I changed to Qobuz mostly just to avoid what you describe. Qobuz is not all about classical so dont worry about that 
I have found much new music since I gave up Tidal.
Hi Nick - I have both Tidal and Qobuz. My listening is mainly rock with some blues. I’ve found that Tidal still has some albums that Qobuz doesn’t which is why I still keep Tidal but the difference is getting smaller all the time especially on newer releases. Qobuz on the other hand have more albums at least in the rock/blues genre of which I’m interested in Hi Res compared to Tidal’s eqivalent MQA. I also feel the sound quality in general on Qobuz is (slightly) better than Tidal but of course others may disagree. If I had to choose only one it would be Qobuz.
Best wishes - Dave
1 Like
Many thanks Dave. Just signed up to Qobuz to give it a go. One interesting thing I just noticed (and maybe Tidal is the same but I haven’t noticed), the Qobuz hi-res listings are of varying bit rates - sometime 24/48…sometimes 24/96 - also Qobuz seems to be more open about what you’re getting, with Tidal it’s less obvious. Already I’m feeling Qobuz could be a better fit in terms of the selection…too early for a view on sound yet!
Hi-res on Tidal is only available via MQA encoded files. Qobuz streams high resolution PCM FLAC files in resolutions varying between 24/44.1 to 24/192 depending upon the original files as supplied by the record label. In addition hi -res files are available from a significantly greater number of record labels than those supplying MQA encoded ones, hence the variety of hi-res files on Qobuz is also greater.
1 Like
Very helpful explanation. Thank you.
I have both. I have wide-ranging tastes, and especially love discovering new music here on the forum; most new stuff I can find on both. I am letting my Tidal subscription lapse this month. I don’t object to MQA as much as I once did, but I don’t find myself benefiting from it either.
Likewise, I subscribe to both (and to Spotify family, used by the Wife). Tidal often has Pop&Rock that doesn’t always appear on Qobuz. The overall cost of subscriptions isn’t more than the price of a couple of CDs a month, so I find them quite reasonable.
Subjectively, I find the sonic quality of streams via Qobuz to be distinctly better than the exact same album on Tidal. I have no idea why and I haven’t really dug into it.
So, another vote for Qobuz if you have to chose. 
Hi, just discovered that Qobuz is also providing some MQA files. Never read any communication on that.
There has been some explanation of this over on Audiophile Style as they have an official Qobuz issues thread in their streaming forum which has input from Qobuz USA.
If I recall correctly the position is that Qobuz does not support MQA. However they simply load the music files sent to them by the record labels onto their servers. They are not validated in any way ( given that they load multi-thousands a month). On occasion they receive what appear to them to just be 16/44.1 resolution files. However the record label has, in fact, sent MQA encoded files which are only revealed as such to people with MQA decoders when the MQA logo lights up. Of course to those playing these files without an MQA decoder they will just be 16/44.1.
Of course as the Qobuz repertoire varies from country to country the specific files that have been supplied as MQA encoded in error by the local rights owner in, say, the USA, would not necessarily be so for , say, the UK or France ( or vice versa).
Thanks Pete for the clarification i missed on audiophylestyle.
In my case, for example, the album Polarity of Hoff Ensemble in the French Qobuz portfolio, is a MQA album.
I was hoping that I might have got my first taste of MQA encoding with that recording but, sadly, it is not in the Qobuz UK repertoire.
Just signed up to Qobuz to give it a go vs Tidal. Although for the majority of plays it works really well I occasionally come across an album where it only offers and plays 30 seconds of each track. Apologies if this has previously been covered, I’m quite new here! Curious if others have had this and if it’s a known Qobuz or dCS issue? Thanks.
If I’m not mistaken, thats an album/region licensing issue; where Qobuz is not licensed to distribute that particular album (or track) in your region.
When they offer 30 sec clips this is not usually because they have no licence at all ( in that case even the 30 sec clips would be copyright infringements) but because it has been temporarily embargoed by the record label:
-
It is on their server but is not yet officially released. Unfortunately the full release date does not show in the Mosaic version of Qobuz ( normally only year of release this being the element of relevance to the duration of copyright in most jurisdictions). If you look at the album using the computer desktop version of the Qobuz player you will probably find that the album you only had clips for is not actually released yet. You may also find a message from Qobuz dropping down from the top of the screen advising why it is not yet available for streaming. However the record company is happy for punters to get a pre-release taster and maybe even buy and download a pre-release copy.
-
The record company has requested various levels of embargo during the initial period of release bearing in mind that they would rather sell you the album than have you stream it as they earn more income per sale compared to per stream. So they adopt a " window" strategy along the lines of movie companies ( theatre, TV,DVD in succession). Hence they will allow 30 sec clips for , say, the first week or two ( you can still buy a download of he album from Qobuz), then redbook for a month, then hi-res.
This practice is less common than it used to be and tends to relate to certain specific labels with some of their releases.
Of course sometimes the record label will try to achieve a similar marketing effect by just not supplying the streaming file to Qobuz until a week or two after release.
Record companies or artists have tried to “game” streaming services since their inception. For example you will no doubt recall major new pop albums being "exclusive " to a streaming service in which one or the other had a stake.
Interesting - thanks. I have never noticed this on Tidal and you would think the same thing would apply.
This all depends upon the agreements between the record label and streaming services which may not be identical.
I will just say that both sides can play the game 
!
Not always so Pete, licensing is an issue as well.
Here’s a specific example that I just encountered just the other day; Kate Bush “Remastered…”. Released in 2018. Not licensed for Asia, except for 30second MP3 snips of every track (you can see the tracks are not bold, unlike properly licensed tracks like “Running up That Hill” at the top).
Thanks Anup but In a sense that is contradictory, Qobuz are saying that they have no rights to stream yet are offering 30 sec streamed clips.
I expect that the Qobuz message is very much a cut down version of the full details. Qobuz is, of course, also a store for purchasing downloads. I daresay that they are licensed to sell it and have some kind of arrangement to offer tasters as an encouragement to buy. Alternatively they may be relying on a common but incorrect understanding that copyright is not infringed so long as the duration of use is brief.
As most of my working life was concerned with managing copyrights in sound recordings I can say from experience that these things can become very complex to an almost Byzantine degree with either party ( owner or exploiter) often trying to see what they can squeeze out of the margins of the contract. However, at face value, you either have a right to stream or not. In turn that will depend upon the definition of " streaming" in the contract or other agreement.
BTW that particular recording is unencumbered on the UK version of Qobuz.
You raise an odd issue. " Not licensed for Asia,". But Qobuz is not available to any countries outside of Europe ( and it is not even available in all of them) and the USA. So any licensing matter concerning Asia would be inapplicable. NB: Yes, I am aware that people who live outside of the Qobuz countries have got subscriptions to it by using VPNs to disguise their location.
My Qobuz subscription was actually established in the UK. The way their system works though, doesn’t actually require a VPN for streaming while in Asia. Lucky me 
In the battle of Tidal vs Qobuz, who is the winner? As far as I am concerned, Tidal wins. Tidal offers 70 million tracks with CD sound quality for listening, while Qobuz collects 40+ million CD-quality tracks. Although both Qobuz and Tidal own mobile and web version, which can be suitable for many players and hardware devices but Tidal obvious build cooperative relationship with more partners. More, I think the subscription plan of Tidal is more acceptable for me. For premium, I just pay $9.99 USD per month, and for HiFi, I pay $19.99 USD per month. Tidal doesn’t support offline playback, but I can use my Tidal converter to solve the problem.