Qobuz.

@bander

"Who is using g [sic] Qobuz and how are you finding it?"

1. Qobuz > Tidal

a. audio quality: to my ear Qobuz "Studio" is better than Tidal hifi and Master: broader dynamic/frequency range, better definition, presence, air, blah blah quack quack ... fill in favorite insipid audiophile adjectives.

b. metadata: Qobuz seems to have broader and deeper collateral data on their catalog selections. Sadly the suck UX’s in web player and Mac native app make it hard to get to (see 3a.)

c. classical catalog - though after cursory look only Qobuz marginally better than Tidal.

2. Qobuz < Tidal

a. curation (playlists, "events" etc): Tidal sets a low bar and Qobuz manages to fall under it. See 3c.

3. Qobuz == Tidal

a. both Qobuz and Tidal native Mac apps are crappy. So is Spotify’s. Not quite a race to the bottom but close. Tidal seems to have copied Spotify’s UX - apparently what’s good enough for Sweden is good enough for Norway. Too bad Qobuz chose a "light" theme as background - at least France could learn from Sweden & Norway.

b. both Qobuz and Tidal seem to have hit-n-miss catalogs. Surprised to find certain off-path classical titles in Tidal’s catalog, as well as more recordings than Qobuz from Nikhil Banerjee (greatest 20th century sitar master you’ve never heard of).

c. both have stupid, what-are-they-thinking assemblies of ’multimedia’ (music, bio’s, AV media, reviews, commentary etc). These seem more the whims of self-indulgent editors and hipsters than anything of much value to subscribers. Producing and/or licensing and curating good content is expensive (hiring experts and licensing expert material). Neither Qobuz or Tidal seem to want to spend that money. On the other hand that might price them right out of business.

4. Verdict
Ultimately audio quality wins the day for me - I’ll probly ditch Tidal after my Qobuz beta/free trial ends. French heritage also gives me some vague, grudging alliance to Qobuz. It won’t be without some PIA given the shortfalls noted above. C’est la vie.

Revised verdict:

After a few more days using Qobuz, the slightly-better-than-Tidal audio quality may not be enough to overcome the absolutely sh!tty search UX and catalog indexing. Even if Qobuz has the recordings I've painstakingly assembled in my Tidal library, if one can't find them they might as well not be there at all.  Awful, and a real disappointment.

Also continuing to find holes in the Qobuz catalog compared to Tidal - in classical recordings, of all things.

@usery,  As a Qobuz beta tester, please report all your comments and suggestions to Qobuz.  Thanks.  

Everyone needs to report their finding to Qobuz. 

I have already reported that my Aurender N10 needs an Qobuz API so they can sort my favorite albums into artist sequence.   And, another API so my Aurender can create a tab so I can select 24/96 coded albums and 24/192 coded albums. Qobuz reports these are on the list but no time frames.  

My Roon friends report they already can sort albums and have filters for hi-res selection. 

After a month of using Qobuz, i signed up for yearly subscription at $249.00. To my ears, the Qobuz high resolution SQ easily trumps Tidal. In direct comparison between MQA 24/96kHz and Qobuz 24/96kHz files, Qobuz is superior in dynamics by a good margin.

I also liked the fact that with Qobuz I no longer need to pursue a MQA compatiable DAC.

Since i use Aurender conductor app, I experienced no issues with artist or albums search with Qobuz. 

I also liked the fact that with Qobuz I no longer need to pursue a MQA compatiable DAC.

Hmmm.... and yet you were able to compare MQA vs. Qobuz HiRes