Battle of the Streams: Tidal vs. Qobuz!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 жов 2024
- In this video I discuss high resolution audio, MQA vs. PCM, and compare Tidal to Qobuz.
Test tracks:
Kacey Musgraves - Slow Burn
Jack Johnson - Big Sur
Jack Johnson - Better Together
Nirvana - Polly
JS Ondara - American Dream
Van Morrison - Moondance
Ariana Grande - 7 rings
The Cars - Magic
Jump to the sound comparison: • Battle of the Streams:...
Still convinced that better speakers will dominate any high end electronic component (amps, dacs etc...) or hi-res codec even when playing just 44k/16 bit . True Omni's or perfect dipoles have a very significant impact that is immediately audible , all the rest is just details in the margin . The people who came up with 44k/16 bit knew what they were doing
Qobuz lets me buy my tracks, download them, and keep them on my own server. Tidal doesn't. That's really all I need to know.
Likewise! Love Qobuz
Can you download them onto your device?
@@Aglai76 Of course. They're **flac** files. If you buy them they're yours. That's the whole point in dropping $2-$3 on a song instead of paying $10-$20/a month for thousand of them: they're **yours** afterwards.
@Rhys Eric and I bought Qobuz albums for cheaper at QBZstore 😂, wtf is with this spam lol
*on Telegram
I have just compared each song on the 'test tracks' list on Qobuz and Tidal to decide which service I would prefer to subscribe to. On *each* of the song the quality of Qobuz was better. And it wasn't only slightly better - To my ears the difference is significant. Qobuz sounds high resolution while Tidal doesn't. I struggled to note differences between the Tidal and Spotify sound quality.
Also, in the UK Qobuz 'Studio' subscription is £15 per month whilst Tidal 'Hifi' is £20 per month.
If I keep a subscription it'll definitely be Qobuz.
Can fully agree with it. Personally I must say I run my audio setup on a DT990 Pro 250 Ohm an the DAC/AMP combo is an S.M.S.L M3 DAC, though nothing special but a lil bit over the avarage of what typical gamers like me have. And I compared Qobuz to Tidal and UA-cam Music. Basically from sound quality asped I definetaly would rather stick to qobuz. I dunno why tidal CD Quality sounds now for me way worse than Qobuz but this proofes, that tidal has not a comparable audio quality to tidal.
This is the second time I listened to your videos. Your reviews are like no other, and a very very good way.
This is the most intelligent and illuminating discussion on what is a very touchy and complicated subject - very well done Sir.
I totally agree with your reasons for preferring Hi Definition music in the context of if "it's there then it should be captured for posterity". I would add another reason that you don't touch on and rarely gets discussed because everyone is concentrating on the frequency capture and dynamic range aspects being adequate at CD spec' - Timing, it's arguably better captured at higher than cd spec and although not in any way immediately noticeable, evidence suggests an 'ease' to listening to music captured at higher sample rates over a long period. This needs further investigation....
This is indeed something I would like to see studied more. That's a good point. Thanks for the kind words.
Look out the AES convention paper 5931 from 2003, it discusses some really interesting aspects of this.
Listening to this video through my maple nautilus speakers. “Nah, I’ve never heard any “lossy” stuff come out of these speakers.
Thank you very, very much! This has got to be one of the most brilliant, all-bases-covered, unbiased and informative reviews I have watched - ever! You really get down to what matters, anticipate every question or doubt the viewer might have, and address everything in such an eloquent and efficient way that I‘m left in a state of awe as well as deep appreciation of your (considerable) efforts! Perhaps a bit off-topic, but I’d like to add this: I‘m a very happy Qobuz subscriber, first with high-res (the next bump up from CD quality), now back down to CD quality (since I wanted to get a brilliant set of in-ears and a great DAC first before going back up to high-res). I‘m also a Spotify Premium subscriber (streaming 320 kbps MP3s touted as being „near-CD-quality - haha). Anyhow, the subtle differences you described hearing between MQA and Qobuz high-res are EXACTLY the way I would describe what I was hearing when comparing Qobuz high-res (just one bump up from CD) and CD quality on Qobuz. I was shocked at how consistently the differences jumped out at me on every track, most easily discernible on acoustic guitars, cello, etc. - in short, Instruments with „wood“ and overtones to spare - but also on drums (highhats, spacial aspects of rolls, woody realism on cajons, etc.) There was appreciably more airiness, clarity, realism, etc. I never expected my ears to be able to discern this difference, previously thinking „CD is good enough for me“. Based on your brilliant review, I‘d likely experience the same aha effect and step up with MQA, but will - for the same reasons as you - stick with Qobuz. Here in Germany, at least, you even have the choice between different levels of high-res, depending on your audiophile needs and your pocketbook. I think that‘s a very fair model, and you can even downsize or upsize as desired. Spotify is now looking pretty darn old in terms of listening pleasure on high-end in-ears, but their catalogue still covers a lot of the more obscure artists and albums not (yet?) covered by Qobuz, and makes it easy to share tunes with others via What‘s App, etc. Not only that, but streaming to my Marshall Kilburn in the kitchen while washing dishes just doesn‘t call for killer quality. And I really love the „Discover“ playlists Spotify generates for me based on my listening habits, fresh every week. This opens up new artists to me that I would have never come across in Qobuz, the iOS app for which lacks a „folder“ approach to genres, making it tough to go digging for new artists unless they‘re featured as „new“ in the small set of albums and tracks listed per genre. (Or perhaps I‘m missing something?) Anyhow, this review made my day, not least because of your refreshingly viewer-centric style paired with obvious acumen. Keep ‚em comin‘! Subscribed!
Thank you very much for the kind words and for sharing your experience! Since shooting that video, I've also settled into Qobuz. Sometimes I believe I hear a difference--even though I never seem able to reproduce it sometimes it just seems to add that extra ...something.. that makes it special. I'm also a Spotify lover. Well, I'm more of a Spotify misser. The quality isn't there for the most critical listening situations, but their discovery algorithms, curated playlists, and user-shared playlists are all superb. I really miss it a lot!
Looking forward to seeing you at future videos. I have some DACs coming in for review that I'm very excited about!
This is the most intelligent and insightful presentation of any topic that I've seen on UA-cam, thank you.
Thanks, Brian! Glad you enjoyed.
Great analysis and explanation from someone who knows what he talks about very good and does not hesitate to state untrendy realistic opinion. Must hear for every HiFi friend.
Thank you very much! I appreciate it.
Great and deep analysis, thanks for this! I'm with Qobuz for just one reason: I did'nt want to buy extra equipment for MQA decoding. With Qobuz (and BubbleUpnP) I can stream Hi-Res 24/196 Music directly to my Marantz without the need of purchasing further hardware. However, it might be that someday I will be ready for an MQA Unit, and then maybe switch back to Tidal.
I've just switched from Spotify to Tidal. Tidal sounds alot clearer and nicer to my ear.
I'll second that
I just switched from tidal to Qobuz. Definitely sounds better.
it should
Hey, quick question, are you comparing with Tidal Hi Fi? Just to be clear, thanks!
james ordinola barrantes yes
Man, do you make good videos with great point and counter point arguments. keep it up
Well thought out. And I agree with everything you said - even the MQA difference over regular high-def. Heard it today for the first time today. They are doing something special - it is like a glimmer. Like remembering a dream ...dont force it, just relax and listen.
FINALLY. Someone who agrees with me! I’ve felt crazy for preferring Tidal/MQA, but I’m so glad and thankful for your tests. Thank you for your intellectual and thoughtful approach! I was searching for an honest review, and I’ve found it here. Thanks again!
Don't feel crazy - there are a lot of digital nerds out there who have no soul or cloth ears or both. MQA can't ever replace a good analogue source but it's the best effort in the digital streaming world so far.
I prefer Tidal. Sound quality aside, I only found one out of 4 titles I was looking for.
Hopefully they'll get better with there amount of choices in ther library..
I like this. Gave me a bit of insight into the world of MQA. I have been testing both myself using Roon.
Thanks for the kind words! Glad you enjoyed.
very well done. Just now getting into streaming Hi-Res myself and am currently using both Tidal and Qobuz until I can determine which one suits me best as well...
Please keep in mind one additional benefit (the most important one) of high resolution music is the recent findings that our human hearing goes above and beyond the 22Khz level previously thought. It turns out that our brains actually "perceive" this information in the form of placement of the sounds around us. This detail that exists within the higher (and lower) limits of the spectrum was previously thought to be not perceptible to our ears. However, that's been found to not be true. Our brains perceive this information quite clearly, and this allows us to "place" the sound's source and where it's coming from. Who knew?
Where can i find this study ?
Who knew? - people who trust their own perception and not what they are told by clunky pseudo science. If you are engaged by music you perceive it straight away. Attempts at music reproduction that get the fundamentals of what is sometimes called pace, rhythm and timing wrong - simply don't sound right - they are always aggravating and fatiguing - this is the case with a lot of digital - it seems inherent in the form. MQA is an effort to overcome this problem and to my ears it works better than most.
Very interesting outcome. I think part of the difficulty for me is, even now, the availability of hardware that supports MQA. I'm running Roon as well and after the initial unfolding in Roon output to my 2 DACs (Topping D30 and SMSL SU8) I wasn't able to hear a difference, at least not a significant enough difference to motivate me to purchase yet another MQA capable DAC. I was increasingly concerned that my headphones just weren't able to resolve the subtle difference. Over the past year I purchased increasingly resolving headphones/iems ending up with some very capable units (Focal Elex, Tin P1, MoonDrop Starfields, and a few more). Now the law of diminishing returns is staring me in the face and I'm just not willing to shell out more for incremental gains. Ultimately I came to the same conclusion. After seeing how much the streaming services pay per stream to the actual artists I use Qobuz to discover the music and am back to purchasing downloads and/or physically sourcing the CD's. Very informative content, thanks!
Thank you so much, a hugely informative video...listened to it several times. Love your presentation style and objective approach! I am in the process of buying the new NAD M33 (amp & streamer) with good quality DAC which is MQA compatible. All the major streaming services are integrated as well as Dirac Live. I think you mentioned that a DSP/room correction would not work or be compatible with MQA resolution, is that correct? Sorry, if it is a dumb question but I don't fully understand why? Many thanks for clarifying!
Choosing hifi because we should be treating music with respect... Great point! blew my mind
Qobuz sounds smooth to me in my headphone rig.
Very well presented, well explained review of what is going on. Love it that you surprised yourself with MQA, I think I get that. Great video.
Excellent video. Tough topic explained extremely well.
So we'll done. I subscribed. Thank you for this.
There's a difference between streaming the same recording offered in hi res and 16/44. I can hear it very clearly.
Excellent summary on streaming and MQA. Just at a technical level I could understand and really helps decision making I am in the middle of as planning to progressively upgrade my system over the next 12 - 18 Months. Specifically re streaming service and DaC. No DSP possible with MQA makes a big difference to my DaC and HiREs streaming decisions. Thank you so very much.
Looks like both gives you everything and it can all be sorted and organized in Roon.
Thank you for the intelligent, comprehensive, and well laid out talk. MQA is the next mp3 (i.e. conveys a large amount of information in a small package). I want to like tidal but I can't stand their marketing and focus on certain genres of music.
Very interesting video! Thank you for sharing your results and your thoughts!!! ☮️🖖🏽
I find Qobuz sounds terrific, especially compared to Tidal. I dont hear the common watermarking and brightness I have heard from other streaming services.
Great video, you earned a new subscriber! I also prefer Tidal. I AB’d it against Amazon Music HD and it wasn’t close. I read reviews where lost people disagree with me and prefer Amazon but I think they are crazy. 🤷🏻♂️
Amazon music HD should equal CD quality while Amazon music ultra-HD should equal 24 bit quality
HD tracks are 16-bit audio, with a minimum sample rate of 44.1 kHz (16/44.1 is also referred to as CD-quality), and an average bitrate of 850 kbps. Ultra HD tracks have a bit depth of 24 bits, with sample rates ranging from 44.1 kHz up to 192 kHz, and an average bitrate of 3730 kbps.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.amazon.com/b%3Fie%3DUTF8%26node%3D14070322011&ved=2ahUKEwjSzrmRv-fnAhWCBBAIHRv1DyoQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw32PcmDXE3HgAEiSdixVwNy&cshid=1582454724743
Amazon music HD 16 bit
Amazon music Ultra HD 24 bit
Great review and comparison. I've speculated, however, that if our ears are actually capable of sensing hi-res frequencies, then perhaps our subconscious might pick up the differences leading to a "feeling" of a better experience that can not be consciously adjudicated. However, a test of that speculation remains to be developed.
I’m not an expert by any means and don’t pretend to understand the technicalities, but to me Tidal in general, especially MQA just sounds a cut above the rest in terms of clarity and how immersive the sound is. I only listen through my B&O H9 3rd gen and usually have the B&O app tuned to a slight V signature depending on the genre. Sounds amazing to me.
Thanks for this nice explanation. The benefit of hirez over mp3 and cd has to do with timing errors, which the human ear is actually sensitive to. Not much to do with which frequencies you can actually hear. Hans Beekhuyzen explains this well on his channel. Whether or not you will hear difference also depends on the quality of the equipment you use and your ears.
CD quality uncompressed recordings at 44.1/16 is sufficient to encode ALL sound information perfectly. If you looked into the actual math of sampling and DSP in an audio context, you would quickly find out that nothing in a continuous time domain (IE things that would take place "between" samples as you talk about) is lost when encoded to 44.1 kHz 16 bit PCM. This is a simple fact. There mathematically CANNOT be so called "timing" differences in a correctly encoded file.
Omg, I have completely different take on Tidal vs Qobuz. Using the Chord Hugo TT2, playing albums downloaded from Qobuz, I have never heard before how beautiful they sound. So natural, warm, the best resolution ever. The depth I heard was beyond anything I heard before. I struggled with Tidal sometimes. It sounds harsh, not warm, and not that smooth. It sounds good of course, but Qobuz naturalness wins for me every time. Qobuz has a Soul.
Downloading may sometimes sound better than streaming?
I have a similar experience really. I use roon with Chord 2Go/Hugo 2. Then I also have a Node 2i which can do MQA full unfold. Qobuz with Hugo2 sounds much better for me. But some tracks are better on MQA. This is a difficult one really. I will probably keep both for now.
yes on revealing systems mqa sucks big time. MQA = good for low end systems. What strikes me is that people doing comparisons and end up with finding MQA better, are doing wrong comparisons. For PCM they use a linear filter, while mqa always uses a minimizing filter that creates more bass and messes up the high frequencies ("less fatiguing" in mqa language). You can get that sound with pcm if you select such a filter. And if you do a correct comparison (so playing pcm with a minimizing slow roll off filter) then suddenly the mqa lovers have a harder time to like mqa.
Mathematical audio explanations ..... Well they never really work, Your Ears dont do math but on a say $50,000 system that is extremely reviling you can hear a difference quite readily. As were a say $4,000 system you can not. It is like saying 8k video makes no difference when you are playing it on a $1,200 1080p video display....it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between 8K Video and 1080p video.
But get a $16,000 100" display that is very good at reviling any video and when you play 1080p video on that 8k display it looks Nowhere as good as 8k video, it is almost laughable. 4k video was supposed to be the visual "limit" of our eye sight on the average display size that most people use, but we see again that in a highly reviling video display 8k does indeed look better! Remember when you walked into the TV store and you saw your fist 4k display right after you just bought your new led or LCD 1080 hdtv a few months before and your jaw Dropped when you looked at that new $6000 4k display? Yes you remember.
It had always made me laugh when someone with a pair of $250 headphones and say that they can't hear the difference between
16 44 audio or DSD. But play that same music on a pair of $1,900 Stax electrostatic headphones and again your Jaw will drop.
And sometimes we must admit, it's the person themselves, my friends can easily tell the difference between a $100 bottle of wine and a $1,200 bottle of wine....I Cant, to me its just decent red Wine. Sone can even tell you were that $1,200 came from and never even had seen the bottle, again I cant tell the difference.
So with the aforementioned is why there is such a debate......some can hear the difference and have the equpment to reveal it and some can't.
The above is not a put down but just a fact of life.....so if you cant hear a difference between 16 44 files & 36 192 or DSD then dont buy hi res files, to Thouse that can....Enjoy. 😊
Hi Seltzertronics,
I hate to find your video so late. I am not sure I will be able to reach you... Anyway, let's try.
I am extremly interested in high quality streaming, and your experience is probably the more compelling about the MQA compression I have been able to find. Basically, I have two main doubts about your methodology:
Have you done tests in Jazz and Classical music tracks? (In order to confirm the trend)
The sample rate and bit rate are the same in both cases? For example, if the FLAC from Qobuz is at 24bit 96KHz. Have you check that the file from TIDAL MQA has the same rates?
Many thanks.
Started out with Spotify (ofcourse) then tried Tidal because of the high res library. Then tried Qobuz and never looked back since then. Where Tidal sounds flat, Qobuz gives a real soundstage. I life in Europe so maybe that makes a diffrence since al Americans prefer Tidal over Qobuz, maybe longer distance causes more interference?.I blind tested it with friends and all of them unanimously agreed.
Great video. Thank you!!
An interesting comparison. How did you match levels between TIDAL and Qobuz? I've found that levels can be slightly different between the two services.
This is an INCREDIBLE video! Your arguments are solid and sound! And your explanation is incredible/ truthful. But I have to admit - I really prefer Qobuz! Lol. I was shocked when you said you preferred MQA/ Tidal! As you say - it's all subjective. Maybe I have to check into my hardware, but every argument you made in favor or Tidal is why I prefer Qobuz. At the end of the day, both platforms attempt to preserve the artists most subtle details. No matter what your preference, I applaud both companies for attempting to do that. Thanks for the great video and best of luck to you!
Iv'e been using Tidal and I love it. Running though a Woo Audio DAC - Caimbridge Audio - Jamo. I found the soundstage to be very wide and accurate. Very good detail in the mid and upper range. Still I wonder if I should go down the Vinyl route.
If you've got the time and money, and you prefer warmer sounds, vinyl is a great way to get a new take on loved music. But the bang for buck (and research time) is quite less than digital.
I inherited my Dad's Technics SL-D3 turntable and receiver plus 5.1 system (Bose, which I run simultaneous with my Klipsch Sixes and subs to fill out top and bottom). Thankfully it's got a pretty good Empire cartridge with lots of life, and I wind up preferring vinyl about 75% of the time or more if I'm sitting down listening to my stereo or headphones.
Tool I'm about 50/50 on digital versus analog, and NIN is the cutting off point where I prefer digital, at least on the complex tracks: the really dense, detailed, and complex multi-voice tones translate best to me on CD (even better than high res Qobuz streaming). But since I'm mainly listening to classic rock and R&B, I think my preference will generally be for vinyl when I can get it-while I'll probably prefer digital for more electronic genres.
Did you volume match these? I've enjoyed both Tidal and Qobuz. But comparing CD quality to MQA on Tidal, the MQA tends to be a bit louder. That may well be true MQA vs hi-res FLAC on Qobuz, but I don't know for sure.
the question is whether Tidal or the record company uses dynamic compression or both?
I will have to play this seven times to digest it and I've been an audiophile, since 1983. Well done clip! Thank you. So what should audiophiles pay for? QoBuz, because it broadcast more 24 bit 192khz,(or even 96) than Tidal- nuff said. 🔈🔉🔊🎼🎧 edit: I'm paying for Amazon Music, with lots of Ultra HD tracks, since Matt Schaffer suggested it. Great SQ!
Got a pair of those speakers for few month now.. They are so incredible.
Use to hear a lot of Tidal MQA on my monitoring HS8S and a lot of HiRes. No doubt, HIRes sounds more realistic, no signature just the sound of the studio. More than that just few few MQA on Tidal.... A LOT AND A LOT HIRES on Qobuz :-) See you guys ;-)
Great review. I have a similar setting and agree with your conclusions in terms of Sound Quality. I am still staying for some time with both services as I have found music in Qobuz, not available in Tidal and others that Qobuz has higher resolution files when there's no MQA available in Tidal. I also like much better the home page of Qobuz than Tidal's heavy Rap focus, even though I use Roon.
I love how you announced that, to your ears, MQA sounded better, but you said it with shrugged shoulders, an apologetic tone but also the finality that you'd discovered this 16 times in a row. Right or wrong, in a world full of salesmanship and hype, it's refreshing to hear someone tell the truth, as they see it. I have subscriptions to Apple Music, Tidal and Qobuz and MQA as an option on my Ferrum Wandla.
When I A/B Tidal and Qobuz, I find myself waffling over tradeoffs. Qobuz sounds "clearer," with a treble that strikes me as airier. I hear the echo of piano notes, as if hanging in the air a little longer. Switching to Tidal, it's a little softer, like that tiniest bit of roll-off on the Chord Qutest. If Qobuz feels slightly more resolving, Tidal feels slightly more refined. Or could it all just be the difference in volume between the two? (Quobuz is louder; I have to adjust the volume to equal the two.). I don't know. I'm not a fan of A/Bing.
Decent comparison for which I thank you. If I weren't on my phone, we could debate or at very least, I would expound. You omit what sadly decides the choice for me -- Qobuz has less of the music I'm interested in. That surprises me a lot and disappoints me as well since I'm not all that happy with Tidal. So, for that reason alone, I'm sticking with Tidal. For the record, I really can't hear the difference beyond Redbook anyway. What does dramatically improve my listening pleasure is Chesky's binaural recording method. However, neither Tidal nor Qobuz include the Chesky catalog extensively.
Just a newbie audiophile here.
So, is it correct to say that the sum of these results are that the best of MQA (whether downloaded or streamed from Tidal) sounds better than all other commonly available sources of music (short of setting up a chair in the studio...), EVEN compared to a Qobuz Sumblime+ subscription that is used to download FLAC files?
Wow. You're one of the few who prefered MQA and heard a difference. I'm with Tidal and MQA. I've tried going from hi-fi and MQA in the app. with the same song and really can't say I heard a difference.
There is no mention of the details of your setup specifically how you did the rapid switching, how you hid what was what when you were switching, and most importantly, how you ensured the levels were perfectly matched.
8 trials were administered by my wife. The other 8 I administered myself through Roon. I create a playlist with both Tidal and Qobuz versions of the track, scramble them, and cover up the screen, except for the controls. This allows me to listen blindly. I didn't use any kind of level-matching because, as I mentioned, there was no evidence that they were different masters and thus they were already matched.
@@seltzertronics2538 That they were the same masters, does not mean there was no change in the level processing in the DAC, the app, the MQA decoding process, the DAC processing of MQA, etc. That pretty much, unfortunately, renders your results, at this point, completely useless.
@@robertt7238 The levels were not different though. The differences that informed my preference weren't of the sort that an extra dB or two impact. It was "deeper, more present bass, or closer, more intimate vocals." It was almost entirely imaging. Anyway, you're free to measure the tracks if you want. Jack Johnson Better Together and Big Sure were in there. Also Kacey Musgraves. First track on latest album.
Your objectivity and your thorough scientific approach are a real plus. Thank you so much.
Excellent video. Where does Amazon HD fit in? What is there file format? Thanks
Excellent review - thanks. I have the same experience with MQA. The DSP issue is solved by Roon and meanwhile, Dirac live is offered on NAD DAC & preamp including MQA
Nice vid. Comparison, what about removal of dynamic compression for non mqa hi Rez tunes? Was this part of sound test. My dac (chord tt2) ain’t mqa enabled so qobuz makes more sense. Also, ability to do room acoustic work with Dirac not feasible with mqa. I want visiting aliens to be happy, so I chose to have non mqa stuff ready to go at all times.
When you get the Direct Stream from Ps audio, I would be very much interested in your review and opinion of how this piece sounds. Thank you very much for a very good review.
I'd sure love to! I got do have a series of DAC videos coming up, including a Denafrips Terminator (which is in that price category).
@@seltzertronics2538 cool..thanks
if you buy a flac file and unzip it before playing the music, will it sound better or as good? . I ask the question because it's a guy said that his ALAC files sounded better when he unzipped them. before he played them. and his theory in was that it was the unpacking during music playback that was the problem
I read somewhere that you can only hear the benefits/true MQA sound if you filter the music through a DAC vs Qobuz's FLAC that you can hear it right off their site or app directly. Is this true? Reason being is that I only listen to streaming music through my Macbook connected to external desktop speakers (RCA jack connected) and I don't want to subscribe to Tidal Hi-Fi if it won't make any difference in sound, that I'd rather get Qobuz.
That's partially true. First, a DAC doesn't really "filter" anything. Using an external DAC just means that you're not using the DAC in your MacBook, which definitely won't be as good. Using the DAC in your MacBook ought to give you *some* but not all of the benefits of MQA. On that note, even though FLAC doesn't require any special hardware, you likely won't be enjoying much of a benefit from that either. If you're more of a casual user, I'd probably stick with Spotify Premium. It's much cheaper and much better overall experience. It's technically lossy, but it's very, very high quality lossy and it's unlikely that you'll really notice a difference in your use case. However, if you must have lossless (which is a desire I can empathize with), either Tidal or Qobuz are excellent. Honestly, choose based upon which application you like better. Sound quality won't be a distinguishing factor.
...a bit of magic in the range in which the hearing is focused does wonders, it's all psychological, at the higher end even if hearable the hearing will not focus enough
I have found Amazon HD has what they call HD and ultra HD and it sounds great.
A bit off-topic but those are some cool looking glasses. I am hoping to know what those are cuz I need to replace mine yesterday.
Great video, very detailed and solid information and rigorous testing method. In the end though, I get a bit confused. You say you preferred mqa 16/16 times but then state that you were better off with your schiit dac than with your mqa capable dac. What does this mean?
Ok Nyquist theorem states you need to be at least twice the input frequency to regenerate the original sound without aliasing effects. In no way can you assume twice is good enough for perfect sound.
Especially when we know the importance of transients.
Really interesting thanks 👍
what software do you use? to see spectrometer as you show when u play dire straits
That was probably Foobar2k.
Subscribed based on the hilarious disappointment of your test results revealing your preference. I wanted to hate MQA too! Proprietary? Lossy? Jay-Z? Haters gotta hate damnit!! Thanks for going through the trouble of detailing your methods and giving us haters the bad news. Amazing results considering still not an "MQA Optimized" set up. There must be something to it because some people do prefer the sound . Still hate the Acronym, who, EXACTLY, is giving the Authentication? But it just rings of authority doesn't it?
Very good piece
Was level matching done? What was heard can be attributed to the MQA recordings being just a dB or two louder.
I didn't do any level matching. However, I feel very strongly that they were comparable masters. The differences I heard--and were the bases of my preferences--were mostly spatial cues. I mean, it wasn't just "clearer and more dynamic," which would be consistent with a bit of gain. Rather, details were in different locations, more naturally presented across the soundstage. I also suspect that with as much listening as I did I probably would have noticed if one was systematically louder. Believe me, I would have been happy to take that easy offramp from the MQA road. However, your results may vary. I encourage you to give it a try yourself. I'm still pretty mystified.
I can’t dispute what you heard and experienced, other than it isn’t the same as mine, but in any audio comparison, level matching is a must. That said, I thank you for your comparison.
In the end although I truly believe you were trying to do your best to pick what you prefer it just may be the alterations done by tidal just happen to be your prefference.
And I did blind comparison between tidal and my own CDs or when available a SACD and always picked the SACD or CD over tidal so they do something to alter the sound and it's definitely not for me .
@@seltzertronics2538 Wouldn't 1db more highs give you the impression of more openness and 1db of added bass make you sense more fullness in the presentation? Also, doesn't high rez tend to make the high end seem softer and smoother? I've got to say I'll laugh my ass off if a few years from now it gets leaked that MQA is nothing more than minimal eq at both ends and 1411 chopped to 705!
Would be curious to see how the comparison would be if you listened to MQA VS HI Def WAV, I don't really like Flac, it always sounded a little off when I compared them to the same file on WAV. I presume that is due to the uncompressing that FLAC has to do to present the data. I myself did a bunch of tests on multiple system I had and every single time WAV came out on top. MQA however is pretty interesting because it definitely adds a bit of punch to the sound and I can't quite put my finger on it. They don't sound the same and I wonder if MQA favours certain frequencies that are perhaps more pleasing, in a sense colouring the sound, Although when I did a comparison between MQA and Hi DEF WAV the results were mixed, particularly when things were on 44 KHZ, it's new tec and it's all very exciting, I think there is room for competition
ABX testing...yea, what he said. Im done with CDs only keeping my Denon SACD player in case a friend brings a CD to listen to. Odd that CDs may just go extinct before vinyl does. I wonder if there will be a Redbook religion in 20 years like Vinyl has now.
Need an opinion here. I own a mini dsp with mic and plan to use it for an active crossover/eq to an 8 channel amp for a crossoverless 4 way open baffle speaker. I’m still a bit fuzzy on how to integrated that with my Peachtree integrated amp DAC. It’s a bit daunting with all the other projects atm.
WRT streaming, I’m unconvinced and unswayed. What is wrong with AAC lossless downloaded files and stream only to sample the goods. What am I missing here?
1. Mac mini connected to Peachtree Nova 300 via optical
2. IOS connected to same using lightning to usb 2.0
3. Peachtree drives Martin Logan Odyssey with great results.
4. Logitech streamer not yet set up
5. DSP and multichannel amp to open dipole speakers not yet set up
6. I’ve apparently got some homework to do and not sure what products work within the Apple environment. I have Sonos 5s in the living room and they don’t recognize much of my music on ITunes...the interface is grayed out. I’m thinking Roon might fix that, but why why why do we need to spend another $120/yr just to have a cross compatible catalog?
toslink have only support for CD quality And lower
It is possible that Tidal and Qobuz apply different processing to the files they stream. It is well documented that UA-cam, Apple iTunes, Spotify, and Pandora all apply some compression and/or level adjustment to the files they stream. So it is a bridge too far for me to accept that comparing “identical” source material on Tidal and Qobuz is only comparing MQA to PCM.
UA-cam and Pandora openly use lossy compression. Tidal and Qobuz have both staked their respective businesses on lossless compression. Spotify does do some digital volume matching (which can be disabled). Tidal also has this capability, but it's disabled by default. I was also conducting the tests through Roon, which also requires any replay gain settings to be manually activated.
@@seltzertronics2538
I think what he is getting at is that EACH of the streaming services Have Specific Mastering Guidelines for the audio files BEFORE they can be submitted and accepted by that particular service or provider.
Google "Mastered for iTunes Guidelines" and "Apple Digital Masters Guidelines".
So, this means that it is Very Probable that the Master of the same tracks or albums that you listen to on one streaming service are in fact different from one streaming/download service to the next.
This will obviously affect what you hear and your preference one way or the other when listening to "the same track" via the different services.
To be fair, the main focus of these mastering guidelines are to ensure that there will be no digital clipping when the files are converted to that particular service's preferred file format using their particular encoding software.
Still, this opens up the opportunity for the mastering engineer "to change things" in other ways besides just simple amplitude limiting or dynamic compression. And even the limiting and subtle dynamic compression can change your perception of the particular file during playback.
In addition, different mastering engineers may use completely different equipment in their signal chain (including, but not limited to dynamic compressors, digital or analog EQ, final ADC/DAC converters, and different studio monitors)!
ALL of this different studio equipment impart "their own sound signature" on the final product, just as the myriad of equipment that each of us uses for playback will ultimately impart its own quality or character.
You explain things in such a clear way, thank you! Just to be clear, if I use an MQA enabled streaming device to listen to Tidal (any budget-friendly suggestions? I was thinking Bluesound Node 2i $499) but connect optically to a MiniDSP Dirac unit (DDRC-24 $399) in the middle to do DSP and room correction for my small space, then connect optically to some MQA enabled DAC and then my amp and speakers via analog, I still won't get the second MQA unfold and thus true MQA sound quality because of the MiniDSP in the middle of the chain? Alternative: What if I go through the Bluesound Node 2i's analog outputs to a MiniDSP and then do room correction and use its analog outputs to my amp? Same problem?
Great video. I'm no audiophile, just looking for the best sounding music I can find. I've been A/B'ing Tidal and Apple Music (since releasing Lossless), trying to decide which one I want to keep. I know people say you can't hear the difference but, like you, I found that Tidal sounds better every time. I don't know what it is, but it sounds clearer and more natural. I kind of want Apple Music to be better, as it is half the price, but I'm seriously leaning towards Tidal.
what about the frequencies that are not audible by our ears but still effect the brain waves such as bi-beats?
Respect for playing Dire Straits On Every Street
I moved to Tidal from Spotify. Then moved to Amazon Music HD. Then moved to Qobuz from Amazon
Amazon and Qobuz has exactly same files interns of bits and sample rate. However .. Amazon does some processing before streaming. It pushes top frequencies a bit and gives voice / mid a nudge as well.
So even though Amazon and Tidal files are exactly same they sound different ... and Qobuz seems to match better with original CD or High Res files purchased separately.
Hey there. This is a good video and I'm looking forward to seeing more of your content as your channel develops. You have some very interesting perspectives here and your presentation is quite reasonable and civil. Good job. I agree with some of what you pointed out here.
Our brains and aural systems are quite complicated and I wonder why the discussion on HiRes focuses on the Frequency domain rather than the Time domain. Have you seen Hans Beekhuyzen's videos on this subject?
The Truth About Nyquist And Why 192 kHz Does Make Sense ua-cam.com/video/geaoEt-9V-w/v-deo.html
And
MQA Part 1; Why 24 bit 192 kHz Audio? ua-cam.com/video/r_wxRGiBoJg/v-deo.html
It would be nice to see you follow up and break out this video into several shorter videos, since you mentioned some very important parts of the discussion that often overlooked in the flame wars that take place around these topics ie, the commercial interests, dsp and room correction.
BTW Nyquist is still a theorem, albeit a very sound one, lol.
1st question : what filter do you use when playing regular pcm? Is it also a minimizing slow roll off filter? If not you can start redoing your video.
The minimizing slow roll off filters that mqa uses make the sound have more bass, because it shifts the frequencies non linear (lower sounds come before higher sounds).
It's also responsible for messing up the high frequency regions. Mqa fanboys call that "less fatiguing" because it sounds more positive.
But you can get the same sound with regular pcm by just selecting such a minimizing slow filter and press play. Without the need for mqa.
Hey there, first at all I wanna say this is a very good video (none of these "I have golden Ears and Hi Res is the only way to go videos"). I, myself, am pretty new to this whole Hifi thing and have been testing around with Qobuz and Tidal in the last week (for me it's gonna be Tidal for sure, because it is much more affordable as a student 10€ Tidal Hifi vs 25€ Qobuz). However I'm wondering how you made sure that Qobuz and Tidal are running on the exact same volume level? And if possibly the reason you preferred listening to MQA was that it was simply a bit louder? (I enjoy listening to MQA and couldnt really decide if I liked Tidals MQA or Qobuz FLAC more, but it felt like Qobuz has a very slight advantage). [I'm German, so please excuse me if my English isn't that good].
Keep going make great videos like this one :)
Thank you
speaking of high frequencies, this video's audio has a very noticable sibilance.... ;-)
What about Amazon music HD Ultra
The bigest isues for me are the bass when tuning a subwoofer its way to prominent with mqa also i use a project prebox digital as my dac if i swich between a mqa file and flac the audio on the flac is significantly lower in volume than the mqa file until i cycle through the filter settings then the volume becomes eaqual not sure if this is a glitch or somthing insidious in the mqa propriatary software but its very noticable and off putting
Just what I was thinking!! Better ears in the future, perhaps.
The best review on this subject in my opinion. Keep up the good work. I subscribed. Thanks.
Great video. I don’t have an MQA dac. To my less than good hearing Qobuz sounds cleaner and better, but Tidal sounds a bit more full bodied, but only a little. Qobuz has larger album art but is a slower app. Tidal has smaller album art but has music videos.
Tidal loved it but the constant pushing of Hip Hop Everytime I logged on finally bugged me enough to leave then Qobuz was just too limited so Back to Deezer until Amazon HD which the interface is not perfect but the price and huge catalog won me over
Robbie's Incoherent thoughts I agree with tidal always pushing the rap
Hip hop don’t stop can’t stop one love
@@MrStingraybernard That's because Tidal is owned by Jay Z
also annoyed with tidal pushing hiphop ... but like MQA of Tidal.... and likecthe 92khz recording of Quobuz ended up with both now Quobuz and Tidal ... have to make a choice in the future ...
Higher sampling rates have consequences for the audible part of the spectrum as well. Additionally, as you approach the Nyquist frequency, it pretty much becomes a squarewave. It can handle the frequency, but only approximates the waveform.
i see a number of comments regarding MQA enabled equipement. Just sharing Bluesound node does a wonderfull job. Great value for you money
The time blurring factor is definitely something worth exploring by bona fide audio scientists without skin in the game of selling music. One of the first things we learn in life is not accepting blind "trust me" recruiting. (Well, except perhaps members of sects or cults). Science is part of the modern man mindset. One we know and understand things we integrate them in our broader mental schema of "life, the universe and everything". The closest we have got to reality is that high frequency samples are stored in the low bits of the 24 bit sample. The time factor is a byproduct of this, because if we must retrieve and reassemble original time dependent sound this is a crucial issue, which when pursued may have led to some wortwhile developments. I would like to believe that this is the case, but until they explain the rationale (no need to give away trade secrets) it is a very tough sell, except to people who buy 8,000$ cables "on trust" and a heavy dose of "confirmation bias".
I've had tidal and it sounded different when comparing it to my Own CDs which makes me believe they are altering the tracks which I do with my own EQ an Audiosource EQ-ONE.
You proved you like the alterations which is fine but I prefer as close to the original CD as possible or in hi Rez music unaltered from the actual release .
unaltered unless done by me to my taste.
So I have Qobuz and it's run into my Geshelli Enog2 Dac which is then run into my Audiosource EQ-ONE Equalizer then out to my Archel Pro Headphone Amplifier then I choose if I want it flat and direct or altered to my taste .
I don't want or need tidal to decide for me what I will like .
Btw, a review of your vidar mono locks would be appreciated!
Which service would be best if I stream thru my iPhone 10 to my nex4500 in my vehicle?
Mobile streaming is a hard advantage for Tidal, as it will use a lot less data and give you a more stable stream. You might even consider Spotify Premium. Honestly it's only possible to discern high quality lossy streams, like Spotify's 320 kbps Ogg Vorbis, in the most ideal of listening circumstances. While piloting a vehicle your tunes will be competing for your attention with, you know, driving. As well, even with the best acoustic isolation treatment in a vehicle there'll still be quite a bit of road noise and so forth. Plus, Spotify gives you better playlists (both user-generated and curated) so you don't have to keep looking for stuff to listen to manually.
Seltzertronics Thank you for your reply.
Update tidal now sells music also
Which one's got a lot of classic Rock?
I'm testing that right now. Seems like Tidal is driven by Hip Hop and Pop.
I moved from Tidal to Qobuz, I was paying for Tidal then got a free trial of Qobuz. I dropped Tidal for Qobuz due to sound quality. Listened on Magnepan 1.7i I could hear the audio compression happening on Tidal and Qobuz was closer if not almost mistakable to Foobar2000 running flac files in ASIO.
What audio compression are you talking about?
@@seltzertronics2538 It's not not heavy but there, I mean don't get me wrong Tidal does sound good, but not as clear as Qobuz. I've blind A/Bed them and can tell the difference between Spotify, Tidal and Qobuz.
I wish this was the biggest issue in my universe! This is so fun ridiculous at this point! If it sounds good and you like it, run with it! Let the assholes who can afford all this equipment continue to pick gnat shit out of pepper!!!
How about comparing FLAC encoded by yourself? - could it be Qobuz FLAC not optimal?
This is very helpful. How?
1. Just buy portable dac as a starter.
2. Later on, upgrade for more high-end dac for home use.
I prefer streaming, probably MQA is the way to go as I don’t even have Roon at this point. No point on having Roon as I don’t have any music library.