Thanks @ReAlien
I’ll have to try Tidal through Audirvana
2 Likes
Tidal tracks via Audirvana I think when I use ASIO it sounds much better than the Tidal app does.
Also that test graph most of the difference is in area we as human’s aren’t even supposed to be able to hear. Not to mention I turn 50 in two weeks from today I sure as hell know I’m not hearing out to 30,000 hz.
I find Tidal more lively better sounding say as if you were to be using a nice tube amp type sound. Qobuz(dumbest name ever) I think you guys are right it does have maybe more detail but it’s totally lifeless sounding. Or clinical it’s not musical at all.
Amazon is garbage SOOO many of their albums and tracks listed as high fi had one or two tracks in entire album high res , entire rest of album was cd quality. Someone mentions that earlier here and someone says that’s odd. Not odd from what I seen I uninstalled amazon music hd app in like an hour after trial it’s worthless compared to Tidal and Qobuz.
I have an ifi micro DSD black label does 2nd unfold of MQA and I think most stuff is stunning. THe great thing about Tidal for me is with SACD and Dvd-audio all the disks were old OLD music from 70’s or earlier. Tidal has NEW stuff on there in high res.
3 Likes
I have been really enjoying Qobuz this week. It was a little strange at first coming from AmazomMusicHD but I am getting more comfortable with the UI. I find it strange that Qobuz’s Mac OS X app has less playlists than their iOS App. It’s really impressive how many great offerings for hi res audio there are now. I think really giving each one some time to listen and use the UI allows you to see the benefits and weaknesses of each. With amazon getting into the space it forces everyone to be more competitive. I would still love to see some legit frequency analysis between AmazonHD vs. Qobuz track for track 24bit 192 vs 24bit 192.
2 Likes
I’ve tried Tidal, Qobuz, and Amazon HD. I thought all were great, and the albums that are highest res seem to be equally shared between them, but eventually kept going back to Tidal through Audirvana and Spotify free for sharing.
1 Like
I would like to hear and see more frequency comparisons between Tidal (T) and Qobuz (Q). We personally dropped T and went with Q. Everything is much more refined and clear with Q - IMO. Plus I’m not into rap, so T’s daily pictures of rappers just didn’t come over well. But to each his own.
We’re beginning some MQA tests using CDs. First we’re going to see if there is a difference in the CD sound. I expect there will be as shown in other tests, but how much is the question. Second we’re going to compare T’s MQA files with the CDs on a friend’s system. We’re wondering just how many of the MQA details/differences actually come thru while streaming. From my experience with T, I don’t think in streaming we receive the full MQA experience, even when using high end equipment and 940 mbps…
But these tests will be purely subjective with two listeners comparing notes.
And yes, Q has a weird name. It’s history is just as weird: https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/info/actualites/why-is-qobuz-called-qobuz174873
4 Likes
Well we finished our MQA testing.
A bunch of us got together to test CDs and MQA CDs, and streaming MQA and streaming Hi Rez. We ran into many problems as the Masters weren’t all the same, or in some cases unknown. So, of course this means the samples can’t actually be compared on a one to one basis.
But did we like the MQA better anyway? Surprisingly, NO
In blind testing MQA files were found to be no better than any other files. In some cases we liked the CD version even better than MQA.
In the mean time one of our group found this interesting series of posts on the Steve Hoffman forum. The testing here was much more extensive than ours was. If you’re interested in MQA, please read Post #93 first.
IMO, those that have CDs and SACDs don’t need MQA. If you like the MQA Master better than you may like the music more, but overall IMO we’re getting the best bang for the buck with CD and SACD. And don’t forget about the amount you have to invest into new equipment just to enjoy MQA.
The one beneficial thing we all agreed about concerning MQA is that those that developed it put a substantial - and I mean very substantial - amount of effort into this new digital format. So, there are still really good audiophiles working on developing even better digital. So, while there will never be an absolutely perfect digital format out there, there are promises of possible better ones.
What about streaming?
In blind testing in most cases - all except one - the listeners chose Qobuz over Tidal. In the one case, out of 50 songs it was 26 for Tidal and 24 for Qobuz. The rest of us like Qobuz by a much wider margin, one of the group choosing Qobuz 46 out of 50 songs. Overall it seems like there was less noise using Qobuz and for the most part the Qobuz Hi Rez files were better to listen too.
This stated, the testing was ALL subjective. A bunch of old audiophiles getting together, so our ears may not be the best … We didn’t take any measurements. However, all the listeners own high end equipment and have invested a huge amount in audio equipment. And we enjoyed the get togethers.
Enjoy the music the way it sound best to you.
8 Likes
Amen!
MQA vs. non-MQA
Along the way, since MQA launched, I’ve done a number of comparisons to it and non-MQA versions of various albums. In most of those, where I’ve been able to match the original masters between MQA and non-MQA versions, I found that the non-MQA versions invariable sounded either indistinguishable or better.
Where MQA-versions have sounded better (or just different) it was invariably down to it being a different master.
And in every case where the MQA version was “better”, replaying it on non-MQA hardware (with, or without the first unfold being done in software) still resulted in it sounding better. Which, again, points to the improvement being at the master level not anything to do with MQA per-se.
TIDAL vs. Qobuz
Given the same master, at the same bit-rate (generally Redbook or 16/44.1), I find no difference at all unless I run into an album on TIDAL that is watermarked.
I’ve tried this using the native clients, and I’ve tried this using Roon and Audirvana.
And I’ve compared both the bit-level sample-data and the electrical noise on the interface, and found nothing that would suggest I should hear a difference.
When you switch to Qobuz hi-res vs. TIDAL (MQA or non-MQA), things tend to lean towards Qobuz fairly reliably. Though by no means is there always any perceptible difference.
Even doing a bit-stream capture of 16/44.1 and 24/192 kHz versions of an album (both from Qobuz, and from as best I can determine a common master), and then doing A/B/X comparisons with them locally, just from Qobuz to Qobuz, there are not always audible differences.
At some point I’ll get around to writing up the methodology, test data sets, tools and results (in multiple forms, including spectral and content analysis).
But for my own purposes I’m content to use the content from where I find it most readily, in whichever client is most convenient at the time, as all the purported differences between them vanish pretty reliably when the comparison becomes more than just A/B listening without proper provenance over what’s being compared.
10 Likes
How do we listen to music for enjoyment?
It’s not through a blind A/B machine, or by watching graphs being generated from an APx555.
We sit our butts down and listen. That is our natural habitat, and if A sounds better than B in our natural habitat, (IMO, regardless of sample size) then the test is every bit as valid as measurements and “blind” tests.
Just my 2¢
10 Likes
Hi @ReAlien
Thank you for the recommendation as I definitely like Tidal much better via Audirvana.
I am now using Audirvana with both Tidal and Qobuz.
4 Likes
Wow, this is some awesome stuff to read up on! Thanks for sharing the measurements 
4 Likes