the playback end, but with Tidal doing the first unfold you should be able to get resolution higher than 16/44.1 even without having MQA decoder hardware on the playback end. However, MQA is a lossy compression scheme. So what you're getting with Qobuz is lossless FLAC in high res vs. lossy MQA with Tidal. Also, I think Tidal now supports the MQA playback on all mobile platforms.

I haven't do the quick A/B flip back and forth between Qobuz and Tidal yet streaming the titles, but my initial impression from admittedly faulty auditory memory, thinking about my recent playback over the same DAC and system of the new Joe Lovano album from Tidal with a Tidal MQA first unfold and comparing it to the lossless Qobuz hi res version, was that the Qobuz titles had better detail, depth of imaging, and even richer timbres.