Well, we are half way thru November and I have not heard that Qobuz has launched in the US yet. I was at RMAF and "Q"obuz was a big disappointment. Their booth was rarely manned, most of the rooms that were to feature "Q" did not have it and quite a few claimed never to have heard of it! The "free trial code" did not work and it is virtually impossible to talk to anyone connected with "Q". Emailing "Q" customer service was only a little better. Although you can get a murky response in English, most of my questions were answered by informational pieces in French!
Now for the good news: With assistance from Aurender I was able to contact a "Q" exec. and received a legit trial code. I LIKE IT! Since I already subscribed to TIDAL (hi-res & MQA), I did some comparisons. In some cases a six-way comparison was possible!
Using my Aurender A10, I was able to find a track in my ripped library (16/44.1) and play it followed the same track in Tidal 16/44.1, Tidal 24/96, Tidal 24/192, "Q" 16/44.1, and "Q" 24/96 (or sometimes "Q" 24/192). I'm sure it will come as no surprise that SQ results were varied. SQ was very recording dependent. Some times the various tracks and albums sounded better (to me) in Tidal, sometimes in "Q".
At this point I can't say that Tidal is universally superior in SQ to "Q" or vice versa, be that in standard res (16/44.1) or hi-res (MQA vs. 24 bit FLAC). It is extremely recording dependent. I can say that a ripped file (16/44.1) from my own CD collection "almost" always sounded better than the same streamed standard res file from Tidal or "Q". Also, hi-res files from Tidal or "Q" "almost" always sounded better than my ripped file.
Since pricing will be about the same (if you do a 12 mo. subscription for "Q"), it comes down to what kind of music you listen to the most. If you like Classical and Jazz, "Q" has much more content and in hi-res. If you are into rock, pop, blues, and rap Tidal is definitely for you. Another consideration will be your DAC. If you don't have or want to invest in a MQA supported DAC you will probably be better off with "Q". Overall, "Q" has more total standard and hi-res content but using my Aurender Conductor app searching Tidal seems easier.
Others who have listened to both may have formed more biased opinions on SQ which is fine. I'd like to hear them. All this being said, does anyone have any accurate updates on when "Q" will launch???
Now for the good news: With assistance from Aurender I was able to contact a "Q" exec. and received a legit trial code. I LIKE IT! Since I already subscribed to TIDAL (hi-res & MQA), I did some comparisons. In some cases a six-way comparison was possible!
Using my Aurender A10, I was able to find a track in my ripped library (16/44.1) and play it followed the same track in Tidal 16/44.1, Tidal 24/96, Tidal 24/192, "Q" 16/44.1, and "Q" 24/96 (or sometimes "Q" 24/192). I'm sure it will come as no surprise that SQ results were varied. SQ was very recording dependent. Some times the various tracks and albums sounded better (to me) in Tidal, sometimes in "Q".
At this point I can't say that Tidal is universally superior in SQ to "Q" or vice versa, be that in standard res (16/44.1) or hi-res (MQA vs. 24 bit FLAC). It is extremely recording dependent. I can say that a ripped file (16/44.1) from my own CD collection "almost" always sounded better than the same streamed standard res file from Tidal or "Q". Also, hi-res files from Tidal or "Q" "almost" always sounded better than my ripped file.
Since pricing will be about the same (if you do a 12 mo. subscription for "Q"), it comes down to what kind of music you listen to the most. If you like Classical and Jazz, "Q" has much more content and in hi-res. If you are into rock, pop, blues, and rap Tidal is definitely for you. Another consideration will be your DAC. If you don't have or want to invest in a MQA supported DAC you will probably be better off with "Q". Overall, "Q" has more total standard and hi-res content but using my Aurender Conductor app searching Tidal seems easier.
Others who have listened to both may have formed more biased opinions on SQ which is fine. I'd like to hear them. All this being said, does anyone have any accurate updates on when "Q" will launch???