Qobuz.

Revised verdict:

After a few more days using Qobuz, the slightly-better-than-Tidal audio quality may not be enough to overcome the absolutely sh!tty search UX and catalog indexing. Even if Qobuz has the recordings I've painstakingly assembled in my Tidal library, if one can't find them they might as well not be there at all.  Awful, and a real disappointment.

Also continuing to find holes in the Qobuz catalog compared to Tidal - in classical recordings, of all things.

@usery,  As a Qobuz beta tester, please report all your comments and suggestions to Qobuz.  Thanks.  

Everyone needs to report their finding to Qobuz. 

I have already reported that my Aurender N10 needs an Qobuz API so they can sort my favorite albums into artist sequence.   And, another API so my Aurender can create a tab so I can select 24/96 coded albums and 24/192 coded albums. Qobuz reports these are on the list but no time frames.  

My Roon friends report they already can sort albums and have filters for hi-res selection. 

After a month of using Qobuz, i signed up for yearly subscription at $249.00. To my ears, the Qobuz high resolution SQ easily trumps Tidal. In direct comparison between MQA 24/96kHz and Qobuz 24/96kHz files, Qobuz is superior in dynamics by a good margin.

I also liked the fact that with Qobuz I no longer need to pursue a MQA compatiable DAC.

Since i use Aurender conductor app, I experienced no issues with artist or albums search with Qobuz. 

I also liked the fact that with Qobuz I no longer need to pursue a MQA compatiable DAC.

Hmmm.... and yet you were able to compare MQA vs. Qobuz HiRes

@thyname,

That’s correct. Aurender streamers are capable of unfolding MQA encoded files.... upto 24/96kHz resolution 😉