What Hi-Fi Article Says Tidal Hi Rez Sounds Better Than Qobuz

[TubeLover]

I don't truly have a dog in this fight. I have subscribed to Tidal for quite a long time, and generally am happy with the sound quality, although I have no MQA compatible DAC so I am somewhat limited, theoretically. And I'm no MQA fan, understand,  I simply know that without an MQA capable DAC, which I expect I will never own, I can't specifically fully experience the hi rez "master" recordings that Tidal offers processed via MQA.

 

I have heard from quite a number of those here in the forums who are early/semi European adopters of Qobuz about extremely good sound quality, and most state that it is better than Tidal. My long term plan was to seriously consider trying out Qobuz when it is truly  and fully available here in the US, and pending verification that it's library will be roughly equivalent to Tidal for those categories of music that I listen to (very seldom  classical, which I hear is it's strong point). However, this What Hi-Fi article caused me to pause. Is the reputedly excellent Quobuz sound quality true for only their cd quality music offerings, and not the hi rez stuff? Here is the link, with a couple key comments noted below it:e

 

https://www.whathifi.com/us/best-buys/streaming/best-music-streaming-services

 

4) Quobuz

REASONS TO AVOID

Expensive

Tidal's hi-res streams sound better

Library doesn't match some competitors

 

"Sound quality is excellent across the Premium and Hi-Fi tiers, but Studio and Sublime+ can't quite match Tidal Masters for timing and dynamics."

 

 

The thoughts of those of you currently using Qobuz would be appreciated, as the Hi Rez music is extremely important to me

 

 

[Le Concombre Masqué]

(ie) Messiaen's Vingt regards sur l'Enfant Jesus by Jean Rodolphe Kars can be found on Qobuz ; on Tidal or elsewhere ?

 

the ranking vs Tidal boils down to Whathifi being an obvious blatant MQA proponent 

[charlesphoto]

I'm calling BS on this. I never thought the MQA I heard when I was a Tidal subscriber sounded very good. Well, it does if you like your music smoothed out and homogenized that is, but it seemed to often lose a lot of the p.r.a.t. I would say the Qobuz hi-def sound more natural, so my not notice the difference between CD quality and hi-res as much. In fact, next annual due I'll probably switch to CD quality only. I also prefer to not have all of the latest trap/hip hop singles shoved down my throat - Qobuz seems to fit my experience more, even if they are missing a few things (that I might have to go buy - oh the horror!). 

 

It's  also a matter of voting with your $. I prefer not to support MQA as I believe it's a snake oil backdoor to a DRM that would enrich Bob Stuart et al but not the consumer or artists. I also probably won't go to Amazon HD for the same reasons - yes, we already have a Prime sub, but imo Bezos has enough $ already. Seriously, if one has spent what many people have one hifi on here, what's an extra $50-100/year to support an independent music service like Tidal or Qobuz. 

[rando]

@TubeLover at some point constantly switching and needing to learn the ins and outs of a streaming service hampers enjoyment.  The unsettled landscape leads to selling youth and the promise of formative experiences.  Or in the case of those writing about high end audio developments formative...

[exdmd]

I had both Tidal and Qobuz at one time and eventually dropped Tidal for Qobuz. Sound quality of both was fine, definitely better than Amazon Music HD but to my ears Qobuz was slightly better than Tidal, also Qobuz had more of the music I enjoy listening to.

[barrows]

Yeah, just looks like pro MQA propaganda disguised.  I would choose Qobuz if I was in the market for a streaming service strictly based on the capability to stream un-doctored legit hi res...

[crenca]

7 hours ago, barrows said:

Yeah, just looks like pro MQA propaganda disguised.  I would choose Qobuz if I was in the market for a streaming service strictly based on the capability to stream un-doctored legit hi res...

 

This

[TubeLover]

I again state that I am absolutely not, in any way, a supporter of MQA. Many replies I've made in the forums will support that. And that is not,even  remotely, my point here. If What Hi-Fi is an unfortunately biased supporter of MQA I was not aware of it. They might be, please enlighten me, so that I can make the right choices. 

 

I will not, however, agree with those that say Tidal Master MQA offerings did not sound good. For whatever reason, they do, on the systems of mine and my friends, Could it have sounded better, I'm sure, but if you completely denigrate it, I refuse to accept that analysis. 

 

JC

[barrows]

@TubeLover,  I am not suggesting (necessarily) that MQA files sound "bad".  All I am pointing out is that I would rather have unadulterated, real, high resolution files for playback, rather than MQA files which require specific hardware to play them properly, and which lock the lister into a specific digital filter approach (which is what MQA is).  I believe playback choices which effect sound quality should be made by the audiophile, and not by the MQA folks.  I prefer not super leaky and minimum phase filters myself, for best playback sound, so I would not choose MQA.  But if a streaming service just sends legit, un-molested hi res files (as Qobuz does) rather than proprietary formats requiring a specific digital filter (Tidal/MQA), i would choose the service which gives me the choice every time.

[crenca]

9 hours ago, TubeLover said:

I again state that I am absolutely not, in any way, a supporter of MQA. Many replies I've made in the forums will support that. And that is not,even  remotely, my point here. If What Hi-Fi is an unfortunately biased supporter of MQA I was not aware of it. They might be, please enlighten me, so that I can make the right choices. 

 

I will not, however, agree with those that say Tidal Master MQA offerings did not sound good. For whatever reason, they do, on the systems of mine and my friends, Could it have sounded better, I'm sure, but if you completely denigrate it, I refuse to accept that analysis. 

 

JC

 

The thing is "What Hi-Fi" is for several reasons not entirely their fault, a "supporter" of MQA.  What MQA has revealed about the so called "Audiophile Press" is that the vast majority of them are not in fact "press" or "journalists" at all, rather they are simply trade publications.  This means that they don't have the technical competence to properly evaluate MQA, digital, and not a few other things as well. 

 

So an "audio savant" like Bob Stuart comes along and plays/bamboozles them with technobabble, and they repeat it and even report that they hear something in MQA they label "timing and dynamics".  This does not make sense, in that what we know about MQA tells us that when compared to the source file/signal, an MQA encoded file adds a small amount of distortion, while at the same time erasing a small amount of information (MQA is just a SuperMP3).  So how in reality, when comparing apples to apples, would MQA by itself do something that causes them to hear better "timing and dynamics" when all MQA has really done is compress (slightly) and add a bit of distortion (slightly)?  Perhaps they are mistaking the added grain of the distortion as "detail"??

 

Ask yourself @TubeLover, why does this (or any other) trade publication article "cause you pause"?  On the one hand, if you are going to read articles in the Audiophile Trade Publication Machine such as this one and simply add them up together in search of a consensus, well I will save you the trouble:  go out and purchase an MQA DAC and all the MQA music you can get your hands on right now because guess what?  The Audiophile Trade Publication Machine is 99% on board with MQA because that is their job number one and number two they don't have the technical competence to properly evaluate MQA (or anything like it) and what they are hearing - they are being suggested into hearing increased "timing and dynamics"  (tangent:  this is "What Hi-Fi" - they hear increased "timing and dynamics" on almost all their equipment evaluations!).  On the other hand, if your interested in a technically competent and thus truthful evaluation of MQA and whether it is really-truly-better or worse than the original (rather sourced from 16/44 or higher) signal, well then pay attention to what folks who do not work for Bob Stuart and who actually know a thing or two about signal processing have to say...

[TubeLover]

2 hours ago, barrows said:

@TubeLover,  I am not suggesting (necessarily) that MQA files sound "bad".  All I am pointing out is that I would rather have unadulterated, real, high resolution files for playback, rather than MQA files which require specific hardware to play them properly, and which lock the lister into a specific digital filter approach (which is what MQA is).  I believe playback choices which effect sound quality should be made by the audiophile, and not by the MQA folks.  I prefer not super leaky and minimum phase filters myself, for best playback sound, so I would not choose MQA.  But if a streaming service just sends legit, un-molested hi res files (as Qobuz does) rather than proprietary formats requiring a specific digital filter (Tidal/MQA), i would choose the service which gives me the choice every time.

I agree. And even though it somehow managed to get there, my original question was not intended to have anything whatsoever to do with MQA. Only that What Hi-Fi, in it's comparison, stated clearly that insofar as Hi Rez music, they felt that Tidal sounded better than Qobuz. I was hoping that people might simply reply as to whether anyone else had found that to be true, or otherwise.

 

JC

[crenca]

17 minutes ago, TubeLover said:

in it's comparison, stated clearly that insofar as Hi Rez music, they felt that Tidal sounded better than Qobuz. I was hoping that people might simply reply as to whether anyone else had found that to be true, or otherwise.

 

JC

 

This is an aspect of this whole story that has been discussed since the beginning:  When these trade publications (or the individual audiophile) make these "comparisons", what exactly are they comparing?  It turns out that many, if not most, of these comparisons are done with different masters (such that the MQA encoding is sourced from a different master than the original 16/44 and/or "hi res").  This means that most of the  heard differences are attributed to "MQA" or "Hi Res" when in fact they are what's found in the mastering irrespective of the format.

 

We can give you specific examples if you wish.

 

So when What Hi-Fi makes these blanket statements like "Tidal sounds better than Qobuz" it's not worth the digital ink it is printed on, and even though these facts have been discussed ad nauseum these trade publication writers are still ignoring them and making said blanket statements...

[mansr]

Do MQA streams have the UMG watermark? If not, that is likely why they sometimes are found to sound better even when not obviously from a completely different master.

[Jud]

On 9/17/2019 at 10:57 PM, TubeLover said:

I don't truly have a dog in this fight. I have subscribed to Tidal for quite a long time, and generally am happy with the sound quality, although I have no MQA compatible DAC so I am somewhat limited, theoretically. And I'm no MQA fan, understand,  I simply know that without an MQA capable DAC, which I expect I will never own, I can't specifically fully experience the hi rez "master" recordings that Tidal offers processed via MQA.

 

I have heard from quite a number of those here in the forums who are early/semi European adopters of Qobuz about extremely good sound quality, and most state that it is better than Tidal. My long term plan was to seriously consider trying out Qobuz when it is truly  and fully available here in the US, and pending verification that it's library will be roughly equivalent to Tidal for those categories of music that I listen to (very seldom  classical, which I hear is it's strong point). However, this What Hi-Fi article caused me to pause. Is the reputedly excellent Quobuz sound quality true for only their cd quality music offerings, and not the hi rez stuff? Here is the link, with a couple key comments noted below it:e

 

https://www.whathifi.com/us/best-buys/streaming/best-music-streaming-services

 

4) Quobuz

REASONS TO AVOID

Expensive

Tidal's hi-res streams sound better

Library doesn't match some competitors

 

"Sound quality is excellent across the Premium and Hi-Fi tiers, but Studio and Sublime+ can't quite match Tidal Masters for timing and dynamics."

 

 

The thoughts of those of you currently using Qobuz would be appreciated, as the Hi Rez music is extremely important to me

 

I trialed Tidal for a month near the beginning of its MQA offerings.  I liked MQA slightly less than non-MQA where masterings were equivalent. Overall the sound quality was nice but not extraordinary.

 

The very first track I listened to on Qobuz (Redbook) was just jaw-dropping. (Cassandra Wilson, don't recall the specific track.) I've had a terrific experience since. I don't notice a SQ difference between Qobuz and local files.

 

I had no problem dropping Tidal when the trial was up (in fact I think I dropped it well prior to the end of the trial). No way I'm dropping Qobuz.

 

Of course this is all completely subjective.  I have no idea whether there is any reason at all why Tidal files would sound different than Qobuz files. I just have had a subjectively better experience with Qobuz.

[gdpr]

4 hours ago, TubeLover said:

I agree. And even though it somehow managed to get there, my original question was not intended to have anything whatsoever to do with MQA. Only that What Hi-Fi, in it's comparison, stated clearly that insofar as Hi Rez music, they felt that Tidal sounded better than Qobuz. I was hoping that people might simply reply as to whether anyone else had found that to be true, or otherwise.

 

JC

I can only confirm what Jud has just responded.

I have no experience with Tidal, but I do listen a lot to Qobuz. Streamed tracks at CD quality are as good local ripped cd tracks.

But why do you not try for yourself for 1 month? 

Your ears, your music!

Dirk

[AudioDoctor]

Like @Jud I also immediately noticed a jump in quality of the music streaming from Qobuz versus TIDAL. I cancelled my TIDAL subscription immediately, and only subscribed again because it has music my wife likes that isn't on Qobuz. The difference is not small IMO.

[TubeLover]

Thanks Jud, ddetaey, and Doc, 

 

You have provided me with exactly the information that I hoped to see in responses when I asked the original question. 

 

JC

[charlesphoto]

If I'm critically listening I can easily tell the difference between local files and Qobuz, but it's only like maybe a 5-10% difference if I was to quantify it. More so since I put an SSD in the NUC vs an external USB HD. But one has to know what they're listening for to really tell the difference. 

[crenca]

4 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

If I'm critically listening I can easily tell the difference between local files and Qobuz, but it's only like maybe a 5-10% difference if I was to quantify it...

 

What does one listen for?  What is the "sound" of a digital file when transmitted over the internet as opposed to its sound when it has been sitting on your local HD for a while?

 

4 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

More so since I put an SSD in the NUC vs an external USB HD. But one has to know what they're listening for to really tell the difference. 

 

What is this difference?  Does the SSD "in the NUC" and external USB HD use a different technology of some sort, such that it effects the "sound" of the digital file?  How does this technology work?

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, crenca said:

What does one listen for?  What is the "sound" of a digital file when transmitted over the internet as opposed to its sound when it has been sitting on your local HD for a while?

Transmission over the internet at high speed agitates the bits and makes them jittery. After downloading a file, it needs to settle for a while before sounding its best.

[Ralf11]

14 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

What is the "sound" of a digital file when transmitted over the internet as opposed to its sound when it has been sitting on your local HD for a while?

 

 

 

[Jud]

https://xkcd.com/386/

[AudioDoctor]

I don't know what causes the differences, but in order of best to worst this is mine.

 

1) Local Files, always sound the best

 

2) Qobuz

 

3) TIDAL

 

4) all lossy files no matter what or where their source.

[Abtr]

When I initially got into computer audio and streaming, CD (s/pdif) sounded better than anything streamed over USB from a computer to a DAC. Then I installed proper electrical isolation between the computer and the USB input circuitry and the DAC. Now streaming over USB sounds at least as good as CD in my system. Currently I mostly use Tidal for streaming. I will try Qobuz but I can't imagine how it can possibly sound better than Tidal. Bits are bits you know. BTW, I don't care about MQA unless it uses a better master than the best available redbook or higher resolution version of the same music (usually the original 16/44.1 release).     

[Rexp]

On 9/21/2019 at 2:43 AM, mansr said:

Transmission over the internet at high speed agitates the bits and makes them jittery. After downloading a file, it needs to settle for a while before sounding its best.

Can you explain why Tidal through the mconnect app sounds better than the Tidal app on android?