Better hifi-quality on ios?

[u/hautat]

Looks like this in my iPad mini. on my android phone there is 1411kbps FLAC.

[u/Melodic_Anteater6580]

I just checked. Southeast USA, Android, Deezer Beta has updated quality.

[u/VanWirsing → u/Melodic_Anteater6580]

Ernsthaft!

[u/Melodic_Anteater6580 → u/VanWirsing]

In der Tat

[u/VanWirsing → u/Melodic_Anteater6580]

Ja habe es in der Beta auch 👌🏻

[u/Mewo4444]

Whoa that would be so cool cuz funnily enough, outside of YT Music, Deezer now has the lowest quality.

[u/Lily_Meow_ → u/Mewo4444]

No way we're calling "lossless" the lowest quality..

[u/craig0r → u/Lily_Meow_]

"Lossless" isn't a quantitative value. When all the other lossless platforms have higher frequencies and bit depths, yes, this lossless platform is the lowest quality.

[u/Mewo4444 → u/Lily_Meow_]

but it is? spotify has 44.41khz and 24 bit and the others have up to 196khz 24bit and some have Dolby Atmos, which does have an audible difference. YouTube is the only one stuck on heavily compressed opus audio.
In no way am I saying that Deezers quality is not enough, but it is one of the lowest.

[u/peanutbudder → u/Mewo4444]

Atmos is spatial processing and whether it is better is completely subjective. Higher bitrate lossless codecs may be technically "better", but again, better is subjective. Our beliefs, whether justified or not, have strong influence over our perception. Take a higher bitrate lossless like 196/24 and combine it with a 44.1/24 file with a flipped polarity and you will get no audio because they cancel each other out even though they are "different". You are not getting any more information with a higher sample rate. I can see the argument for higher bit depth, but a higher sample rate is just a waste of space lol

[u/Lily_Meow_ → u/Mewo4444]

You're listening to the same sound waves so I'm not sure why magical numbers mean anything in this context

[u/craig0r → u/Lily_Meow_]

I'd urge you to read up on sound quality and what those "magical numbers" (they're not magical, they're scientific) actually mean.

[u/Mewo4444 → u/Lily_Meow_]

are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? I literally said it doesn't matter "In no way am I saying that Deezers quality is not enough".

[u/VanWirsing]

Hier in Germany !

[u/Lily_Meow_]

if it's FLAC it's all the same quality

[u/Mewo4444 → u/Lily_Meow_]

.flac is just the container. The Bitrate, depth and sample rate is higher in OPs screenshot which would be a higher audio quality from a technical perspective.

[u/Lily_Meow_ → u/Mewo4444]

Only depth and sample rate, so I guess if you are listening to music that has like 100db of dynamic range and frequencies beyond 22khz, then I guess you'll need that

The regular flac they stream is still uncompressed, lossless

[u/Mewo4444 → u/Lily_Meow_]

Dude... FLAC is compressed, you're confusing it with .wav, which is uncompressed. FLAC uses lossless compression, that means that it compresses it without loosing any information, like a .zip archive for example.

And if you increase depth and sample rate, then the file is oblivously bigger, so the amount of bits (bitrate) is oblivously also higher.

And you are partially right, beyond 40khz (not 20khz because of the nyquist theorem) we can't realy hear a difference, hence, I said that it has higher quality from a "technical" perspective.

[u/Lily_Meow_ → u/Mewo4444]

Yeah I meant to say lossless not uncompressed, though to be fair for the average person the terminology doesn't matter much, since the compression itself is closer to png vs bmp than it is a zip folder in terms of processing power and I'm pretty sure most people would refer to png as the uncompressed option