Qobuz

[geofos63]

I really like the sound quality of Qobuz over Tidal, but I can't deal with the buggy PC app. In my library, I arbitrarily get double entries of albums, it's prone to freezing at times, etc. I'd be a huge fan of the service if not for that issue.

 

[Fatburger]

One HUGE difference is that there's no way to stream Tidal to my Marantz AV8805 in high res without some intermediate piece of equipment. Airplay 2 cuts off at CD quality. I can stream Qobuz at full resolution using a downloadable UPnP server on my Mac laptop and then use the Linn Kazoo client on my iPad (or the Mac - I do see some pause between tracks if I run Kazoo and server on the Mac which makes sense. I see no pause running Kazoo on the iPad. The Kazoo seems quite good enough for me. I looked into Roon and that's an outrageous price for what it does. Full directions for doing what I'm doing are here . I don't hear any significant difference between Tidal and Qobuz, by the way. I'm not always entirely sure that I hear the difference between high rez and CD quality. I hear much more difference with DSD, but I don't know of anybody streaming that. Let me know if you do.

 

[hybridauth_Facebook_10153826024370649]

I ran Qobuz and Tidal subscriptions simultaneously for almost 6 months, now I'm with Qobuz solely. Tried Amazon HD too, but it's lack of Roon integration was a deal-breaker for me in the end. Never liked the Tidal Master format, Qobuz files always sounded better. MQA is not "Master Quality" at all - it's a proprietary, DRM, perceptual "lossy" format. A solution to a non-existent problem and a way for big businesses to get rich at the expense of the artist and consumer.

 

[flouncer]

I still hop between them all, but I find navigating Amazon HD a little frustrating, Tidal seems to suffer from rap pollution, and Quobuz with its keep it simple approach the most usable and suitable for me.

Pity Amazon HD wasnt available on usb pro, or other similar apps, OSs.

 

[jimmyvail]

Sorry but Tidal does not sound better than Qobuz, particularly when playing 24/96 or 24/192 Qobuz files.

 

[kdbur]

I used Qobuz for a few years and love the sound and the layout of the app but being a techno lover, there were too many gaps to stay on, after Amazon HD became available.

 

[kdbur]

I still hop between them all, but I find navigating Amazon HD a little frustrating, Tidal seems to suffer from rap pollution, and Quobuz with its keep it simple approach the most usable and suitable for me.

Pity Amazon HD wasnt available on usb pro, or other similar apps, OSs.

Yep, I agree with all your points but the genre's of what I listen to most, made me forgo the benefits of qobuz, in the end.............. and am kinda reasonable happy with Amazon HD.

 

[James Robinson]

I have taken out a trial Tidal subscription a number of times (after each time What Hifi gives it a 5*review) - every time I have cancelled and uninstalled the application after a day or so. I mainly listen to classical music, and Tidal's classical offering (last time I signed up) was very limited in scope and search results were frustrating.

Qobuz, by contrast, presents both classical and pop music in a clear way - perhaps generally Qobuz favours albums over "tracks", which suits the way I listen (and anybody who wants to listen to classical). New releases are easy to browse on Qobuz, distinguished (fairly successfully) by genre. I have never had any complaints about the sound, and its HiRes subscription seems excellent value to me.

To my mind Qobuz is the streaming service of choice for those who want to listen to classical or (from what others say) jazz. Perhaps Tidal may be better for pop music, but What Hifi's reviews should make this distinction very clear.

 

[nopiano]

To my mind Qobuz is the streaming service of choice for those who want to listen to classical or (from what others say) jazz. Perhaps Tidal may be better for pop music, but What Hifi's reviews should make this distinction very clear.

I’d definitely second this. I tried Tidal for the second time a few months ago, and it was ok, but it was relief to return to Qobuz. I mainly listen to Classical, with some jazz and pop/rock. Furthermore the annual £149.99 for high resolution seems great value to me.

 

[petergabriel]

And once again a review states that one service sounds better than another. Makes no sense, as they are both using Flac, so how come one supposedly sounds better than the other? Most streamers will cache the flac files before they are played, so can't have anything to do with how the file is delivered. And how sure are WH that they are listening to the exact same masters? Has anyone compared the size of each platforms flacs, to see if the better sounding ones are less compressed, putting less strain on the player when unpacking?

 

[Henri]

In Australia Tidal has been around for a while, Qobuz less than a month at time of writing this. I had been using Deezer at CD quality for quite a while and was happy enough at the time but thought I'd try Tidal because of all the up talk around it (note: Amazon HD is NOT yet available to Australian subscribers).
My system was then comprised of an Emotiva XSP -1 Gen 2 preamp, out to 2 x Emotiva XPA 100 monoblocks (via laptop into NAD DAC) and then to a pair of GoldenEar Triton Ones.
So, I tried a 3 month free trial of Tidal - at the end = no thanks. Insipid , grainy bass at times, music without a sense of envolvement. Sure, can be detailed and articulate (MQA of no interest to me - tried the 1st unfold via my Dragonfly Cobalt but, yea - na). Even via my Android phone bluetoothed to my car amp I consistantly found Tidal last behinf Deezer (even humble ol' Spotify at times) - there was just magic 'something' lacking all around.
Two months ago I sold the Emotiva gear and dropped in a new NAD M33 to simplify my room and life. Streaming all happening now via the BlueOS app - fantastic! When Qobuz was dropped on the Aussie scene last month I immediately signed for a 1 month trial - have about a week to go at time of writing.
Pros:
- Amazing sound quality - clean, detailed with bass heft and impact (of course all dependent on source material as always). I listen to Jazz, Blues, Ambient, trance, other odd/weird electronic music and abstracted sounds, plus some classic rock in small doses when I feel nostalgic.
- Great layout on Windows app, Android app - I find them very easy to use and navigate (your mileage may vary here)BlueOS does it's own thing and could be better here but I digress...
- Listing of bit rate is a big plus, as is the ability to view and change DAC source with WASAPI coverage etc
- PDF Booklets plus commentary (when available)
- Reasonable price for a yearly sub which i intend to do next week
- Qobuz does NOT nag me with Hip Hop and Rap screens and/or similar recommendations at all which Tidal ALWAYS did, regardless of my listening history.
- Multiple versions of an album are NOT a problem in my personal view. These 'multies' seem to be extended or special anniversary issues. Granted, I think Qobuz could label these with a bit more obviousness in the thumbnail view but nice to see them there anyway.
Cons:
- Catalogue is limited. In Australia this 'may' be a regional licensing issue, and, as a new service I will have to see how it pans out as it can take time for companies to make all their agreements. I intend to keep Deezer as well because of this issue as they fill in all the gaps here. I've long dropped Spotify.
- As others have said, even over 3 weeks I've noticed items disappear and then reappear...what is THAT about?...
Conclusion:
My take on all this is that it (your experience of the final SQ seems to be very dependent on: your system, your region, your musical tastes and personal prefs for app navigation etc.
Regarding the above post questioning how FLAC files can sound different on different services, well, others elsewhere online have suggested that each streaming company somehow injects a 'house' sound in there catalogues- intentionally or unintentionally. Perhaps due to unavoidable differences in their electronics/servers/wires/ancillary equipment (audiophiles tell you this all the time with home gear - why not the same with Tidal or Qubuz central?) Also, we don't know if they are all using the same FLAC files anyway, nor do we really know if any form of remastering/adjusting or whatever is going on (2nd poster mentioning French library files...hmmmmm).

I'm very happy to stick with Qubuz and Deezer for quite a few months an see where it all goes, but Tidal is not getting my money ever again.

 

[Nini des Bois]

Qobuz may be one of the best sounding streaming services out there, but that doesn't mean it is the best option for all.

Qobuz : Read more

Votre article n'est pas à jour : les prix ont baissés et depuis 1 mois ou 2 Qobuz propose une playlist "sélectionné pour vous" qui équivaut aux recommandations par algorithmes de Spotify et autres services de Streaming

 

[Natan90NL]

I know Sonos isn’t considered hifi, but after hearing Qobuz 24bit 48khz lossless on Sonos 5.1 arc ones sub set, damm that’s a big difference compared to Apple Music and Tidal. With true play and “neutral eq” it sounds really good.

Only the catalogue seems to fall short but the music “styles” like recommended, most streamed etc are also nice on Qobuz.

 

[mickylane]

I have spent so much time testing and comparing the sound quality on Tidal and Qobuz recently and I’ve come to the conclusion that it really does come down to personal preference-I am not sure if it is correct to say categorically that “X is better than Y” as there are so many factors at play such as what equipment you are using, what genre you listen to, and ultimately what sounds good to your ears is a very personal thing which is different for everyone. So there is no right or wrong here, just go with whatever sound you personally prefer with your particular equipment.
For me personally I was initially obsessed with the amazing clarity and detail of the Qobuz sound, with every layer of sound being so perfectly clean crisp and clear, with lush timbres, especially on the mids and highs. So I had Qobuz as my front runner initially.
However, I have now come to the conclusion that for me with my equipment I much prefer the sound of Tidal.
I think one of the main reasons is that Tidal compliments my particular headphones better than Qobuz. As I am using Sennheiser HD800 headphones with Sennheiser HDVD 800 DAC/amp, these headphones already give a very detailed “clinical” sound at the expense of some warmth, bass, and cohesiveness of the music as a whole. So with the Qobuz sound also being similarly very clinical I find it just that little bit too clinical: it’s quite flat, “dull”, too trebly and “middy”, lacking bass, depth, “punch” and cohesiveness overall, which makes the listening experience not as enjoyable for me.
Tidal is more enjoyable for my ears as it sounds more full-bodied, cohesive, richer, well-balanced between lows mids and highs, with more warmth, depth, soul, life and “oomph” (for want of a better word!), whilst still providing a sufficient level of detail and clarity across the different layers of sound.
Even though I find the clarity, detail, and timbre of the mids and trebles superior on Qobuz (perhaps this is what makes it so popular with listeners of classical music in particular?) for me this does not lead to a favourable overall sound when considering the music as a whole. Tidal’s overall sound is “greater than the sum of it’s parts” for me, if you get what I mean.
But again, each to their own- I can completely understand why many people would prefer the Qobuz sound to Tidal, and vice versa. Our ears are all different. And again, that sound will vary depending on what headphones or speakers each individual is using: I am sure that if I tried out various different speakers and headphones / setups I may find Qobuz better in some cases.

 

[Titntin64]

After nearly 6 years with Tidal, I have just switched to Qobuz as it sounds a lot better on my set-up. I have a Sony receiver and headphones that both support hi-res and the sound is just a lot more spacial and detailed than Tidal. I'm also saving £60 a year now that Qobuz is £14.99 after the free month trial. I also tried Amazon music HD as that also has a free trial but that sounded no better than Tidal on my set up so I quickly discounted that option.

The funny thing is I'm sure Tidal used to sound a lot better than it does now and I haven't changed any aspect of my set-up. I note Qobuz mentions compatibility with Sony whereas Tidal doesn't, so maybe they had a falling out.

I agree whole heartedly!
Like almost everyone I've spoken to on hi fi user groups, Roon forums etc, I find Qobuz to be the best quality streams by far. I did use Tidal for a while, but there's no comparison, standard CD's sound much more like the original than the same tidal version. You need to match releases of course, as a decent mastering can make all the difference, but where I can compare the original CD with streams on Qobuz and Tidal, Qobuz is demonstrably better and almost indistinguishable from my own CD, where I find Tidal is not the same and sounds worse.

Unlike the article, I would contend this also applies to the high res tracks where I find a proper flak file which is a bit copy perfect of the source, is miles better than MQA that 'went through the magic box to make it better'. Its difficult to ensure you are always comparing the same master, but trying new releases after a new remaster can often get you comparable tracks
I'm not saying I have not heard good recording from MQA, I have. But when you find two copies of the same master - the original unaltered 24 bit flac file has always sounded better than the MQA format. Not going to open this huge can of worms here, but MQA is lossy and you can hear it.

After a year of keeping both services, I ditched Tidal as I never used it due to poorer sound quality and only played from there if the title were not available on Qobuz, which doesn't happen to me very often. Your millage may vary if like modern rap hip hop etc, as Tidal is very much geared to that output and I don't consume it at all.

Overall, if sound quality is your concern, I would highly recommend you at least audition Qobuz.
I've been a hi-fi man for nearly 50 years now, and a trained audio engineer who helped in the construction and setting up of several London recording studios. Sound is all that important to me and I have no brand loyalties or axes to grind.
If you are reading this and have not tried Qobuz, I'd urge you to do so if the best reproduction of music is important to you. Happy listening!!

 

[Henri]

I agree whole heartedly!

Overall, if sound quality is your concern, I would highly recommend you at least audition Qobuz.
I've been a hi-fi man for nearly 50 years now, and a trained audio engineer who helped in the construction and setting up of several London recording studios. Sound is all that important to me and I have no brand loyalties or axes to grind.
If you are reading this and have not tried Qobuz, I'd urge you to do so if the best reproduction of music is important to you. Happy listening!!

Thanks T64 - I appreciate your perspective.

UPDATE from my last input almost 1 year ago:

After living with Qobuz (and still Deezer) for the last year I have not changed my mind - Tidal's sound is of lesser quality in, 'my' system - your mileage may vary. Again, system is NAD M33 out to GoldenEar Triton Ones. All control done through the bluOs app on Samsung tablet.
As a last test I again ran Tidal as a trial (new email address) for one more time and did many comparisons of many styles of music. Limits are of course:
(1) A slight delay in switching over using the BluOs app but it's pretty minimal and can't be helped
(2) I can never be sure that I'm listening to the same master or version...

However, after many files and styles, running Qobuz I consistently heard better separation, clearer highs, tighter bass and more detail.
Tidal while nice, always sounded slightly more 'dull', less expansive or engaging, while it's bass was often a bit too 'pushed' forward.
Same results with headphones, although sometimes Tidal had more weight and attack 'punch'. My cans are not audiophile grade as I do not do critical listening on headphones, but it was interesting nonetheless.

Pros for Tidal = great 'Tidal Connect' feature which is just so easy to use through the BluOs app. I do wish Qobuz would build something just as good. Have mentioned it but they say it's way down the track...

Cons on Qobuz = in this regard is that with BluOs I have to use their app 'within' BluOs itself (Deezer is like this also). This can sometimes lead to slow loading and seeking, plus the app layout is a bit limited in terms of easy search for your Favorites. BluOs is a bit of a closed ecosystem but I now accept that and just hope for improvements over the years.

BTW - Amazon HD arrived in Australia after my last post and, after a trial (in fact before it ended) I just laughed and deleted it. Sound quality was on a par with Deezer but the app, either Android or Win desktop was terrible, with a limited jazz and electronic catalogue that made Qobuz's look like a veritable galactic library. As for Spotify Hi Fi - I'm still laughing...

Having said all this, I have to say that the vast majority of my listening is from my own ripped FLAC library of many thousands of tracks from ripped CDs or downloads from over the decades. Streaming is secondary to my listening but very important for finding and evaluating before purchasing my own copies.

 

[Praefectus]

In the last 5 months I have tested Deezer, Amazon HD, Apple, Tidal, Spotify and Qobuz.

1. Tidal and every song which have "Master" label is no longer lossless. Even with HiFi trier. MQA is lossy and if you choose to stream CD Quality they will serve you FOLDED MQA coded music anyways. Lossless are tracks without their "Master" label. I don't buy the MQA crap. Author said that Tidal sounds better than Qobuz. It is because his ears has been lied by MQA company. MQA is 'tuned up' lossy codec.
2. Deezer is CD Quality. It's fine when you change your sample late manually to 16bit 44,1 khz. That's all.
3. Amazon's HD Wasapi in Exclusive mode is not working so there's no point of having HiRes if you can't use your DAC to listen with bit-perfect mode. You have to change the sample rate (manually) of your DAC every time you listen different song that have different sample rate.
4. Apple Music, sounds good but their Windows App is a disaster. Outdated crap with very limited options, also their ALAC don't speak to me as it is no longer FLAC (OpenSource).
5. Qobuz - Their golden standard is brilliant CD Quality and LOTS of HiRes music with very good support of Wasapi in Exclusive mode. So DAC is changing its sample rate every time song needs it. I have an impression that Qobuz sounds the best and most premium of all. Their customer support is also brilliant.
6. Spotify - laughable 😉)

 

[fdasdfaaDf]

Amazon's HD Wasapi in Exclusive mode is not working so there's no point of having HiRes if you can't use your DAC to listen with bit-perfect mode. You have to change the sample rate (manually) of your DAC every time you listen different song that have different sample rate.

Can you share a link where a study shows upsampling will actually "degrade" HiRes sound quality if bit perfect wasn't used? I couldn't find it anywhere. I see it similar to upscaling from 1080p video to 4k, 2k to 4k and 4k to 4k. I don't see a degradation, only wasted bandwidth and processing power and that wasted bandwidth only occurs between host and dac.

 

[Natan90NL]

I’m so confused. I always agree and love the what hifi reviews. Many years ago (for me) AKG headphones, Apple products, KEFls50w2 etc etc.

But Tidal? MQA compared to Flac from Qobuz or Apple Music lossless? Don’t we all think Qobuz and Apple Music sounds better? What makes theTidal sound quality so good then? I’m honestly interested.

Despite my confusion, many thanks for all the awesome reviews.

 

[flouncer]

While I prefer Qobuz, I find Tidal better integrated with most of my products which adds a bias to my choice outside of music quality and personal recommendations. 🙁

 

[aleph.cruz]

Qobuz (-Qz-) has meant a definite lot to me — music hasn’t ever felt so real. I don’t know how much may’ve changed since What Hi·Fi’s review, but as of today, Qz is definitely, 100% better than Tidal — this so much as objectively cos, when the records get modified, not by their conceiver for the listener but by whoever for the streaming service something’s bound to go wrong, – like, there’s just a loss of integrity in it, right? Innit? As many have commented already, Qz’s CD quality’s just evidently cleaner, but it’s when you notice that cleanliness that you really catch it. I very much liked the following comment as its terms were aesthetically telling to me:

I have spent so much time testing and comparing the sound quality on Tidal and Qobuz recently and I’ve come to the conclusion that it really does come down to personal preference-I am not sure if it is correct to say categorically that “X is better than Y” as there are so many factors at play such as what equipment you are using, what genre you listen to, and ultimately what sounds good to your ears is a very personal thing which is different for everyone. So there is no right or wrong here, just go with whatever sound you personally prefer with your particular equipment.
For me personally I was initially obsessed with the amazing clarity and detail of the Qobuz sound, with every layer of sound being so perfectly clean crisp and clear, with lush timbres, especially on the mids and highs. So I had Qobuz as my front runner initially.
However, I have now come to the conclusion that for me with my equipment I much prefer the sound of Tidal.
I think one of the main reasons is that Tidal compliments my particular headphones better than Qobuz. As I am using Sennheiser HD800 headphones with Sennheiser HDVD 800 DAC/amp, these headphones already give a very detailed “clinical” sound at the expense of some warmth, bass, and cohesiveness of the music as a whole. So with the Qobuz sound also being similarly very clinical I find it just that little bit too clinical: it’s quite flat, “dull”, too trebly and “middy”, lacking bass, depth, “punch” and cohesiveness overall, which makes the listening experience not as enjoyable for me.
Tidal is more enjoyable for my ears as it sounds more full-bodied, cohesive, richer, well-balanced between lows mids and highs, with more warmth, depth, soul, life and “oomph” (for want of a better word!), whilst still providing a sufficient level of detail and clarity across the different layers of sound.
Even though I find the clarity, detail, and timbre of the mids and trebles superior on Qobuz (perhaps this is what makes it so popular with listeners of classical music in particular?) for me this does not lead to a favourable overall sound when considering the music as a whole. Tidal’s overall sound is “greater than the sum of it’s parts” for me, if you get what I mean.
But again, each to their own- I can completely understand why many people would prefer the Qobuz sound to Tidal, and vice versa. Our ears are all different. And again, that sound will vary depending on what headphones or speakers each individual is using: I am sure that if I tried out various different speakers and headphones / setups I may find Qobuz better in some cases.

Absolutely, yes: I can’t afford a DAC so I just use my Mac’s –which allegedly tops at 32 bits / 96 kHz– and I don’t worry about the amp so that it’s just that and a Sony WH-1000XM5 headset, a rather good headset that really exploits Qz’s richness as described by mickylane above & also exposes Tidal’s faults, — namely the corruption of so many records! The corruption is indeed also as described by mickylane, thus rendering a better record at times — as other people have noted before me. This is, if you’d like to make a test right now, the case with U2’s Invisible, whereas Qz’s supremacy is patent all through Coldplay’s Everyday Life, and even –this should be quite a differential for anyone anyway– through Ye’s Yeezus. But I also enjoy Qz better through a Bose Revolve, and most certainly through some ‘cheap’ wired EarPods. As a matter of fact –this is somewhat terrible–, I don’t think—I really do not think that I’ll ever enjoy music as much as I’m doin’ right now with Qobuz, with any other streaming service (–I’ve tried ’em all–). And this is terrible because I’m finding Qobuz increasingly unreliable, on the software-side of things.

Qz’s iOS & macOS apps are a genuine disgrace. Some days are better than others, and then some days are awful: the apps (specially iOS’s) will (1) skip records from within the play queue, ‘refusing,’ as it were, to play them until they’ve skipped ’em all! (For instance, if you’re gonna play an album, it’ll skip every record before allowing you to play any single one for real — if you interrupt it –from skipping them–, insisting upon playing the album or, say, it’s head record, the app will just start skippin’em again! Its kind of funny actually — if not downright annoying), (2) take comparatively long times, and sometimes really long times loading whatever, certainly due to server-side issues (cos the client’s side works just fine with Tidal, Deezer, etc.), (3) display, out of the blue, enigmatic error prompts declaring that ‘whatever’ couldn't be loaded — then you close and reopen the app and it happens again, so you just wait a minute or so until it is, just as enigmatically as it went off, working back again, (4) just stop playback; and I honestly believe that I were to keep thinking I’d come up with more. And this worries me cos it suggests bad software maintenance — period. It could be some other thing though... I’m in Colombia, which probably matters a lot when it comes down to this. But beware: these crashes, they’ve been reported elsewhere too, and it’s been this last week that they’ve become really much more frequent; think of Twitter’s quality of service fluctuations since Musk’s instalment and you’ll see what I mean.

Then there’s also a few lags in software development. Qz doesn’t offer an EQ — not that it needs it, which is awesome (for headphones, say), but one does enjoy playing with one’s music. Qz doesn’t display any record’s lyrics either, which hurts when you wanna sing somethin’. I don’t think its interface is that handsome either... By which I mean enjoyable.

I think the prices are fair, — really fair. A month here costs a dollar more than a month of Apple’s, so you see what I mean... — & they’d just cost the same if you were to buy the annual subscription, but who would amidst such uncertainty? — Look, I’m listening to some music as I put this together and error #1 just happened. It’s inconvenient, this software...

But music’s never felt so real.

——

A tiny note on something important:

And once again a review states that one service sounds better than another. Makes no sense, as they are both using Flac, so how come one supposedly sounds better than the other? Most streamers will cache the flac files before they are played, so can't have anything to do with how the file is delivered. And how sure are WH that they are listening to the exact same masters? Has anyone compared the size of each platforms flacs, to see if the better sounding ones are less compressed, putting less strain on the player when unpacking?

This is an understandable mistake, because it is on these terms that streaming services are being marketed. You can encode silence as mp3, as FLAC, you know? Flac can be whatever, or rather anything can be (as) FLAC. The really important thing is how the records play to you, for real. ALAC, Master-whatever don’t matter ‘cause it can, it very much can still sound horrendous — sound and all aesthetic matters are mandatorily personal. So the baseline here’s, test it!

 

[sivapu]

I would defo go with Amazon HD, great value and huge selection, but I doesn't cast in CD quality (or above) to my Chromecast Audio so it's Tidal for me!

Definitely do not og with Amazon hd because Geoff Bozos is a PROFANITY DELETED that should have sunk into the ocean together with his completely environment-damaging toxic gas emitting space rocket, but unfortunately he didn't exploit the engineers enought to sabotage the whole thing, so there's only boycott of this company left as a last measure to stop them from achieving total world domination.

 

[Anderlfs]

There are several streaming services available, but all seem to have some shortcoming. It would be interesting for What Hi-Fi to reevaluate the services, since a lot has happened since 2020.

At first I thought that Tidal with MQA was the best, but when I changed the iFi Dac I was using for a Topping E50, I discovered that it was my iFi Dac that didn't perform well with non-MQA audio. So I started using Qobuz. I recently tested Amazon Music Unlimited, but all the potential of that service was useless because Wasapi/Asio was not fully implemented in Windows 11 and with IOs/iPad, although all the way through it showed 44.1kHz, the E50 display showed 192kHz, i.e. upsampling. A pity. I clearly heard sound degradation with IOs/iPad.

Only a few tracks on Qobuz don't sound so good, probably due to the master (as someone mentioned). It would be interesting to enlarge music sample in a possible new retest by what hi-fi. I keep Qobuz, alternating with Tidal once and awhile.

 

[Richard Brand]

"Firstly, there’s the inclusion of high-resolution purchases to download – something that no other streaming service offers".

Really? Try Presto if you are into classical music. Apart from having the most comprehensive catalog of classical silver disks, this British company also offers a streaming service which includes the ability to download at no extra charge.

 

[Lord Tarquin Portly]

A few comments regarding Qobuz from a hifi perspective:

- Qobuz has a terrible quality control, and many of the so-called "masters" that are on the service are actually poor quality digital captures published by the french national library (BNF), from when it had its entire vinyl library digitized by a Belgian company about 5 or 6 years ago. Those BNF titles have been digitized in a a rushed studio, and they sound terrible, even compared to vinyl rips published on Youtube. In practice, the titles released in high resolution are those published by the main music publishers, and they should be roughly be the same for Qobuz and Tidal (or other services, obviously).

- Qobuz is a much more "messy" than Tidal, e.g. Qobuz tends to keep several variations and successive remasters of the same titles, which makes very cumbersome and annoying for the subscribers. In addition, some titles "disappear" of the main library for no particular reason, and sometimes they re-"appear" in the library, so maintaining a collection of playlists can be challenging sometimes.

On the (very) positive side - As far as depth of catalogue goes, Qobuz has (by far) the best classical and jazz catalogue. Having used Qobuz and Tidal for several years (4 and 2 years respectively), I can say that classical music is almost absent from Tidal, whereas Qobuz can really offer a wealth of versions from all major publishers, so exploring a composer or an opus in Qobuz is a real treat for the music lover, student, or musician. For anyone interested in classical music at all, there is simply no equivalent, and the cost of €20 for Hifi (CD quality) or €25 for Sublime (CD+Hi-Res) is a steal if you think about it.

- Qobuz has a much poorer customer support than Tidal, and this can be very frustrating for customers, but it allows for a lot more technical tweaks for the more technology-oriented users

- Smooth integration with Audirvana puts Qobuz on par with Tidal, and it makes it very easy to use with a Kef LS50W system for example, but it really shines in USB or LAN connection, so a sound comparison between Qobuz and Tidal should probably use exactly the same chain of software, cables, speakers, etc. In my experience, Qobuz has superior sound quality in many cases, in particular in classical / baroque / opera, as the files have not been "normalized" or boosted for more customer impact, which I think Tidal does in some cases (so in practice sometimes Tidal sounds 'louder', but not better)

The overall quality of the high resolution masters varies considerably from one title to another, and there is simply no "tracking" of the original source of the files made available. Some files are made available by the publishers with the original bitrate of the latest known remaster (sometimes with the watermarking included), in other cases the publishers have resampled the files, and sometimes it seems that Qobuz have resampled the files themselves (e.g. some files are available at 24/96 when they are not available at the same bitrate anywhere.

Overall, I think in the future audio enthusiasts will need to look "under the hood" and analyze the actual files made available on platforms such as Qobuz and Tidal, and possibly define some methodology for checking the integrity of the files.

I've been a long time user of Qobuz and have noticed the quality of streamed media improve considerably over time, so much so that where in the past downloaded albums always sounded better than when streamed directly, now they sound almost (but not quite) as good as the downloaded version.

On the subject of quality variation between the same album plaued on Tidal vs Qobuz, it is important to make sure you are listening to the same mastered version from each. Over the years record companies will re release albums from time to time. They don't always go back to the original production master to create the re-release, whether it be vinyl, CD or streaming file, but often use the nearest copy to hand.
I worked in music and mastering studios some years ago in the early days of CD but when vinyl was still a big thing. The majority of studio staff did their best to provide the highest quality masters they could, easy enough with new albums as the mastering engineer was presented with the first generation master mix tapes from the studio. From this they would make a production master' after edjusting levels and processing for vinyl (prevent mistracking, adjusting phase issues in the bass end etc.), production masters are then copied for world distribution.
It wasn't uncommon for us to be supplied with copies of produdtion masters for re-releases rather than the first generation production master and this may be copied again for distrubution. Added to ths, mastering engineers sometimes attempted to 'improve' the sound with further limiting and EQ, not always successfully. Many times we were asked to re-master from old vinyll copies of albums as the original masters were lost, some sounded truely terrible.
To make things more confusing, analogue tape deteriorates over time, so the originanl master may be not the best source any more. I have friends who still work in the mastering world and I'm always hearing horror stories.
The end result now is, you have no idea what the provenance of a hi-res re-master of an old album is.
This isn't a new problem. Back in the eighties, whilst working at a well known mastering and recording studio I bought a re-release of The Velvet Underground's' Andy Warhol Bannana album and played it in the disk cutting room. side 2 was horribly muffled with nothing above 4khz at all, besides which the left and right channels seemed reversed on side 2. It was pretty obvious to us who worked with analogue tape that whoever cut the disk had put the tape on inside out (oxide away from the play head) for side 2 and hadn't bothered about the way it sounded. It took a year to get a properly cut version.
The moral is, you have to listen around to get a decent master of an old album. In the review it was said the Billie Jean sounded better on Tidal, a quick listen to Billie Jean from the various verions of the Thriller album on Qobuz showed massive differences between them. The Thriller25 and Thriller40 album releases are much louder and compressed compressed compared to the standard Thriller version (you cn hear the compression 'pumping' on the drum intro), could this be why there is a percieved difference between the two streaming services? I don't have Tidal so can't check.
P.S. Classical and to some extent Jazz albums always fared better when . re-released, firstly because they weren't volume releases so not as many master copies were made, secondly they weren't usually processed during mastering, i.e. no EQ or compression added, so usually were re cut from the original master. At least until 'Digital Remastering' became a cash cow.


I absolutely agree that the customer support is very poor with Qobuz. I've had to complain about being charged twice when I was given subscription renewal as a gift and was also direct debited, I had to argue to get a refund, given grudgingly.
Another example being their new downloader app which has had many problems since its introduction. The new downloader replaced a less elegant but very functional system of downloading purchases in one file (known as a .tar file or tarball), it supported multiple formats including .wav and worked well, it suited me as I'm a Linux user and .tar files are native Linux, though they are well supported by all main OS's. The new downloader won't work at all on Linux and I haven't been able to download purchases other than one track at a tine for over 18 months despite many 'jam tomorrow' promises. The Qobuz forum is full of angry Linux users asking when it will be fixed.

Sorry for the rather verbose post, hope someone will find it slightly interesting.