1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Qobuz Lossless Streaming Service Thread

Discussion in 'Music' started by animeismylife, Jul 23, 2017.
First
 
Back
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
31 32 33
Next
 
Last
  1. rkw
    I posted a couple of weeks ago that I discovered that the Qobuz US beta has the Chesky Records catalog, which I didn't see in my Qobuz UK preview trial last year. I've been playing some Chesky albums but today they are no longer available on Qobuz US beta.

    I've also noticed many albums marked as Hi-Res (up to 24/192) but don't actually stream higher than 16/44.1 resolution. I don't remember exactly, but I think this was also the case during my UK preview trial. For example, the entire 2L catalog, such as: https://open.qobuz.com/album/7041888512820
     
  2. Left Channel
    I believe what you're seeing is a problem Qobuz is working on: an album will be tagged as Hi-Res if it is available in that format for purchase as a download, even if it is not available in the same resolution for streaming.

    To make matters even more confusing in this case, that album is not yet available for purchase in the USA as it is in the UK, yet it has the Hi-Res label on both services. For the USA, the head of 2L has stated that their Hi-Res downloads are not yet available due to a temporary third-party distributor business transition.

    Chesky may be caught up in the same business transition, who knows? 2L is an odd case in another way too though, because 2L supplied their 16/44.1 albums in MQA CD format...which was apparently a surprise to Qobuz. Pitchforks and torches have been on the march since that was discovered. But everything else about this example is Situation Normal.
     
    Alcophone likes this.
  3. Daffie
    Sure, licensing agreements take time. But the Tokyo album is available on Tidal so it can't be that hard to license...
     
  4. Left Channel
    Didn't mean to sound snarky, sorry. Just saying the Qobuz folks are working on launching in the USA, but with about 65 employees worldwide vs. Tidal's 300, a conservative approach likely allowing them to lose less money and become the only streaming service claiming to be able to project profitability within a few years. But that may mean it will take a little longer to get all the licensing paperwork done.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
    Peter Hyatt and Daffie like this.
  5. golfbravobravo
  6. turbomustang84
    Nine inch nails and several other bands that are available on Deezer in it's complete discography and is only available in CD Quality as is Deezer I'm hoping more Hi Res. Tracks from bands I actually care about are offered .

    because if the only tracks of the 2 million claimed Hi Res tracks are mostly classical then it does not help. Me at all .

    I will stick with it for a few months but Deezers catalog is better than tidal and Qobuz and is at least CD Quality .

    True Qobuz offers 2 million High Resolution tracks but most of their available 40 million tracks are 38 million CD Quality tracks and Deezers has 53 million CD Quality Tracks .

    So far only 20 Albums I've added of the 300 iveI added to favorites are High Resolution and very few are newer bands I actually care about such as Crystal Fairy which is available on Deezers and not at all on Qobuz..

    I won't make any snap decisions but if I had to pick right now only half of the tracks I have downloaded on Deezers are available at all on Qobuz .

    They do have a lot of the Who in high Resolution but I think since it's new in the US getting a larger catalog might take them a while.

    Tidal I think is fine if you like Hip Hop or top 40 but so far Deezer has much more of the stuff in interested in so if they offer a decent High Resolution purchase only without streaming it would be a better service for me .
     
  7. Daffie
  8. turbomustang84
  9. rkw
    Shouldn't be necessary to download first. Tidal and Qobuz support lossless streaming on mobile. It makes no sense that you could be connected to Deezer on WiFi and only stream at 320kbps.

    I've done a Deezer trial to explore switching from Tidal, but there were too many things I didn't like. Frankly I'm not completely happy with any of the streaming services. At least subscriptions are month-to-month without commitment and it's easy to switch if you choose to (except for Qobuz discounted one-year subscription).
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
  10. Richter Di
    Hi, as you seem to have some insider information, do you happen to know the age structure for the different streaming services. So is Qobuz more like 50 years old, while Tidal is more like 40 and Spotify like 20?
     
  11. Daffie
    You sure about that? How do you know?
    I just tested this by downloading 1 album and after the download I checked the storage space occupied by Deezer (you can check this in preferences /app settings within the Deezer app) and that space was too low to be a lossless download...
    Besides, Deezer is also not gapless. This makes it even worse than Tidal all things considered.
     
  12. Left Channel
    I don't have any insider information, sorry, I've just applied business experience to publicly available information.

    Our perceptions of user demographics may be skewed by our participation on audio forums. From what you read here, you'd never guess that Tidal's largest market is actually hip-hop/R&B, the largest segment of the US user base is African-American, and the average user is far younger than any Roon/Tidal subscriber you're likely to meet.

    But you're right about Qobuz, because their own survey reported their average user was 49 in 2015: http://blogsv2.qobuz.com/qobuz-blog-en/2015/11/20/qobuz-survey-now-we-know-much-more-about-you/ For all I know they have many young 320 kpbs subscribers in France, with that information only available in French language media, but Qobuz is certainly targeting the high value Hi-Res niche now, and so I'd expect their average age to creep up for a while.

    And Spotify? Yes, much much younger on average, but the 55+ segment may surprise you. I wish we had specific numbers like this for the other services: https://www.statista.com/statistics/475821/spotify-users-age-usa/
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
  13. rkw
    I think you're right, based on this Deezer support page: https://support.deezer.com/hc/en-gb/articles/115004588345-Deezer-HiFi
    • Enjoy unlimited access to 36 million high fidelity, CD-quality lossless tracks (16-Bit/44.1 kHz FLAC)
    • Plus unlimited high-quality streaming and offline listening (53 million tracks in 320 kbps) on phones, tablets, and more
    That implies mobile offline listening is 320 kbps. Also it seems to be saying that they have 36 million CD quality tracks, but the rest (27 million tracks) are 320 kbps?
     
    Daffie likes this.
  14. Daffie
    For me Deezer is without a doubt one of the worst streaming services of them all. I checked them out a few years ago but they have not improved a single bit.
    Paying for a Hi-Fi subcription of eur 20 a month and not having anything higher than 320 kbit on mobile devices is pathetic. Shame on you Deezer.
     
  15. abvolt
    Well I just got my new Qobuz account today 24 bit 96 khz the sound quality is so much better then Spotify I never heard HiRez before for me it's well worth the price. Hopefully I can import my Spotify playlist to Qobuz anyone know how. Thanks
     
    Peter Hyatt likes this.
First
 
Back
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
31 32 33
Next
 
Last

Share This Page