Qobuz is Amazing

Personally, use which ever tool/service that works best for you and you are able to afford. I recently got access to Roon, but I have not used the functionality to it's fullest, since I am strictly using to to access music on NAS. No Tidal here. I am also trying out Audirvana which has integration for Tidal, Qobuz and local music and it's working out very well for me so far. The one major down side with Audirvana that I see is the remote portion requires you to have iOS device.

I am also a firm believer of, what I have gets me to 95% of being there, I am satisfied and happy with the outcome. Saves me a ton of money where I stop chasing the last 5% :D
 
Thanks Shadowlight. By the way, back to the real topic. Qobuz. I looked into why I am having dropouts. I don't know the reason, but lets say I like a high Res album such as the Mercury Living Presents Tchaikovsky: The Nutcracker. I was getting drops on this. I added the album to my offline library and it works fine. No more dropouts.

I personally suspect this is not a Qobuz issue. I was told my machine works best on a Linux platform. I like the sound of Windows and they installed it, but they are concerned about the resource demands of windows on a machine that only used 6 wats of power. It might be to much to stream and playback 24/96 files.

I have no issues with Roon as either a Core or Server mode.

I have some work to do today. I will try and do a listen between HQplayer via Roon and HQplayer native. My gut says I won't hear much, but you never know till you try.

I will have to look more at Audirvana. How have you found it to voice. I use to use JRiver but I find it too thick and ?????? Something is not right. HQplayer is much more neutral
and clean​
to my ears . It's just more natural, to me. JRiver was great when I had a lesser machine and played more rock. After making audio friends in Seattle, I discovered what to really listen for, and more to the point, how to tune to get a more true reflection of the source material. I am focused more that route than just making rock kick butt.
Thanks
 
Kingrex said:
I will have to look more at Audirvana. How have you found it to voice. I use to use JRiver but I find it too thick and ?????? Something is not right. HQplayer is much more neutral and clean to my ears .
Thanks
Click to expand...

I use Audirvana as front end to HQP Embedded in UPnP mode so no clue on voicing on it's own, but folks on CA seems to enjoy the sound on it's own also and say it's better than JRiver. I do like how it integrates with Tidal/Qobuz/Local music when you search it gives you all options so you pick the one that you want to play. Roon has a nicer interface.
 
The writer of Merrill Audio's newsletter and a member of the NJ Audio Society did a comparison of Qobuz/Tidal, I believe they both still preferred the ripped High res over each, then the 24/96 was a toss up, but felt 16/44.1k Quboz had an edge. It wasn't a long article, I'll try to post it here this weekend, if I remember. They definitely said Tidal has the largest library.

I'm still just tipping my toe but from friends experiences and hearing their systems with changes I really think a lot of it is your digital rig. I have a friend with a Lampi and one of the most complex setup's I'm aware of, computer, NAS's and such, sometimes small adjusts or different cable will amaze me at the effect. He does use Roon.

I have to admit having music in your hand, at your command is nice, but, when these streaming systems get that complex and you see how small things affect the sound, I begin to think, just dropping in a disc isn't so bad :)
 
jadedavid said:
OK, I'll bite.
What do you mean by this statement?
Click to expand...

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/list-of-roon-compatible-mqa-renderers/42758

DAC with MQA and Roon built in. At least that is what I read. I might be totally off. I am not a tech but it seems there has to be a OS for the Roon core to operate on. I would assume it would have a clock that sends it's data to the DAC clock for conversion to analog. Those clocks could be I2s connected for potential superior sound quality.
 
Qobuz and Tidal - A Preliminary Comparison


By Alan H., Editor.

I have been dying to try Qobuz. There was much buzz about Qobuz at the Capital Audio Fest which I attended. After I got home I signed up for a 30 trial. The thought of streaming up to 24/192 had me intrigued. I have been using Tidal for a while. Not always thrilled with the sound quality. To me it is hit and miss.

Streaming and Digital play back in my system is a Wire World Starlight Cat8 Ethernet cable, Aurender N10 server, Synergistic Research Galileo LE USB cable and an EMM Labs Dac2x V2 D/A converter. I have the MQA option on the Aurender but my dac does not support MQA. So only getting part of the advantage of MQA.

My friend Izzy a fellow New Jersey Audio Society member came over and we compared the two. He also brought over the CD of "Melody Gardot - The Absence". Beside the CD I also have the 24/96 download from HD Tracks.

We played the song "Lisboa". We compared the CD played on my Oppo 205 used as a transport first. The the standard resolution on both Tidal and Qobuz. Finally the 24/96 on Qobuz and the MQA version from Tidal which also shows 24/96 resolution.

Izzy and I both felt the download sounded best. More body and dimension. The standard streaming 16/44 resolution sounded the worst although we both preferred the Qobuz. He felt the Tdal MQA induced 24/96 was better than the Qobuz 24/96 because of an added mid bass emphasis and not as smooth highs on the Qobuz. I was not sure and I am still not sure after a couple of weeks. They are very close.

I guess in order of preference: 24/96 download, 24/96 streaming a toss up, CD, Qobuz 16/44 and last Tidal 16/44.

Another album I have compared myself is "Alison Krauss - Windy City" on both Tidal (MQA - 24/96 ) and Qobuz (24/96). I played the two tracks "Losing You" and "You Don't Know Me". Both of the Tidal and Qobuz versions are very, very good. Both are pristine and sound really beautiful. I think the Qobuz is slightly better having just a bit more body. But again not really sure.

I have been driving my self crazy comparing Tidal and Qobuz. In general I think Qobuz is slightly better with 16/44 and the high rez is a toss up. The main advantage of Qobuz is you do not need to rely on MQA. Plus it does offer some 24/192 music. Tidal has much more music to chose from at this point and is cheaper. $19.95 vs $24.95 per month for the best sound quality. I did play various 24/192 files from Qobuz. Did not find them significantly than the 24/96 but will keep listening to more.

Here is a good review of Qobuz vs Tidal with much more info: https://www.whathifi.com/qobuz/review
It is a good read.
 
Thanks Peabody. I tried to get on the Merrill newsletter but could not. About what I would expect. I always hear high rez at home is generally best. High rez streaming a close second best (done right). Your network, cabling and switch could made a difference. Then the 16/44.1. I wonder if the files on the Aurender were stored internal as opposed to streaming from a NAS. I too can not unfold MQA all the way, so that is pointing to why I like Qobuz so much. I get the full 24/96.

Interesting that non of the files went through Roon. Aurender has its own software. I still want to compare Roon playback vs Tidal or HQ player direct on my setup. I'm just holding off till I have my new amps. They were suppose to be here today but have not arrived. I fear my old ones are adding a lot of distortion. There is a pretty good amount of hum coming from the woofers.
Happy listening
 
Mr Peabody said:
Qobuz and Tidal - A Preliminary Comparison


By Alan H., Editor.

I have been dying to try Qobuz. There was much buzz about Qobuz at the Capital Audio Fest which I attended. After I got home I signed up for a 30 trial. The thought of streaming up to 24/192 had me intrigued. I have been using Tidal for a while. Not always thrilled with the sound quality. To me it is hit and miss.

Streaming and Digital play back in my system is a Wire World Starlight Cat8 Ethernet cable, Aurender N10 server, Synergistic Research Galileo LE USB cable and an EMM Labs Dac2x V2 D/A converter. I have the MQA option on the Aurender but my dac does not support MQA. So only getting part of the advantage of MQA.

My friend Izzy a fellow New Jersey Audio Society member came over and we compared the two. He also brought over the CD of "Melody Gardot - The Absence". Beside the CD I also have the 24/96 download from HD Tracks.

We played the song "Lisboa". We compared the CD played on my Oppo 205 used as a transport first. The the standard resolution on both Tidal and Qobuz. Finally the 24/96 on Qobuz and the MQA version from Tidal which also shows 24/96 resolution.

Izzy and I both felt the download sounded best. More body and dimension. The standard streaming 16/44 resolution sounded the worst although we both preferred the Qobuz. He felt the Tdal MQA induced 24/96 was better than the Qobuz 24/96 because of an added mid bass emphasis and not as smooth highs on the Qobuz. I was not sure and I am still not sure after a couple of weeks. They are very close.

I guess in order of preference: 24/96 download, 24/96 streaming a toss up, CD, Qobuz 16/44 and last Tidal 16/44.

Another album I have compared myself is "Alison Krauss - Windy City" on both Tidal (MQA - 24/96 ) and Qobuz (24/96). I played the two tracks "Losing You" and "You Don't Know Me". Both of the Tidal and Qobuz versions are very, very good. Both are pristine and sound really beautiful. I think the Qobuz is slightly better having just a bit more body. But again not really sure.

I have been driving my self crazy comparing Tidal and Qobuz. In general I think Qobuz is slightly better with 16/44 and the high rez is a toss up. The main advantage of Qobuz is you do not need to rely on MQA. Plus it does offer some 24/192 music. Tidal has much more music to chose from at this point and is cheaper. $19.95 vs $24.95 per month for the best sound quality. I did play various 24/192 files from Qobuz. Did not find them significantly than the 24/96 but will keep listening to more.

Here is a good review of Qobuz vs Tidal with much more info: https://www.whathifi.com/qobuz/review
It is a good read.
Click to expand...
The CDs might have fared better if they had been played back on a machine of quality comparable to the EMM Labs DAC (e,g,. one of the better Esoterics) rather than an Oppo 205.
 
Mr Peabody said:
Qobuz and Tidal - A Preliminary Comparison


By Alan H., Editor.

I have been dying to try Qobuz. There was much buzz about Qobuz at the Capital Audio Fest which I attended. After I got home I signed up for a 30 trial. The thought of streaming up to 24/192 had me intrigued. I have been using Tidal for a while. Not always thrilled with the sound quality. To me it is hit and miss.

Streaming and Digital play back in my system is a Wire World Starlight Cat8 Ethernet cable, Aurender N10 server, Synergistic Research Galileo LE USB cable and an EMM Labs Dac2x V2 D/A converter. I have the MQA option on the Aurender but my dac does not support MQA. So only getting part of the advantage of MQA.

My friend Izzy a fellow New Jersey Audio Society member came over and we compared the two. He also brought over the CD of "Melody Gardot - The Absence". Beside the CD I also have the 24/96 download from HD Tracks.

We played the song "Lisboa". We compared the CD played on my Oppo 205 used as a transport first. The the standard resolution on both Tidal and Qobuz. Finally the 24/96 on Qobuz and the MQA version from Tidal which also shows 24/96 resolution.

Izzy and I both felt the download sounded best. More body and dimension. The standard streaming 16/44 resolution sounded the worst although we both preferred the Qobuz. He felt the Tdal MQA induced 24/96 was better than the Qobuz 24/96 because of an added mid bass emphasis and not as smooth highs on the Qobuz. I was not sure and I am still not sure after a couple of weeks. They are very close.

I guess in order of preference: 24/96 download, 24/96 streaming a toss up, CD, Qobuz 16/44 and last Tidal 16/44.

Another album I have compared myself is "Alison Krauss - Windy City" on both Tidal (MQA - 24/96 ) and Qobuz (24/96). I played the two tracks "Losing You" and "You Don't Know Me". Both of the Tidal and Qobuz versions are very, very good. Both are pristine and sound really beautiful. I think the Qobuz is slightly better having just a bit more body. But again not really sure.

I have been driving my self crazy comparing Tidal and Qobuz. In general I think Qobuz is slightly better with 16/44 and the high rez is a toss up. The main advantage of Qobuz is you do not need to rely on MQA. Plus it does offer some 24/192 music. Tidal has much more music to chose from at this point and is cheaper. $19.95 vs $24.95 per month for the best sound quality. I did play various 24/192 files from Qobuz. Did not find them significantly than the 24/96 but will keep listening to more.

Here is a good review of Qobuz vs Tidal with much more info: https://www.whathifi.com/qobuz/review
It is a good read.
Click to expand...

So bottom line, Tidal, especially with MQA is better?????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mike said:
So bottom line, Tidal, especially with MQA is better?????


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

Mike,

He said in the second paragraph that his DAC does not support MQA, so how would he really know if he’s not getting full MQA?

Ken
 
Mike said:
Good point


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

I’m currently listening to Kenny Burrell’s Midnight Blue in full MQA (192/24) on Tidal through the Roon interface and it sounds stunning.

I am now listening to the exact same tracks in 192/24 FLAC from my NAS and I have to say I prefer the MQA version. It just has more sparkle, presence and sounds more alive.

Ken
 
Kingrex said:
Why are modern CD considered good. Are they 16/44.1 and nothing more?
Do modern CD upsample? ​
Click to expand...
The better ones have been refined over the years with superior DACs, power supplies, filters and, yes, some have upsampling options and support SACD in addition to CD.
 
jadedavid said:
OK, I'll bite.
What do you mean by this statement?
Click to expand...
Pretty much, what you thought was good,....nah. I've got total shits with usb, has to be network or same quality, havent delved into hmas yet. The smart money are realizing the next wave is rendering, not just a sideways step either. These will be the new answer all gateway that they promised us with a laptop & dac.... with all of the last decades rapped & produced. See what comes out from guys like MSB, Pink Faun etc, these are about the only ones I know about that I'd back at mo......
 
Both Tidal and Qobuz deliver, and like anything is one better or different?

In this case, my vote is don’t waste time and if you can, run both, I am and love having both options :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top