[Left Channel]

All the above speculation about the relative business prospects of Qobuz seem to me like comparing apples to oranges. Qobuz is under new ownership, guided by a very conservative business model focused on the audiophile market. Audiophiles, a small portion of the overall market, tend to pay more for quality. The small companies and small corporate divisions that make products for audiophiles do very well, thank you very much. Luxury cars are only 6% of the US car market. Does that make those brands failures?

As for Tidal, their strategy is broader, focused on several segments at once including the relatively small lossless market and the very large R&B/Hip-Hop category. But Tidal is not the topic of this thread, nor is the entire music streaming industry which is as I'm sure you know not profitable overall. Apple doesn't even need to make money in streaming to be profitable, while Spotify does and is apparently trying to get there through massive growth. But there are some bright spots, including — of all companies — RealNetworks Napster (Rhapsody), which achieved profitability last year based on a niche market focus. So niche, in fact, we have no idea who their customers are...much of it seems to be "white label" rebranded streaming for other companies.

Qobuz may be one of those bright spots too. Their executives project profitability within a few years, but that depends upon many factors, some out of their control. We shall see.

 

[Peter Hyatt]

Which KEF speakers? I believe KEF supports Spotify Connect, Tidal and Roon. Also look at the KEF phone app.

LSx

No Qobuz on the app.

 

[rkw]

LSx

No Qobuz on the app.

My first thought is Google Cast from the Qobuz app to Chromecast Audio to Toslink optical to LSX.
Or something similar using an AirPlay receiver.
Edit: LSX specs says it supports AirPlay. I think you might be able to stream directly from the Qobuz app to LSX over AirPlay.

Also look at the mconnect app: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mconnect-player/id503760460. The LSX specs say it supports UPnP.

 

[Alcophone]

My first thought is Google Cast from the Qobuz app to Chromecast Audio to Toslink optical to LSX.
Or something similar using an AirPlay receiver.

Also look at the mconnect app: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mconnect-player/id503760460. The LSX specs say it supports UPnP.

I haven't been lucky with 24/192 content in conjunction with the Chromecast Audio. If you change the quality setting to CD it works without skipping and at least it's still lossless, but not everything that Qobuz can deliver.

 

[rkw]

I haven't been lucky with 24/192 content in conjunction with the Chromecast Audio. If you change the quality setting to CD it works without skipping and at least it's still lossless, but not everything that Qobuz can deliver.

The AirPlay option is also limited to CD quality, but he's trying to upgrade from Bluetooth.

In any case, KEF LSX is an all-in-one wireless receiver powered speaker. A hi-res stream probably won't make an audible difference.

 

[Likeimthere]

That reminds me, Qobuz needs a 'Family plan'

I agree to the Family Plan need!!

 

[turbomustang84]

Well I could not afford Qobuz and Deezer so until content gets better or they reduce the monthly fee I'm out

 

[Richter Di]

That reminds me, Qobuz needs a 'Family plan'

I agree to the Family Plan need!!

Oh yes!

 

[runssical]

I just figured out that you can still 'favorite' albums through the Qobuz website store.

They moved the favorite button from under the album cover to on top of the album cover. BUT the button only appears when you hover over the album cover with the mouse cursor.

 

[runssical]

All the above speculation about the relative business prospects of Qobuz seem to me like comparing apples to oranges. Qobuz is under new ownership, guided by a very conservative business model focused on the audiophile market. Audiophiles, a small portion of the overall market, tend to pay more for quality. The small companies and small corporate divisions that make products for audiophiles do very well, thank you very much. Luxury cars are only 6% of the US car market. Does that make those brands failures?

As for Tidal, their strategy is broader, focused on several segments at once including the relatively small lossless market and the very large R&B/Hip-Hop category. But Tidal is not the topic of this thread, nor is the entire music streaming industry which is as I'm sure you know not profitable overall. Apple doesn't even need to make money in streaming to be profitable, while Spotify does and is apparently trying to get there through massive growth. But there are some bright spots, including — of all companies — RealNetworks Napster (Rhapsody), which achieved profitability last year based on a niche market focus. So niche, in fact, we have no idea who their customers are...much of it seems to be "white label" rebranded streaming for other companies.

Qobuz may be one of those bright spots too. Their executives project profitability within a few years, but that depends upon many factors, some out of their control. We shall see.

Except, with sports cars EVERYONE would like to have one IF they had the money.

With lossless streaming most people don't care if the music is compressed. See all those NBA players with $100 million dollar contracts walking around with Beats headphones listening to Spotify?

Also, the market for audiophiles has been shrinking for decades. Two generations have now grown up accustomed to lossy audio as well as the sense that music should be free. Thus why YouTube is the primary source of music for a lot of young people.

With services such as streaming you have to reach critical mass in terms of subscriber base to have sustainability. It's called Network Effects. It's why Microsoft Windows is dominate for computers. Why YouTube has a defacto monopoly in user generated streaming video.

There's a social aspect to music streaming and the masses gravitate to one service, i.e. Spotify to facilitate the sharing of playlists.

All of these services have fixed costs such as app development. It's clear that the bigger companies such as Spotify and Apple benefit in this regard by having more resources to devote to development. Qobuz is lagging in app development. With a much smaller user base, Qobuz cannot invest as much in app development.

 

[Alcophone]

Qobuz Premium (MP3 at 320 kbps): $9.99 / month, $99.99 / year
Spotify Premium (MP3 at 320 kbps): $9.99 / month, $119.88 / year

If you don't care about lossless and don't want to suffer though ads, Qobuz is cheaper than Spotify if you pay annually. The lossless options may be overpriced, or they may not be (does it cost more to license the uncompressed masters?), but that's only relevant when comparing to Tidal or Deezer. If you argue based on price, you could say that Qobuz doesn't have a free, ad supported version, which I imagine is a successful strategy for Spotify, but the Premium tier's price is obviously not the issue. So it must be something else. Like buggy, disconnected apps, less integration into devices, and an incomplete catalog. I hope there aren't many people not using Qobuz just because you can't share playlists.

 

[runssical]

Qobuz Premium (MP3 at 320 kbps): $9.99 / month, $99.99 / year
Spotify Premium (MP3 at 320 kbps): $9.99 / month, $119.88 / year

If you don't care about lossless and don't want to suffer though ads, Qobuz is cheaper than Spotify if you pay annually. The lossless options may be overpriced, or they may not be (does it cost more to license the uncompressed masters?), but that's only relevant when comparing to Tidal or Deezer. If you argue based on price, you could say that Qobuz doesn't have a free, ad supported version, which I imagine is a successful strategy for Spotify, but the Premium tier's price is obviously not the issue. So it must be something else. Like buggy, disconnected apps, less integration into devices, and an incomplete catalog. I hope there aren't many people not using Qobuz just because you can't share playlists.

Few people are googo to pony up $100 in a single payment to Qobuz. That's not gonna fly.

I prefer standard lossless but Qobuz is not offering a reasonable value for it. The additional cost of a lossless subscription over the lossy tier should be no greater than the difference between lossless vs lossy downloads, i.e. about 30%

In your list of negatives for Qobuz you forgot the catalog depth. Spotify has 6-10 million more songs. Many of those are the popular newer albums and tracks. That leaves Qobuz disadvantaged.

The social component is key. Got a friend? Want them to hear a new song? Well they're likely not using Qobuz. So you can't send them a share link or let them 'follow' your playlists.

 

[bfreedma]

Except, with sports cars EVERYONE would like to have one IF they had the money.

With lossless streaming most people don't care if the music is compressed. See all those NBA players with $100 million dollar contracts walking around with Beats headphones listening to Spotify?

Also, the market for audiophiles has been shrinking for decades. Two generations have now grown up accustomed to lossy audio as well as the sense that music should be free. Thus why YouTube is the primary source of music for a lot of young people.

With services such as streaming you have to reach critical mass in terms of subscriber base to have sustainability. It's called Network Effects. It's why Microsoft Windows is dominate for computers. Why YouTube has a defacto monopoly in user generated streaming video.

There's a social aspect to music streaming and the masses gravitate to one service, i.e. Spotify to facilitate the sharing of playlists.

All of these services have fixed costs such as app development. It's clear that the bigger companies such as Spotify and Apple benefit in this regard by having more resources to devote to development. Qobuz is lagging in app development. With a much smaller user base, Qobuz cannot invest as much in app development.

There are certainly people who wouldn’t want a sports car, even if money want a barrier. I can’t even get my wife to drive mine - she certainly won’t be buying one.

As for NBA players being seen with Beats - you would wear them too if Beats paid you to do so via an endorsement deal. I know a couple of current end ex NBA players and I assure you they aren’t all listening to Beats at home.

 

[Alcophone]

Few people are googo to pony up $100 in a single payment to Qobuz. That's not gonna fly.

Not initially, but once you're convinced by it, it would be the smart choice if you can afford it. But the point wasn't that it can be cheaper, it's that Qobuz is not more expensive for the highest quality offered by Spotify. Combined with your point that people don't care about lossless, it means that Qobuz is not at a disadvantage to Spotify on that front - unless you take the ad supported plan into account.

I prefer standard lossless but Qobuz is not offering a reasonable value for it. The additional cost of a lossless subscription over the lossy tier should be no greater than the difference between lossless vs lossy downloads, i.e. about 30%

I agree that given the relatively small improvement between MP3 320 kbps and 16/44, it seems overpriced. But you probably know that hardly anything is priced based on cost, it's priced based on value. People who care that much about quality and buy expensive gear should be able to cough up some extra money to get access to content to play on their expensive gear. $25/month wouldn't be my preferred price for hi-res, but I find it acceptable. $15/month for CD would be more appropriate, regardless of how much more it actually costs them to offer that.

In your list of negatives for Qobuz you forgot the catalog depth. Spotify has 6-10 million more songs. Many of those are the popular newer albums and tracks. That leaves Qobuz disadvantaged.

I did not:

Like buggy, disconnected apps, less integration into devices, and an incomplete catalog.

The social component is key. Got a friend? Want them to hear a new song? Well they're likely not using Qobuz. So you can't send them a share link or let them 'follow' your playlists.

Yeah, I wonder how people ever recommend music to others before there was streaming. If only one could name the artist and album or song title, and let them copy & paste it into a search bar on YouTube, whatever streaming service they use or on some music store with samples. One may dream...
The social component is a nice addition, but I would not consider it vital. If Qobuz was Spotify plus Lossless minus Social with the current prices, I'd use Qobuz.

 

[Left Channel]

Except, with sports cars EVERYONE would like to have one IF they had the money.

With lossless streaming most people don't care if the music is compressed. See all those NBA players with $100 million dollar contracts walking around with Beats headphones listening to Spotify?

Also, the market for audiophiles has been shrinking for decades. Two generations have now grown up accustomed to lossy audio as well as the sense that music should be free. Thus why YouTube is the primary source of music for a lot of young people.

With services such as streaming you have to reach critical mass in terms of subscriber base to have sustainability. It's called Network Effects. It's why Microsoft Windows is dominate for computers. Why YouTube has a defacto monopoly in user generated streaming video.

There's a social aspect to music streaming and the masses gravitate to one service, i.e. Spotify to facilitate the sharing of playlists.

All of these services have fixed costs such as app development. It's clear that the bigger companies such as Spotify and Apple benefit in this regard by having more resources to devote to development. Qobuz is lagging in app development. With a much smaller user base, Qobuz cannot invest as much in app development.

I wrote "luxury cars" not "sports cars", and my point was that at luxury prices 6% of the market is fine. But for the record, I know lots of folks who would prefer a bigger pickup truck over a sports car even if you paid them to take it. Personally I don't want a sports car at all, ever, and at this point drive only all-electric SUVs which are speedy and sporty enough for me.

Anyway, I don't think the numbers back up the idea that the audiophile market is shrinking. I was just at AXPONA and it was bigger than ever, positively bursting at the seams with multiple generations of folks who grew up with poor audio of one kind or another. 50 years ago almost all the teens and young adults listened to tinny-sounding little transistor radios with one-ear earphones, and often cheap one-piece one-speaker phonographs too, but some portion of the market eventually moved up to full home stereos...or listened to their dads' systems. Then and now, moving up has required money so it usually happens later in life, if ever. Everyone else was fine with their car radios and now with their phones, and their TV which is now YouTube on their phones.

The Qobuz chief evangelist visits this thread occasionally, but in general they don't have a dedicated presence here. Why? Well, they are focused on another forum: Audiophile Style (formerly known as Computer Audiophile), one of many thriving audiophile sites. The concerns we discuss here on Head-Fi — like family plans, military discounts, and other normal concerns for most people — seldom come up there. Audiophiles subscribe to Qobuz or Tidal (or both) while the bulk of their family is on Spotify or Apple Music. That's just the way it is.