Anyone not switching from Tidal to Qobuz?

[crenca]

Interesting feedback.  My plan was to move away from Tidal to Qobuz because of MQA, though having my wife on the family plan was going to make that difficult.  Now that Qobuz is an MQA streaming partner (even if unofficially), I am not sure what I am going to do when Qobuz comes off beta.  I will certainly subscribe for a few months at least for a compare...

[crenca]

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Qobuz markets themselves as an audiophile service and audible watermarking is antithetic to audiophilia, so Qobuz apparently made a business decision to not taint their library with that stuff.

 

I'm still checking for watermarking... 

 

Given how they showed no backbone to 2L (not even just a tiny, itsy bitsy bit),  I don't see them doing anything at all with the likes of UMG.

 

They market themselves is the operative word here.  I'm with @firedogif Qobuz is not streaming the watermarked albums it's because somebody somewhere made a mistake. 

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Taz777 said:

 

In the version of the Qobuz desktop app that I tested in January of this year, the Qobuz desktop app was using macOS CoreAudio mixer (abstraction audio layer), whereas the Tidal app has direct access to the DAC in exclusive mode / force (device) volume, so it should always sound better when comparing identically encoded songs.

 

I did play back Qobuz and Tidal through Amarra Luxe running on macOS and I couldn't tell if one sounded better than the other.

 

I read a comment on another blog that the latest version(s?) of the macOS do not allow you to bypass the CoreAudio mixer.  This was said by a person who is normally technically competent so I thought there might be some truth in it, at least on some level.  Is it just that macOS does not have an "exclusive" mode or some such (a kind of "bit perfect lite")?

[crenca]

43 minutes ago, Taz777 said:

@crenca It may be the case. What I couldn't configure in Qobuz was direct access and 'force device volume' mode. Here's the Tidal settings that I'm referring to:

 

 

As I understand it, the first two settings are dependant on the OS giving what Windows itself calls "Exclusive Mode" in the sound card/device properties, allowing the end user to check a box that reads "Allow applications to take exclusive control of this device".  This is not the same thing as bypassing the OS altogether with a (usually custom) Asio driver or similar, but it is better than nothing.  

 

Apparently Apple does not offer anything like this half-way solution...

 

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, left channel said:

The question of why there may be no watermarked material on Qobuz is sort of like a Rorshach test: in the absence of information, we're just making stuff up and basing it heavily on our own personalities. But as you say, regardless of the reason, I'll take it!

 

Re 2L, to save you wading through about 15 pages in another thread, here's my understanding:

2L delivered albums to Qobuz in "MQA CD" format, which they also call "MQA16 in WAV 16-44". Those albums play through the Qobuz app at 16/44.1 resolution. The Audirvana app also plays them at 16/44.1, not detecting and decoding them due to the way they are tagged in metadata.

So, it was a surprise to Qobuz management and everyone else when, after Roon integration, Roon began detecting those as MQA albums via a deeper scan, and then decoding them. Learning of this via user forums, the Qobuz folks investigated. After determining that 2L will not offer those albums in Redbook 16/44.1, they asked the label to more clearly tag each track as MQA.

Also, there are no 24-bit Hi-Res tracks from 2L on Qobuz, but 2L management has stated that those will be available on Qobuz for download (not streaming, as I understand it) after a temporary third-party distribution business transition.

 

You left out the detail where Godzilla stomps on all the little Japanese people...wait, nevermind, that was something else...

[crenca]

13 minutes ago, Mazza said:

For a while I had both but dropped Qobuz, for three reasons:

 

1. IMHO, no difference in their SQ so long as you compare like with like services 

 

2. Tidal has a **much** bigger catalogue

 

3. Tidal is about 30% the cost of Tidal (assuming you meant Qobuz)

 

No brainer!

 

#1 makes sense (why would the same file sound different?) as does #2, but I am confused as to #3.  Tidal 16/44 (which includes MQA) & Qobuz 16/44 are priced the same, with Qobuz hi res being $5 more a month (so 25% more)...

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, Mazza said:

 

Hah! Listen to the debates on the differences in SQ on this Forum and you wouldn’t think so! YMMV of course!

 

I pay £10/month for Tidal Masters which I think I got as a special offer at the time it was launched in uk..I think the current cost is £20/month.. at the time it was £30/month for the qobuz hirez service, albeit it has recently been reduced to £25/month.

 

as I said, absolute no-brainer

 

That is a deal for Tidal 16/44!  Here in America we pay $20 for Tidal 16/44 and $20 for Qobuz 16/44, and $25 for Qobuz hi rez