Qobuz Family

UltraFast69

UltraFast69

New member
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
Messages
1,926
Location
Seattle
I run both Tidal and Qobuz.

Beginning with Tidal that also has the family plan and a military discount.

Both have their merits but now with Qobuz Family, do I really need both?

Despite being able to fully render MQA, I’m thinking to drop Tidal.

I lived with both since inception, hard choices [emoji848]





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
UltraFast69 said:
I run both Tidal and Qobuz.

Beginning with Tidal that also has the family plan and a military discount.

Both have their merits but now with Qobuz Family, do I really need both?

Despite being able to fully render MQA, I’m thinking to drop Tidal.

I lived with both since inception, hard choices [emoji848]





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

I have both Tidal and Quboz too. I'm not dropping either one. $40 a month for both is like buying one LP. I finally found an MQA album that I actually like the way it sounds. Gene Ammons Boss Tenor.
 
Qobuz, the world’s first Hi-Res streaming and download service, is launching its first family plan today.

Allowing up to six members per account for $24.99/month, Qobuz Family is the best way for your family to experience the best quality music together. Everybody deserves a chance to experience lossless and Hi-Res music for themselves. Most music fans simply do not know what they have been missing. And for audiophiles that have been struggling to get their families to join the Hi-Res music revolution, the Family Plan - at just $10/month more than an individual subscription - is the answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
I had Tidal with military discount, but liked Qobuz quality better. Qobuz recently added a Family Plan (up to 6 members) and it has all the music I need.
 
I moved from Tidal to Qobuz and have no regrets whatsoever.
Qobuz library was not as vast when it was first offered in the USA. But today, I feel that Qobuz library is just as good if not better than Tidal’s (I just learned that Qobuz also offers multichannel recordings which Tidal does not).
 
I had both Tidal and Qobuz for about a year but I dropped Tidal in favor of Qobuz. There was just too much of an overlap in content to be able to justify keeping both services. I chose Qobuz because they offer true Hi-Res playback.
 
I have both. Many of the artist/albums are only available in either one or the other.
I would loose much of my selected music by choosing just one service.
I do find a slight edge in sound quality in favor of Qobuz.
 
Tubes said:
I had both Tidal and Qobuz for about a year but I dropped Tidal in favor of Qobuz. There was just too much of an overlap in content to be able to justify keeping both services. I chose Qobuz because they offer true Hi-Res playback.
Click to expand...

So what is the difference between the "true" hi-rez of Quobuz and what Tidal offers as hi-rez aside from MQA?
 
To get high resolution from Tidal your streamer has to at least do the first MQA unfold. If not, only 44.1k. To my knowledge Tidal does not have any music high res accept for the MQA.

mep said:
So what is the difference between the "true" hi-rez of Quobuz and what Tidal offers as hi-rez aside from MQA?
Click to expand...
 
Mr Peabody said:
To get high resolution from Tidal your streamer has to at least do the first MQA unfold. If not, only 44.1k. To my knowledge Tidal does not have any music high res accept for the MQA.
Click to expand...

Let's wait for Tubes reply to see if that is what he means. My setup unfolds all of the MQA laundry.
 
mep said:
So what is the difference between the "true" hi-rez of Quobuz and what Tidal offers as hi-rez aside from MQA?
Click to expand...
True Hi-Res is lossless and Tidal is giving you a lossy compressed version of the file.
 
Of course. That's as close as Tidal comes to offering true Hi-Res streaming.
 
Is MQA lossy? It is packaged to deliver, then unpackaged but it seems if a resolution is a certain spec, then it is that spec regardless. As example, if your DAC says it is receiving a 96 signal, how could it be less than that regardless if from Tidal or Qobuz?
 
Mr Peabody said:
Is MQA lossy? It is packaged to deliver, then unpackaged but it seems if a resolution is a certain spec, then it is that spec regardless. As example, if your DAC says it is receiving a 96 signal, how could it be less than that regardless if from Tidal or Qobuz?
Click to expand...

This has been debated endlessly on forums and like every other debate on audio forums, people believe what they want to believe and there is never a publicly reached consensus. The good thing about beliefs is that they are personal and you are free to believe whatever you want. Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny just might be real to some adults and nothing you could say would change their minds.
 
I can see why some companies are not on board with MQA, which of no reason stated really have to do with quality, more to do with fees and control.

My understanding after reading Wiki, lossy is used a lot but it refers to the method used to reduce the file size. Here's a statement I zoned in on, " it hierarchically compresses the relatively little energy in the higher frequency bands into data streams that are embedded in the lower frequency bands using proprietary dithering techniques but after the decoding the result would be the lossless archive"

I'm sure methods are different but the same type of thing is done with DTS-MA or Dolby's Tru-HD. The master is compressed to safe space but once decoded is said to be the same as the master. I don't remember their methods ever being questioned as to the decoded file resulting in nothing less.

So, yes, the article calls MQA lossy, I wonder if correctly so, but the end result that we playback looks to be lossless.

The reason I think lossy is not correctly applied, they actually mention mp3. In mp3 information is actually eliminated, we can't decode or restore an mp3. Some try to make it sound better but lost info is just gone. With MQA the original file is just folded if you will, nothing is lost. Then unfolded to it's original state again.

From a purist's point of view I can see how no manipulation would seem better than some. On the other hand the uncompressed original file would take considerably more bandwidth and could theoretically sound worse if your internet or other gear wasn't up to handling it.

That's my take on it as of now. This is first I've given this issue much attention so I'm open to learn.

Tubes said:
Wikipedia does a better job than I can of explaining it.

Master Quality Authenticated - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
 
also looking to learn more here... with high-speed internet and bandwidths up to 1,000 mbps -- isn't MQA solving a technical problem that does not exist for most audiphiles anymore? or are there other advantages offered by MQA beyond file "compression"?
 
Keep in mind all the devices drinking up that bandwidth in one household. Also, you may want to stream from your phone in an auto.

Of course, I doubt saving bandwidth was the motivation for MQA. Not sure what was.

aKnyght said:
also looking to learn more here... with high-speed internet and bandwidths up to 1,000 mbps -- isn't MQA solving a technical problem that does not exist for most audiphiles anymore? or are there other advantages offered by MQA beyond file "compression"?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top