advertisement


Tidal HiFi vs Qobuz Studio - which sounds better on your system?

Pterodactyl

Pterodactyl

pfm Member
Has anyone compared Tidal HiFi (£20) vs Qobuz Studio (£25).
Which sounds better on your system, and in what way?
Have you compared the same recording at different levels of data/resolution?
Do you have an MQA-enabled DAC/streamer, and/or do you get an MQA first unfold in Roon or Audirvana or other service?
Thanks
Jim
 
They are the same files., Quboz have some 24/96 versions , both services offer a trial period, download both and knock yourself out.
Keith
 
I'm on Tidal HiFi now, which is excellent.
(My streamer is not MQA-enabled, so I don't know how the Masters files sound.)
I'm going to trial Qobuz Studio when I get time to sort it out, and work out how to play it to my streamer.
But I'm interested to know which sounds better Tidal Masters or Qobuz 24/96 files?
 
JimDog said:
Has anyone compared Tidal HiFi (£20) vs Qobuz Studio (£25).
Which sounds better on your system, and in what way?
Have you compared the same recording at different levels of data/resolution?
Do you have an MQA-enabled DAC/streamer, and/or do you get an MQA first unfold in Roon or Audirvana or other service?
Thanks
Jim
Click to expand...

I use Roon and only used Tidal because it was integrated. I am now trialling Qobuz Studio as Qobuz has just been welcomed into the Roon services.. The higher res does sound more detailed but appears to make the music more fatiguing I think.Still trialling so will have to reflect further.
 
I think the OP meant for streaming. Last time I tried, several months back, Tidal sounded noticeably better than Qobuz on a like-for-like basis. I also compared the streams to digital downloads and CD rips streamed from Asset and Qobuz sounded distinctly odd.
I'll probably try again at some point as I'd like to be able to stream 24bit.
 
Thanks - that's interesting. When you say more detailed, is that a good thing? Is it better (apart from the 'fatiguing' thing)?
 
JimDog said:
Thanks - that's interesting. When you say more detailed, is that a good thing? Is it better (apart from the 'fatiguing' thing)?
Click to expand...
I listened to 24/96 of Radiohead's In Rainbows.It did sound a little more detailed and perhaps a little brighter than the 16/44 stream. I need more time to really listen and adjust to the differences. I do prefer the Qobuz service to Tidal though and I'm happy to see it in Roon.
 
JimDog said:
But I'm interested to know which sounds better Tidal Masters or Qobuz 24/96 files?
Click to expand...

Then listen for yourself, how can we tell you what you what sounds better to you.

God I fvcking hate these validate me threads.
 
Get a 30 day trial of each and make your own mind up, nobody here can tell you what you will like or not.
 
Del monaco said:
I use Roon and only used Tidal because it was integrated. I am now trialling Qobuz Studio as Qobuz has just been welcomed into the Roon services.. The higher res does sound more detailed but appears to make the music more fatiguing I think.Still trialling so will have to reflect further.
Click to expand...

If you drop the resolution down to CD quality on Qobuz, does it still sound fatiguing compared to TIDAL?
 
I use Qobuz Studio and Spotify HQ, only having listened to Tidal on occasion. Qobuz streams vary but are overall very slightly brighter sounding than Spotify. This can make them more fatiguing but it depends on the harshness of the original recording. Consequently, great recordings (such as Supertramp - Crime of the Century) sound superb in 24/192 whereas some old Simon and Garfunkel can sound harsh in hi-res because of the recording. Spotify HQ tends to be balanced such that extended listening does not cause fatigue. It's also scarily close to Qobuz 16/44 for quality.

For me, the combined range of Qobuz and Spotify mean that I'm probably not going to sign up for Tidal.
 
thebiglebowski said:
Then listen for yourself, how can we tell you what you what sounds better to you.

God I fvcking hate these validate me threads.
Click to expand...

Bravo! This is roughly what I thought the instant I saw the thread title:)

Aren't we in the realms of cognitive bias here? Without some vaguely scientific controls the answer to the question "Do I hear a difference?" is nearly always "yes".
 
MartinT said:
I use Qobuz Studio and Spotify HQ, only having listened to Tidal on occasion. Qobuz streams vary but are overall very slightly brighter sounding than Spotify. This can make them more fatiguing but it depends on the harshness of the original recording. Consequently, great recordings (such as Supertramp - Crime of the Century) sound superb in 24/192 whereas some old Simon and Garfunkel can sound harsh in hi-res because of the recording. Spotify HQ tends to be balanced such that extended listening does not cause fatigue. It's also scarily close to Qobuz 16/44 for quality.

For me, the combined range of Qobuz and Spotify mean that I'm probably not going to sign up for Tidal.
Click to expand...
The Supertramp is a great recording.
 
I had both for a while to try out and now just use Tidal

Both are good - not a huge amount in it.

Tidal MQA is a nice step up but like all formats is dependent on the original recording
 
tenpercenter said:
I had both for a while to try out and now just use Tidal

Both are good - not a huge amount in it.

Tidal MQA is a nice step up but like all formats is dependent on the original recording
Click to expand...


As MQA is a lossy format, it is unlikely to be a step-up in hi-fi terms - but you may like its garbling of the original recording.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top