Qobuz vs Tidal hi-res soundoff 2019!!

[Lossless]

We now have two great hi-res streaming providers that offer 24bit/192kHz high resolution music. Hi-Res music is about 5 times better quality than CD quality streaming. Both services have their differences in layout, pricing, royalties, owners, codecs etc..., but the only difference I wanna discuss hear is SOUND QUALITY.

What hi-res streaming service do YOU feel sounds better and how did you come to your conclusion?

Qobuz vs Tidal hi-res sound-off 2019!!

 

[DaveVoorhis]

You can think of MQA as a kind of ZIP file for steaming music.

Strictly speaking, this is not technically accurate. The ZIP format is lossless compression. In music terms, it's similar to a FLAC file. MQA is lossy compression. In music terms, it's similar to an MP3 file.

 

[olson_jr]

Waiting till next month to give Qobuz a trial.

This thread will be fun to watch with all the different variables involved.

 

[tubeyea]

Strictly speaking, this is not technically accurate. The ZIP format is lossless compression. In music terms, it's similar to a FLAC file. MQA is lossy compression. In music terms, it's similar to an MP3 file.

You’re both wrong, MQA being call a zip file is a poor comparison, saying MQA is similar to an MP3 file is totally inaccurate.

You both fanatical about Tidal’s MQA content, on for,one against.

 

[olson_jr]

You're both fanatical about Tidal’s MQA content, on for, one against.

So then this is just another...

 

[E-Stat]

saying MQA is similar to an MP3 file is totally inaccurate.

Dave's statement is most certainly accurate.

Both MQA and MP3 are lossy formats. Once converted, neither is able to recreate the original bitstream.

 

[Lossless]

You’re both wrong, MQA being call a zip file is a poor comparison, saying MQA is similar to an MP3 file is totally inaccurate.

For clarification please give readers a better analogy than my ZIP file comparison.

 

[tubeyea]

Dave's statement is most certainly accurate.

Both MQA and MP3 are lossy formats. Once converted, neither is able to recreate the original bitstream.

MP3 at best on streaming services is 320 bit, MQA is certainly not that low of a bit rate by any measure.

 

[tubeyea]

For clarification please give readers a better analogy than my ZIP file comparison.

I didn’t start the thread or make that simplistic analogy, you’re free to if you’d like.

 

[Lossless]

I didn’t start the thread or make that simplistic analogy, you’re free to if you’d like.

I made the simplistic analogy to enlighten readers unfamiliar with MQA with a better understanding of the file folding/zipped music technology that enables larger Hi-Res files to be folded and streamed at a considerably smaller file size, then to be fully unfolded/unzipped at the users end without any data loss. That's what a ZIP file does in my understanding.

 

[E-Stat]

MP3 at best on streaming services is 320 bit, MQA is certainly not that low of a bit rate by any measure.

That's what neither of us wrote.

 

[E-Stat]

...then to be fully unfolded at the users end without any data loss.

Unlike zip files, MQA is not true to your moniker. 192/24 irrevocably becomes 96/17.

Your subjective enjoyment is a separate question.

 

[tubeyea]

Unlike zip files, MQA is not true to your moniker. 192/24 irrevocably becomes 96/17.

Your subjective enjoyment is a separate question.

I agree!

Of course Red book is 44.1/16, and not considered lossy, if MQA is at its best at 96/17 it kind of makes the case that MQA is nothing like an MP3. Is MQA lossy compression? Of course it is but it delivers resolution in excess of red book. The constant comparisons to MP3's are not at all accurate, lets be honest here, audio buffs when referring to the MP3 codec are referring to 320 or lower bit rates. The resolution of properly decoded streamed MQA content could never be mistaken for 320 bit or lower quality.

Are there examples of suspect MQA recordings on Tidal that the service needs to ask the distributor to supply an another file to replace a flawed recording? Yes, and when I let them know.

 

[DaveVoorhis]

I made the simplistic analogy to enlighten readers unfamiliar with MQA a better understanding of the file folding music technology that enables larger Hi-Res files to be folded and streamed at a considerably smaller file size, then to be fully unfolded at the users end without any data loss. That's what a ZIP file in does in my understanding.

That's encoding and compression. Compression can be lossless or lossy. FLAC and ZIP are lossless. MP3 and MQA are lossy.

Bitrate, in this case, is irrelevant.

 

[Lossless]

To all thread crappers :

This Thread is about YOUR listening experience in comparing the two competing services high resolution SOUND QUALITY to YOUR ears.
To not get off track, It is not a MQAs the Devil or its supposedly lossy like an MP3 debate.

What music streaming service high resolution music sounds better to you and why?

 

[Lossless]

The point is to UNDERSTAND: 1. How MQA is different than just FLAC. 2. Why do we need it? 3. What does it do to the music. 4. Preference.

Not thread crapping - discussing. If you don't like trying to discuss plusses and minuses of a technology, then don't start a thread and just enjoy in ignorant bliss what you like.

What music streaming service high resolution music sounds better to you and why?

If your'e not able to answer the simple thread question, but rather confuse readers and criticize the technology used, please refrain from replying. Thank You

 

[eiraved]

Qobuz offers 24/192 streamed in FLAC without any compression. Tidal offers 24/192 streaming FLAC MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) which folds the file, then unfolds it at the users end. You can think of MQA as a kind of ZIP file for steaming music.

Maybe you should simplify your original post and remove the offending statement...

 

[Lossless]

I vote for TIDAL

Why:
I have been listening to different hi-res tracks from Qobuz and Tidal via Windows 8.1 dedicated HTPC, Meridian Explorer2 DAC 192kHz/24bit, Fisher RS-Z1 receiver in source direct mode.



I listened through B&W DM640i tower speakers and found the listening experience of Tidal’s MQA tracks enveloped me in the music. The soundstage was more defined. Piano and string instruments sounded more realistic, almost analog. The singers voice also seemed remarkably lifelike.

One of my main test tracks was Kacey Musgraves~ Butterflies in 24/96kHz. It seemd as if the musical melodies extended longer with TIDAL vs the abrupt ending of the music notes in Qobuz’s version as if the track was compressed. Qobuz tracks seem to play significantly louder, which isn’t a good thing.

 

[Lossless]

Maybe you should simplify your original post and remove the offending statement...

What is the offending statement?

 

[DaveVoorhis]

What is the offending statement?

Least controversial would be to simply ask, "Which sounds better to you, Tidal or Qobuz?"

Any further explanation inevitably invites debate.