Tidal or Qobuz SQ/Bandwidth Question

[James Edward]

Another duh! moment for me. I use my cd/sacd player as a DAC for streaming. It has filter settings (FIR1, FIR2, SLDLY1, SLDLY2), and upsampling options too. I ASSUMED, or just never thought, about whether or not those settings were universal on all inputs. They’re not. Now that they are being utilized for my streaming input, I feel a slight improvement has been wrought. Soundstage depth appears deeper, if that’s possible, and bass better defined.
Therefore, I will need to reevaluate this experiment.

[tmazz]

Come on Jim, you should know by now, it never ends. 

[James Edward]

I’m baaaack… I tried Qobuz again to see if maybe my first go was an anomaly. I still hear a stridency; the very first second listen reminded me of the harsh, grating, and shrill (yes, some hyperbole), sound that I didn’t care for on the first try. I know Qobuz has the audiophile stamp of approval, but for me, Tidal is the smoother, more analog sounding choice.

I have had both since 2016 and the sound quality is better with Qobuz to my ears on four different systems. The Hi Res files on Qobuz are FLAC files and not DSD files.  If you are using Coax out of the Node to the Esoteric you are only getting the first unfold from MQA so not sure what the benefit of the MQA would be plus if it matters to you Qobuz is cheaper.  I only keep the Tidal subscription as my daughter uses it and I occasionally find something on an obscure independent label that is not on Qobuz but if she wasn't using it I would cancel.

I’m more than a bit ignorant on various file nomenclatures- I will take your word that Qobuz sounds better; but what do you think about the full file coming across? Is there a significant bandwidth difference between using MQA, where the ‘heavy lifting’ so to speak, is done in the streamer or dac, and Qobuz, where the full file is sent.
I may be over thinking this- but do you think my very basic internet service can handle a full file from Qobuz as well as it does the compressed MQA file, where the heavy lifting is done by the streamer and dac. I’ve had zero dropouts, etc., using Tidal.

[P.I.]

I’m baaaack… I tried Qobuz again to see if maybe my first go was an anomaly. I still hear a stridency; the very first second listen reminded me of the harsh, grating, and shrill (yes, some hyperbole), sound that I didn’t care for on the first try. I know Qobuz has the audiophile stamp of approval, but for me, Tidal is the smoother, more analog sounding choice.

I have had both since 2016 and the sound quality is better with Qobuz to my ears on four different systems. The Hi Res files on Qobuz are FLAC files and not DSD files.  If you are using Coax out of the Node to the Esoteric you are only getting the first unfold from MQA so not sure what the benefit of the MQA would be plus if it matters to you Qobuz is cheaper.  I only keep the Tidal subscription as my daughter uses it and I occasionally find something on an obscure independent label that is not on Qobuz but if she wasn't using it I would cancel.

I’m more than a bit ignorant on various file nomenclatures- I will take your word that Qobuz sounds better; but what do you think about the full file coming across? Is there a significant bandwidth difference between using MQA, where the ‘heavy lifting’ so to speak, is done in the streamer or dac, and Qobuz, where the full file is sent.
I may be over thinking this- but do you think my very basic internet service can handle a full file from Qobuz as well as it does the compressed MQA file, where the heavy lifting is done by the streamer and dac. I’ve had zero dropouts, etc., using Tidal.

Add to this the fact that the Qobuz GUI (I know... old term) is Mac averse. 🤨