Deezer's New Desktop App for macOS Lets Subscribers Stream Lossless Audio

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Nov 16, 2017.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Music streaming service Deezer released a desktop macOS app on Wednesday that offers high-definition lossless audio playback in the popular FLAC format.

    [​IMG]
    Support for 16-bit FLAC is available to Premium+ subscribers, who currently pay $9.99 for the luxury. However, users who want to stream in the lossless format after January 2018 will have to subscribe to Deezer HiFi, which costs twice that at $19.99. (Deezer's new pricing matches Tidal's HiFi lossless subscription tier.)

    The desktop Deezer app is currently still a beta, but it does include access to 43 million tracks as well as a working version of the Flow feature, which is similar to Apple Music's personalized playlists. Flow recommends songs based on previously played tracks, as well as video interviews and performances.

    Deezer subscribers can download the desktop app using this link.

    Article Link: Deezer's New Desktop App for macOS Lets Subscribers Stream Lossless Audio
     
  2. cube macrumors P6

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
  3. dmylrea macrumors 68030

    dmylrea

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    #3
    Their website doesn't mention anything about lossless or FLAC audio. Looks like another Spotify or any of the other streaming services.

    If they do offer FLAC/lossless, I wonder how much of their current catalog is in FLAC? Unfortunately, you have to sign up to see their catalog as far as I can tell. They do have a free trial, though.
     
  4. simonmet, Nov 16, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2017

    simonmet macrumors 68020

    simonmet

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Location:
    Sydney
    #4
    I had the misfortune of having to give up Tidal HiFi for Apple Music recently. Apple Music sounds crap. I would never voluntarily pay for Apple Music, I got it free for a year with my phone plan, probably because Apple wanted to get the numbers up.

    Other services are going to start offering higher than 16/44 CD quality soon if they haven’t already. Apple needs to lift their game.

    In a world where you can shoot 4K video on your phone and 8K televisions will soon be a thing it’s crazy that digital music retailers like Apple still haven’t matched a 30 year-old audio standard.
     
  5. adamjackson macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    #5
    While I still listen to all of my FLAC & Lossless music locally, I'm really happy to see a MacOS application for this. When every day it's all about streaming low bit-rate crap to tiny phones w/o a headphone jack, it's really refreshing to see an application or Mac.

    I want to subscribe just to support efforts like this.
     
  6. canadianreader macrumors 6502a

    canadianreader

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    #6
    Apple Music streams at 256kbps or something like that, Spotify streams their hi quality at 320
     
  7. tonyr6 macrumors 65816

    tonyr6

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Location:
    Brooklyn NY
    #7
    Deezer uses MP3 for their standard plan. Yuck. MP3 needs to die already. I never use MP3 for anything. It is either aac or lossless.
    --- Post Merged, Nov 16, 2017 ---
    Tidal is terrible. They have the least amount of music and they push their rap garbage over any other types of music. You can search for anything and they push rap over other results. My unused trial ends next year.
     
  8. adamjackson macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    #8
    Yeah, for their own data-costs, you'd think they'd want to do AAC just to save money in overhead. MP3 is not as efficient for the same sound quality as AAC.
     
  9. lucansmiles, Nov 16, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2017

    lucansmiles macrumors member

    lucansmiles

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2014
    Location:
    Vienna, Austria
    #9
    This is just marketing crap. Nobody has ever been able to hear the difference between a 256kbps AAC audio file (like Apple Music is) and a 24bit WAV file. EVER. All the people that say they hear a difference didn't take a double blind test yet OR are so so afraid to show their test results online – I wonder why.

    I've taken a double blind test several times and was never able to reliably tell the difference. By the way: I'm an audio engineer whose ears should be trained to do that. I can't. And all people who say they can are LIARS. They do biased tests by switching back and forth with them knowing which file is what. Of course your brain will tell you that WAV sounds better. But as soon as you don't know which is which you'll fail.
     
  10. Nozuka macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    #10
    i'm disappointed that apple is not showing any effort to be leading in this area. what are they waiting for? spotify?
     
  11. tonyr6 macrumors 65816

    tonyr6

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Location:
    Brooklyn NY
    #11
    Same with Play Music. They use MP3 which makes no sense. Yes 320kbps MP3 sounds worse than 256kbps AAC iTunes. What makes it worse is that they just rip a standard CD many songs on Play Music were ripped from scratched CD's they skip bad while Apple uses the original masters.
     
  12. simonmet, Nov 16, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2017

    simonmet macrumors 68020

    simonmet

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Location:
    Sydney
    #12
    True their library is lacking compared with Apple’s but I still find plenty of what I like. The app itself is miles better than Apple’s Music, which pushes their own services and has an ugly, fat, white UI. I ignore the featured/pushed music on both platforms and just use search, then check out other artists that are similar to the ones I like.

    Apple may not push rap, but the bland pop they feature is equally bad if not worse most of the time. Remember the U2 debacle? I actually like some French rap and pop which is quite different from English music (i.e. better) and Tidal is good there. I’ve even seen a few albums I like that Tidal has but Apple Music lacks. Also, Tidal lets you watch full videoclips, which I don’t believe Apple Music does.

    In the end, I’ll take Tidal’s smaller library but higher quality and better app any day over Apple Music.
     
  13. bpp85 macrumors member

    bpp85

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Location:
    Europe
    #13
    I use deezer and i installed the app, it sounds slightly better or maybe I'm imagining things :D
     
  14. cube, Nov 16, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2017

    cube macrumors P6

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #14
    Some services already provide lossless CD quality, there's nothing new about this.

    Qobuz has their whole catalog available for CD quality streaming (about the same size as Spotify), and part of it also in high definition.
    --- Post Merged, Nov 16, 2017 ---
    It happens to me sometimes that when I switch from SACD to Qobuz lossless CD quality it sounds crappy, but it could be more about a difference between classical and typical modern pop mastering.

    I think it is also possible that lossless works better than lossy for DTS Neo or Pro Logic.
     
  15. simonmet, Nov 16, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2017

    simonmet macrumors 68020

    simonmet

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Location:
    Sydney
    #15
    I believe you’re the one who is mistaken. You’re pushing tired old arguments that are increasingly being debunked with newer evidence to the contrary. In fact many of those studies you’re relying on were poorly described and relied upon listeners with no training or concern for high quality audio. I.e. the average joe where near enough is good enough.

    There’s a meta analysis of many studies which shows a positive identification at a statistically significant level for listeners who were trained to recognise high-res audio and knew what they were listening for (I’m a data analyst with a science degree so I know about stats). Furthermore, the analysis highlighted some studies that had fairly high rates of positive identification and in particular some individuals who have a much better ability than others. This could be due to many factors such as genetics, experience and lack of hearing damage. I’ll try to find it and post back. So just because you can’t tell doesn’t mean everyone else are LIARS.

    As for Apple’s lossy AAC, I suspect it was converted from 16/44 lossless CD, which itself was created from higher resolution sources, making it sound worse than it otherwise should. This is why Apple began marketing their “Maatered for iTunes” albums. They’re probably much better because greater care was taken during the mastering process and conversion to 256 kbps was done in one go from the master.

    I pity you if you can’t tell. Maybe you have damaged hearing or you just aren’t suited to your career. Unfortunately, many young people are damaging their hearing these days because of prolonged use of poor quality headphones of which which Apple’s bundled EarPods are amongst the worst.
     
  16. elmateo487 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    #16
    "Because i can't hear a difference, no one can hear a difference"

    lol. Lets try a few more.

    "Because I can't see it, no one can see it"
    "Because I can't smell it, no one can smell it"
    "Because I don't believe it, no one can believe it"
     
  17. EightyTwenty macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2015
    #17
    I tried Tidal for a month and felt like they really go out of their way to target a black-only audience, so I left after the free trial.
     
  18. TsMkLg068426 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    #18
    When will Apple improve the audio quality for Apple Music/iTunes why no change for a better audio quality for music.
     
  19. cube macrumors P6

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #19
    When people switch to other services.
     
  20. ignatius345 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2015
    #20
    Are there any codecs here or on the horizon that challenge AAC?

    I'm thinking of how H.265 is delivering higher bitrates in video and wondering if we're seeing corresponding advances in audio...
     
  21. Defthand macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    #21
    I can imagine that’s true if the sample itself has little dynamic range or instrumental details—which describes the bulk of pop music. Combine that with subpar audio hardware—like a smartphone—and the result sounds like something a blender would make.

    I agree that higher quality audio samplings are probably pointless for most consumers, but there is a perceivable difference among samplings. As a personal example, I had an opportunity to listen to a Revel sound system in a car I test drove. That system’s clarity is indescribable. I tried it with a CD and some iTunes tracks. The iTunes tracks sounded much better than when I listened to them through other systems, but the CD’s sound was orgasmic!
     
  22. inSpumoni macrumors newbie

    inSpumoni

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2017
    #22
    You couldn't differentiate between a 256 AAC file and a 16/44.1 file. Stop spreading BS. Better mastering and less compression is what actually matters.
    --- Post Merged, Nov 16, 2017 ---
    Except multiple tests have been made and there hasn't been a single person that can objectively perceive that difference between the same file at 256 AAC and lossless or even hi-res. Any differences are most likely attributed to different masterings.
     
  23. Zoddino macrumors regular

    Zoddino

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    #23
    As it regards lossy audio codecs, the open source Opus (Ogg Vorbis' follower) has proved to be the best sounding lossy music format among people who are into audio tests. However it will never get its way into Apple world since they're committed to AAC audio codec which is overall good enough. I really hope they'd do with lossless at some point though and maybe improve the bitrate of their lossy streams to 320 tvbr instead of 256 cvbr. Anyway what I really like about Apple Music and the push to Mastered for iTunes stuff is that they actually are pushing for better masters from which get the encoded "24-bit" AACs, which sound really nice
     
  24. tonyr6 macrumors 65816

    tonyr6

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Location:
    Brooklyn NY
    #24
    I agree. Other services when you first sign up let you choose the artist you like. Tidal right away shoves you into there rap garbage with no customizing. You have to really search to find anything but since they have there rap videos in there it makes it even harder to find good music.
     
  25. inSpumoni macrumors newbie

    inSpumoni

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2017
    #25
    You contradict yourself, you say you need to be trained to hear a difference, yet you say he can't tell a difference because he might have "damaged hearing". First of all, if you need to be "trained" to hear a difference it really isn't worth it to increase the file size of a track for mainstream consumption, also, I assume you are one of those insecure audiofools that buy snake oil and actually believe they can hear a difference, yet they offer ZERO PROOF.

    I am not against Apple offering lossless or even hi res downloads / streaming, but with improved mastering and less compression. A poorly mastered track will still be horrible at 24/96. A great master will sound great, even as a 256k AAC file. Sorry, but I rather trust music engineers and people that actually create the music, over an "expert audiophile".
     

Share This Page

27 November 16, 2017