Qobuz vs Tidal

insider9

Well-known member
I've been subscribed to Tidal HiFi on a trial basis for about 3 weeks. Overall experience is mostly positive. Still prefer Spotify's UI but Tidal is decent to use and sound quality is superior.

I've yet to come across issues with library size. The truth is with that much content if something is not available you simply listen to something else. If it's a performer I like I'd buy a CD anyway.

I've even managed to get it to play gapless on my Yamaha. Happy to share if anyone is interested.

Yamaha WXC-50 provides native support for Qobuz and I've yet to try it. The trial is only 15 days and. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to in the next few weeks to listen. Could anyone share experiences of Qobuz? I'm mostly interested in streaming and not the store. Thanks
 

insider9

Well-known member
Paulq said:
My experience of it is mixed really - I find the integration into Linn Kazoo a bit hit and miss really and the library isn't as extensive as either Tidal or Spotify for the stuff I listen to. However if you are a classical fan it's worth a look.
Thanks Paulq! I'm not into classical that much yet to need a big library. Jazz would be of more interest to me. I'm going to keep a low res streaming service irrespectively for discovery/variety. I might keep Spotify or utilise Apple Music that I can get free for 6 months.
 

Barbapapa

Well-known member
Feb 13, 2016
3
0
18,520
Visit site
I've got Qobuz Sublime and Tidal. My experiences mirror those of PaulQ. The classical library of Qobuz is more extensive than that of Tidal; I also find it easier to navigate, but that could be just me. Furthermore Qobuz Sublime provides a sizeable price reduction for hi-res as well as CD quality FLAC, which I've used quite a lot and helps to build your own library.

Tidal, on the other hand, appears to have more popular music (in the broad sense) as far as I can tell. As my emphasis in listening is on classical, I find it hard to give definite impressions for this area. Furthermore, it is not completely one-sided. When looking for modern artists I've often found that one or the other may have more (and different) albums available, but it is not always Tidal that has more.

Just as an example: Liro Rantala: Qobuz has 7 albums, while Tidal lists 5 albums (and several 'appears on'). Qobuz has How long is now?, Jazz at Berlin Philharmonic, Lost heroes, My history of jazz, My working class hero, Anyone with a Heart, Kuusisto. Tidal has Lost heroes, My history of jazz, My working class hero, Piano concerto, Risto Rappaaja. Hence each has some albums the other does not have. I've noted this quite often when looking for specific artists.

I'm not sure about the depth of the catalogue for jazz, as I don't listen very much to jazz and wouldn't know what to look for. I could have a brief look for some artists/albums if you have a few you'd be interested in.

As far as quality goes, I've never noticed any difference. I also believe that there shouldn't be a difference as it's all just bits (except for the alleged 'watermarking').

Given that I listen mostly to classical, Qobuz is my primary source of streaming. I've kept Tidal because sometimes it has an album I like which Qobuz doesn't have (often in popular music) and because I am interested in MQA.
 
Hi insider, I can only echo the replies above as I'm too mainly interested in 'classical' music. I've had Qobuz sublime for about 18 months, after a few months seing how it went. When the full year came up for renewal before Christmas I tried Tidal, but was suprised to find it more costly (had I continued) and harder to find my preferences. Cannot say I could report any meaningful difference in SQ.

Then I found an offer of another month free on Qobuz, and am now signed up again. Good to return to, from my perspective. I've always found various jazz and pop tracks i needed out of curiosity or for others, but would suggest trying out for your favoured artists etc. I also like the occasional French slant, as to me it is attractively quirky, but I can see how some might find it irritating.

I've only downloaded one hires album, but that worked well. I mainly use eclasssical as they charge per minute not per 'song'.
 

insider9

Well-known member
Looks like the obvious way to decide would be to take up a free trial. After all, as long as I can spend good few hours with it, it should give me good enough understanding what it's like. If that's not enough I can always continue for a month the cost isn't prohibitive :)

I'll report back once I've had some time with it. Thanks, once again.
 

Paulq

Well-known member
Dec 2, 2007
333
13
18,895
Visit site
insider9 said:
I've been subscribed to Tidal HiFi on a trial basis for about 3 weeks. Overall experience is mostly positive. Still prefer Spotify's UI but Tidal is decent to use and sound quality is superior.

I've yet to come across issues with library size. The truth is with that much content if something is not available you simply listen to something else. If it's a performer I like I'd buy a CD anyway.

I've even managed to get it to play gapless on my Yamaha. Happy to share if anyone is interested.

Yamaha WXC-50 provides native support for Qobuz and I've yet to try it. The trial is only 15 days and. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to in the next few weeks to listen. Could anyone share experiences of Qobuz? I'm mostly interested in streaming and not the store. Thanks
I have Qobuz sublime, principally to take advantage of reduced prices for Hi-Res downloads that they sometimes have. My experience of it is mixed really - I find the integration into Linn Kazoo a bit hit and miss and the library isn't as extensive as either Tidal or Spotify for the stuff I listen to. However if you are a classical fan it's worth a look.
 

Paulq

Well-known member
Dec 2, 2007
333
13
18,895
Visit site
I'd like to ask a question about Tidal Hi-Fi - the blurb states that it streams in 'Lossless High Fidelity Sound' - does anyone know what codec this service streams in and also what bitrate (i.e. is it Hi Res FLAC or CD quality)?

I am actually not sure what rate Qobuz uses for streaming or indeed what bitrate.
 

insider9

Well-known member
Paulq said:
I'd like to ask a question about Tidal Hi-Fi - the blurb states that it streams in 'Lossless High Fidelity Sound' - does anyone know what codec this service streams in and also what bitrate (i.e. is it Hi Res FLAC or CD quality)?

I am actually not sure what rate Qobuz uses for streaming or indeed what bitrate.  
I believe Tidal Hifi is FLAC definitely 16/44.1 which is CD quality. They've announced support for MQA about 3 weeks ago. There's some 400 albums so far via Masters section. Depending on an album these usually are 24/192 but to appreciate full benefit of MQA you'll need an MQA-enabled DAC. Non MQA DACs will still play these files and treat them as FLAC but won't give full "resolution".
 

Paulq

Well-known member
Dec 2, 2007
333
13
18,895
Visit site
Thanks both for the clarification. I am curious about MQA and (I hope) it appears it's finally beginning to gain some traction in the market if only to see whether it's as good as claimed and whether it's emergence as the next big thing actually materialises. There's a well informed post on Linn forums that suggests it may not be the golden agg after all.....but that's just opinion.

I'm equally disappointed that I don't think the current incarnation of Linn streamers doesn't support it though of course a firmware update 'may' remedy this.
 

manicm

Well-known member
If I'm correct MQA wants to be decoded in the DAC, and Linn's current Exakt topology precludes it.

MQA was about to certify another Chinese maker too, but I think their DAC fed digitally into another source component/streamer and thus MQA couldn't certify.

After reading a bit more it appears that MQA is significantly complex.

Naim have stated they can enable it via firmware in the new Uniti series but they're reluctant too as it may not meet their standards of coding efficiency, which may affect their playback.

In general it seems that MQA dictates fairly rigidly to DAC design, and not many are willing to go onboard. There is also the question of royalties but MQA have stated they would be nominal.

And apparently MQA is now an independent company, not clear if still owned by Meridian.
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
1
18,890
Visit site
MQA is definitely one to watch. I've been listening to a number of MQA albums over the last week or so (mostly ones I know), and there's definitely something about it that is much more pleasing to the ear - at normal levels there seems none of the harshness that can plague digital, and at least using the DAC in the Bluesound, sounds like a three dimensional soundstage (free of the speakers).

The only album I've heard so far I'm not sure about is Red Hot Chili Peppers' BloodSugarSexMagik, which far more listenable than the CD, and sounds more like an album should sound, but for me, I love the raw sound of the original CD, and that's what I'm used to. I'm going to have a hard time converting on that one. But other albums seem to contain more detail, stuff I've never heard before.
 

Andrewjvt

New member
Jun 18, 2014
99
4
0
Visit site
davidf said:
MQA is definitely one to watch. I've been listening to a number of MQA albums over the last week or so (mostly ones I know), and there's definitely something about it that is much more pleasing to the ear - at normal levels there seems none of the harshness that can plague digital, and at least using the DAC in the Bluesound, sounds like a three dimensional soundstage (free of the speakers). 

The only album I've heard so far I'm not sure about is Red Hot Chili Peppers' BloodSugarSexMagik, which far more listenable than the CD, and sounds more like an album should sound, but for me, I love the raw sound of the original CD, and that's what I'm used to. I'm going to have a hard time converting on that one. But other albums seem to contain more detail, stuff I've never heard before. 

BloodSugarSexMagik is one of the better recorded rhcp records imo
 

insider9

Well-known member
davidf said:
The only album I've heard so far I'm not sure about is Red Hot Chili Peppers' BloodSugarSexMagik, which far more listenable than the CD, and sounds more like an album should sound, but for me, I love the raw sound of the original CD, and that's what I'm used to. I'm going to have a hard time converting on that one. But other albums seem to contain more detail, stuff I've never heard before. 
Interesting you should say that. I've noticed a change midway through the album as if suddenly the format changes. Will have to listen again to pick out on what tracks it changes. I don't know, what I should attribute this change to. Most tracks sound great and better than I remember them but some sound far better than others. I no longer have the CD to compare. It could've been recoded like that.
 

insider9

Well-known member
I took out a 15 day free trial. Interesting thing is that without one you can still listen to tracks thought they start in the middle. It is sufficient to assess sound quality which is great.

The Qobuz app looks OK, and I've noticed some good functionality including connect. Sadly to use it on Yamaha MusicCast devices you're left using Yamaha own app which isn't the best.

First gripe and rather major to me is no gapless playback. Whatever I do, I've ticked the option and Internet is fast enough. There is about a half a second gap. It's irrespective whether I use my streamer or mobile on wifi or 4G.

Unless I'm able to rectify this I won't be subscribing however good everything else is . I hope it's just me not able to use it.

Anyone else having no gapless playback on Qobuz?
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
1
18,890
Visit site
Andrewjvt said:
BloodSugarSexMagik is one of the better recorded rhcp records imo
My favourite album of theirs, by one of my favourite producers. There was a documentary on one of the Sky channels years ago as part of a series covering the recording of various classic albums - this was one of them, recorded in an empty Los Angeles mansion that became Rick Rubin's house, formerly owned by Harry Houdini. Very interesting doc. Well is suppose it is if you like the album.
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
1
18,890
Visit site
insider9 said:
davidf said:
The only album I've heard so far I'm not sure about is Red Hot Chili Peppers' BloodSugarSexMagik, which far more listenable than the CD, and sounds more like an album should sound, but for me, I love the raw sound of the original CD, and that's what I'm used to. I'm going to have a hard time converting on that one. But other albums seem to contain more detail, stuff I've never heard before.
Interesting you should say that. I've noticed a change midway through the album as if suddenly the format changes. Will have to listen again to pick out on what tracks it changes. I don't know, what I should attribute this change to. Most tracks sound great and better than I remember them but some sound far better than others. I no longer have the CD to compare. It could've been recoded like that.
To me, the MQA version sounds a bit more like a studio album, whereas the CD sounds more like it was recorded where it was, and is how I would expect it to sound. Maybe the MQA is correct - I'll have to have another few listens.
 

Barbapapa

Well-known member
Feb 13, 2016
3
0
18,520
Visit site
insider9 said:
First gripe and rather major to me is no gapless playback. Whatever I do, I've ticked the option and Internet is fast enough. There is about a half a second gap. It's irrespective whether I use my streamer or mobile on wifi or 4G.

Unless I'm able to rectify this I won't be subscribing however good everything else is . I hope it's just me not able to use it.

Anyone else having no gapless playback on Qobuz?
I just tried Mendelssohn's Violin concerto streaming from Qobuz through Audirvana and I perceive no gap between the movements (which have been written to be played without pause). I'm not sure if this is what is meant with gapless playback.

Possibly gapless playback is not something decided by the streaming service but solely by the playback software/streamer. I haven't yet tested the Bluesound, but according to their website it should by default play back gaplessly.

I should add: the internet speed doesn't factor in with Audirvana as it buffers the track (there is a visible bar showing how far it is with buffering, you can't move forward beyond the buffer). It also (invisibly) buffers the next track in the list.
 

Barbapapa

Well-known member
Feb 13, 2016
3
0
18,520
Visit site
I just tried Pink Floyd, Dark side of the moon (2011 remaster) on my Bluesound Node 2. The first few tracks I listened to flowed into each other without any interruption. Haven't listened to the whole album, but I have no doubt it would be the same for the remaining tracks. This applies to both Qobuz and Tidal (tried the same album in both).
 

insider9

Well-known member
Barbapapa said:
I just tried Pink Floyd, Dark side of the moon (2011 remaster) on my Bluesound Node 2. The first few tracks I listened to flowed into each other without any interruption. Haven't listened to the whole album, but I have no doubt it would be the same for the remaining tracks. This applies to both Qobuz and Tidal (tried the same album in both).
Fantastic, thank you very much!!!
 

insider9

Well-known member
CraigShaw said:
I also have the WXC50 and would like to know how you got gappless Tidal playback. I currently use Bubble Upnp to stream to it.
No probs. I've tried quite a few different methods. Got an ipad and Airplay was not that great to be honest. In the end I used an old Moto G that was laying about as a remote/player. Rooted it and put an app called Allstream I think it was £4.

This lets me use Tidal app and allow for gapless playback. Quite a cheap solution. Although recently I started using streaming Tidal via my PC and Roon.

EDIT
The app can also be used for Airplay
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts