[runssical]

They should make the apps open source. I'd take a look for sure.

I think they use a lot of HTML in their desktop apps. I noticed they had a separate appacache labeled "browser" and it looked like a typical browser cache. The way the UI looks how transitions work it has a browser feel to it. This is far removed from the look and feel of the Spotify desktop client which is an actual piece of software and very well polished at that.

I think the Qobuz client was designed to just pull information from the album pages on www.qobuz.com and render them in a browser applet masquerading as a piece of software.

 

[Alcophone]

I think they use a lot of HTML in their desktop apps. I noticed they had a separate appacache labeled "browser" and it looked like a typical browser cache. The way the UI looks how transitions work it has a browser feel to it. This is far removed from the look and feel of the Spotify desktop client which is an actual piece of software and very well polished at that.

I think the Qobuz client was designed to just pull information from the album pages on www.qobuz.com and render them in a browser applet masquerading as a piece of software.

Definitely. On Windows, you can find the source code for the UI under c:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\Qobuz\app-<version>\resources\app\, on Mac OS X under /Applications/Qobuz.app/Contents/Resources/app/.

Through Safari's webpack support I even stumbled upon some french code comments. And searching Google for one of the NPM modules in node_modules reveals a page with a GitHub repository link to one user's private repository (which I can't access as a result, but that provides the GitHub username of one of the developers). Interesting.

Not too surprising that there would be some performance issues, but I believe Tidal also has browser-based UI if I remember correctly - and their app worked on my Surface Pro 4.

Edit: The Spotify Mac app contains a bunch of *.spa files. They are zipped files containing HTML, CSS, images, etc. SPA could stand for Single Page Application. So it looks like HTML-based interfaces are quite the norm for music streaming apps, although the concrete libraries, frameworks, etc. used seem to differ quite a bit.

 

[rkw]

The Spotify Mac app contains a bunch of *.spa files. They are zipped files containing HTML, CSS, images, etc. SPA could stand for Single Page Application. So it looks like HTML-based interfaces are quite the norm for music streaming apps, although the concrete libraries, frameworks, etc. used seem to differ quite a bit.

Spotify publishes a lot about how they do things: https://labs.spotify.com/
They are known for their engineering culture: https://labs.spotify.com/2014/03/27/spotify-engineering-culture-part-1/

 

[StefanJK]

I’m at the end of my 30 day trial. I’ve had no technical problems on Win 7, Win 10, Mac or ipad. The issue is the at times limited catalogue.

 

[brianlg]

Limited catalog is why I just cancelled. Which was tough because I loved the service. They need to start adding things asap. I wonder if they're working on it, or if this is what they'll end up with?

 

[Left Channel]

I’m at the end of my 30 day trial. I’ve had no technical problems on Win 7, Win 10, Mac or ipad. The issue is the at times limited catalogue.

Limited catalog is why I just cancelled. Which was tough because I loved the service. They need to start adding things asap. I wonder if they're working on it, or if this is what they'll end up with?

They're working on it. Given their focus on audiophiles it's not surprising jazz and classical are better represented than pop and rock, but the catalog is growing in all categories. For now I continue to subscribe to both Tidal HiFi and Qobuz Studio, but that doesn't make sense for most people.

 

[Gibson59]

Limited catalog is why I just cancelled. Which was tough because I loved the service. They need to start adding things asap. I wonder if they're working on it, or if this is what they'll end up with?

I hear ya. I’m enjoying the sound quality so much over all other streaming services that I get disappointed when a favorite track or album isn’t available on qobuz.

However, because it appears that Qobuz catalogue caters to audiophiles and isn’t overly concerned with having all the common popular music, I’m finding that I’ve been discovering a lot of new music I’m enjoying. Particularly in the classical, jazz and world categories.

I know not everyone is willing to pay the premium for multiple streaming services, but using roon to stream from both Qobuz and Tidal is really the ticket for me. The roon interface provides seamless access to both and I’m very happy with this setup. Yes I know it’s expensive, but to me it’s worth it.

 

[StefanJK]

I’m at the end of my 30 day trial. I’ve had no technical problems on Win 7, Win 10, Mac or ipad.

Serves me right for saying I've had no technical problems: playing Qobuz today on Win 10, I see that the app appears to be mislabeling the bit depth and sample rate of tracks (indicated on the bottom right). Oh well...

 

[Left Channel]

Serves me right for saying I've had no technical problems: playing Qobuz today on Win 10, I see that the app appears to be mislabeling the bit depth and sample rate of tracks (indicated on the bottom right). Oh well...

Which tracks? Sometimes an album is only available for download in Hi-Res, while only streaming in 16-bit. In the most recent updates, the Qobuz apps began inserting a sentence above the "Hi-Res Audio" logo to indicate that, but it's not very visible. In other cases an album will only available for download and not for streaming at all, so will only stream in 30-second samples at 320 kbps. Do you think either of those may be the reason?

 

[StefanJK]

Which tracks? Sometimes an album is only available for download in Hi-Res, while only streaming in 16-bit. In the most recent updates, the Qobuz apps began inserting a sentence above the "Hi-Res Audio" logo to indicate that, but it's not very visible. In other cases an album will only available for download and not for streaming at all, so will only stream in 30-second samples at 320 kbps. Do you think either of those may be the reason?

I don't think this is what's going on. My current best guess is that the sample rate indicated in the lower right is actually correct, but that my WASAPI (exclusive mode) API is somehow being confused by the Quboz app to set the wrong sample rate, and then sample rate converting. But that's only a working theory.

 

[rkw]

Limited catalog is why I just cancelled. Which was tough because I loved the service. They need to start adding things asap. I wonder if they're working on it, or if this is what they'll end up with?

I currently have a US subscription, and last year I had a preview trial that was based on a UK subscription. I was satisfied with the UK catalog, but in comparison the US catalog has significant gaps. I'd be happy if Qobuz would just bring the US service up to parity with what they have in the UK and Europe.

Some missing items are unexpected, for example Qobuz US has albums from the Decca label. If they have Decca at all I would expect to find a fairly complete Decca catalog but actually Qobuz US has far fewer Decca releases than what I saw on Qobuz UK, or find on Tidal and Spotify.

 

[runssical]

I'm pausing my subscription. I have noticed too many restrictions for USA accounts. Albums that are available to subscribers based in France are being blocked for me. Since I listen to only classical music this is disappointing that Qobuz hasn't secured the rights to some of these labels for USA based members.

I'm also frustrated with the recent website update to the download store that occurred last week. They removed the ability to favorite albums on product pages.

Furthermore, Qobuz has gutted their search facility by removing the ability to use release date and the music label as search terms. Now I can't even find many albums. I have to use OTHER websites that sell music and copy the exact name of the album and paste into Qobuz and scroll through the results. Sometimes it pops up, sometimes it doesn't and I have to adjust the search terms more until I get a hit.

Qobuz also is not doing a great job with metadata for classical albums. They get the artists wrong or more commonly omit the artist. They will include the name of the orchestra and not the conductor. That's a big no-no.

I had high hopes that Qobuz would have a compelling product...Tidal sucks after all with those UMG watermarks and hip hop focused interface. Qobuz had the better part of two years to plan for this launch. They had so much time to secure album rights. They have had a desktop client for probably 5 years. Why does it look like the old AOL dialup browser?

If and when Spotify does upgrade to lossless the hammer will fall on Tidal and Qobuz. In a review of the new launch by Rolling Stones qobuz management alluded to this inevitability. That is why Qobuz makes "Hi Res" the focal point of their public relations and advertising.

 

[runssical]

I currently have a US subscription, and last year I had a preview trial that was based on a UK subscription. I was satisfied with the UK catalog, but in comparison the US catalog has significant gaps. I'd be happy if Qobuz would just bring the US service up to parity with what they have in the UK and Europe.

Some missing items are unexpected, for example Qobuz US has albums from the Decca label. If they have Decca at all I would expect to find a fairly complete Decca catalog but actually Qobuz US has far fewer Decca releases than what I saw on Qobuz UK, or find on Tidal and Spotify.

Decca is one of the labels I listen to since they have a lot of classical. Qobuz had ample time and opportunity to secure the streaming rights for these albums in north America. They simply dropped the ball.

 

[runssical]

Can anyone explain tt.me why we should have 100% price difference between 320/mp3 and lossless WHEN lossless downloads on webstores across the world only cost 20%-40% more than the MP3 version?

You can't because it's a cynical ripoff.

Music streamers pay out about 70% of revenue to rights holders. Of the remaining 30% about two thirds (20% of total) of that is appropriated to bandwidth, storage, and CDN distribution costs.

A standard lossless file is approximately 75% larger than a 320/kbps mp3 file.

If for example, $2 of each Spotify subscription fee is allocated to distribution and storage expenses then switching to lossless would result in costs increasing by $1.50 to $3.50.

In this example, the Spotify subscription for lossless streaming would be appropriately priced at $11.50. This is what Qobuz should charge.

The reason why Qobuz and Tidal have such underwhelming subscription numbers is because they overcharge!

The value is simply not there with Qobuz nor Tidal.

When you look behind this issue and take stock of the other short comings with the USA version of Qobuz such as the limited catalog the value proposition diminishes even more so.

With download sales stagnant, Apple and Spotify dominating streaming, and Google beginning a strong push towards YouTube Music, I don't see much of a future for Qobuz. They are boxing themselves into a tiny niche market of people that didn't get the memo that humans cannot hear the difference between Hi Res and Redbook quality. That's a market so small you can't fill a football stadium with the people that are willing to subscribe to such services.

 

[Arunabha Lahiri]

I am from India and been using qobuz for quite a while using VPN. I think the songs in qobuz have similar master like apple music. I like apple music and prefer it over Spotify. I feel like some songs sound quite different... Especially older songs sound better on apple music like Peter Paul and Mary, John Denver. So far I am finding qobuz sounds very similar to apple music. I am on their trial period now. The Android apple music is horrible to use and the windows itunes doesn't work so smoothly. Not sure I am willing to pay 8 times of what I pay for apple music for the basic package of qobuz. So far I want to enjoy the trial period. .