DeeZer lossless quality?

Lossless

Super Member
How can Deezer advertises their Hi-Fi 44.1kHz 16bit quality streaming as “lossless”?
I mentioned Tidal is closer to lossless using MQA in a post and had angry mobs ready to burn my house down. How can DeeZer get away with saying lossless FLAC 44.1 ~ 16bit and not a have a single complaint?

https://www.deezer.com/en/offers/hifi
 
Last edited:
Unless I’m missing something, Deezer says their files are in 16/44.1 FLAC. Sooo, lossless. I rip all my cds in ALAC, 16/44.1 lossless. I have 1000’s of songs, they have bazillions. We’re both lossless.
 
Unless I’m missing something, Deezer says their files are in 16/44.1 FLAC. Sooo, lossless. I rip all my cds in ALAC, 16/44.1 lossless. I have 1000’s of songs, they have bazillions. We’re both lossless.
True lossless would be 192khz/24bit at minimum. There is a BIG audio difference in my ALAC recorded files and 192/24 bit web streaming. Even Tidal folding MQA 96/24Bit sounds significantly better than 44.1-16bit CD in my opinion and is not considered lossless.
 
Last edited:
“True” lossless? FLAC and ALAC are lossless. 16/44.1 is cd quality and 24/96 or 24/192 are hires. Both hires sampling rates are lossless. Lossless does not have to be hires to be lossless.
 
True lossless would be 192khz/24bit at minimum. There is a BIG audio difference in my ALAC recorded files and 192/24 bit web streaming. Even Tidal folding MQA 96/24Bit sounds significantly better than 44.1-16bit CD in my opinion and is not considered lossless.

Methinks you do not understand what "lossless" means. Lossless refers to the relationship of an output file to the original source file. Your personal preference for how it sounds has no bearing on a file being lossless.

Lossless means that the output is a bit-for-bit copy of the input. The use of the "lossy" designation came about because of storage and bandwidth limitations. When the original file had to be compressed such that information was lost and could not be recovered, it was called lossy. Hence, all mp3 files are lossy if the source is CD because it is not possible to recreate a bit-perfect copy from an mp3 file. The same is true for MQA files, regardless of the bit rate and regardless of how it sounds to you.
 
Methinks you do not understand what "lossless" means. Lossless refers to the relationship of an output file to the original source file. Your personal preference for how it sounds has no bearing on a file being lossless.

Lossless means that the output is a bit-for-bit copy of the input. The use of the "lossy" designation came about because of storage and bandwidth limitations. When the original file had to be compressed such that information was lost and could not be recovered, it was called lossy. Hence, all mp3 files are lossy if the source is CD because it is not possible to recreate a bit-perfect copy from an mp3 file. The same is true for MQA files, regardless of the bit rate and regardless of how it sounds to you.
So if I record a retail cd 44.1k/16bit depth bit for bit it is considered lossless even though the master copy may be 192k/24bit? Is Tidal HiFi 44/16 lossless if taken from CD? I find myself not wanting to listen to CDs after experiencing 192/24.

Only way to learn is ask questions what I was always told.
 
Last edited:
So if I record a retail cd 44.1k/16bit depth bit for bit it is considered lossless even though the master copy may be 192k/24bit? I find myself not wanting to listen to CDs after experiencing 192/24.

A redbook CD is always 16/44.
There is no such thing as a CD being 24/192.

If the “master tape” was 24/192, when they recorded it to CD it was at 16/44
 
A redbook CD is always 16/44.
There is no such thing as a CD being 24/192.

If the “master tape” was 24/192, when they recorded it to CD it was at 16/44
Thus making CD 44/16 lossy because the original master was bit perfect.
 
So if I record a retail cd 44.1k/16bit depth bit for bit it is considered lossless even though the master copy may be 192k/24bit? Is Tidal HiFi 44/16 lossless if taken from CD? I find myself not wanting to listen to CDs after experiencing 192/24.

Only way to learn is ask questions what I was always told.

Yep. If you save a ALAC or FLAC file from a retail CD, you are making a lossless copy. Lossless and lossy refer only to the copy relative to what the copy was made from. It does not matter what the source of the CD is because lossless is in reference to the copy relative to the CD. If you have an mp3 that is converted to an audio CD format, the mp3 would be a lossy file, the CD would be a copy of a lossy file, and the FLAC of the CD would be a lossless copy of a lossy original. That FLAC would be

What you are talking about would be considered two different masters. The one that produces CD quality and the one that produces 192/24.

If there is only one master and it is at 192/24 and that master is used to make a Red Book CD at 44/16, then I would consider the CD to be a lossy copy because it is not a bit-for-bit copy of the master. You can make a lossless copy of that CD.
 
Thus making CD 44/16 lossy because the original master was bit perfect.

I would consider this true as long as the master was at 24/192. A CD made from a HiRes master would be a lossy copy. But hi resolution mixing and mastering is relatively new. If you look at older CDs you may notice DDD or AAD indicating full digital through mastering versus analog recording with analog mixing and digital mastering. What information is often missing is the bit rate of the digital process.
 
Yep. If you save a ALAC or FLAC file from a retail CD, you are making a lossless copy. Lossless and lossy refer only to the copy relative to what the copy was made from. It does not matter what the source of the CD is because lossless is in reference to the copy relative to the CD. If you have an mp3 that is converted to an audio CD format, the mp3 would be a lossy file, the CD would be a copy of a lossy file, and the FLAC of the CD would be a lossless copy of a lossy original. That FLAC would be

What you are talking about would be considered two different masters. The one that produces CD quality and the one that produces 192/24.

If there is only one master and it is at 192/24 and that master is used to make a Red Book CD at 44/16, then I would consider the CD to be a lossy copy because it is not a bit-for-bit copy of the master. You can make a lossless copy of that CD.
So if a streaming service offers CD 1141kbps 44khz/16bit depth stream quality, it’s considered lossless? I made that argument on thread here and angry mobs were crashing in my front door. Tidal HiFi 44/16 is not lossless debate but Deezer 44/16 is lossless. Doesn’t make sense to me.
 
I would consider this true as long as the master was at 24/192. A CD made from a HiRes master would be a lossy copy. But hi resolution mixing and mastering is relatively new. If you look at older CDs you may notice DDD or AAD indicating full digital through mastering versus analog recording with analog mixing and digital mastering. What information is often missing is the bit rate of the digital process.
I will look for DDD and AAD in my CD collection.
 
The terms Lossy and Lossless refers to digital file compression in order to reduce file size. MP3 is lossy file compression as some of original data is removed to save space. FLAC is a lossless file compression where when decompressed it retains all of the original data.

No need to worry about bit depth and sample rates. They are moot
 
I will look for DDD and AAD in my CD collection.

Check out this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code

It describes the SPARS code for how the music was recorded, mixed, and mastered. In the early days of CD it was important because it gave an indication of the quality of the music reproduction with DDD thought to sound better than AAD. In practice, I never noticed much difference between them. The biggest quality difference I noticed have been between CDs by the afterrnarket producers (such as Rhino & LaserLight Digital) versus the studios.
 
So if a streaming service offers CD 1141kbps 44khz/16bit depth stream quality, it’s considered lossless? I made that argument on thread here and angry mobs were crashing in my front door. Tidal HiFi 44/16 is not lossless debate but Deezer 44/16 is lossless. Doesn’t make sense to me.

I do not use Tidal nor Deezer, so I cannot speak as to if they are lossless or not. If they advertise lossless at 44/16 and above, I would believe them because I would expect them to be using at least CD quality as their source.
 
I would consider this true as long as the master was at 24/192. A CD made from a HiRes master would be a lossy copy. But hi resolution mixing and mastering is relatively new. If you look at older CDs you may notice DDD or AAD indicating full digital through mastering versus analog recording with analog mixing and digital mastering. What information is often missing is the bit rate of the digital process.
That explains why the same artist and song on different brand CDs can sound noticeably different. :thumbsup:
 
This may be a little off topic but what CD manufacturer, LaserLight, Sony, Phillips etc, have the best sound quality in your opinion? It seems to me the my Phillips CDs sound better than most my other CDs.
 
This may be a little off topic but what CD manufacturer, LaserLight, Sony, Phillips etc, have the best sound quality in your opinion? It seems to me the my Phillips CDs sound better than most my other CDs.

Telarc has a very good reputation for fantastic recordings. They do mostly classical. Typically, there is not much choice for who produces the CD. We are at the mercy of the copyright owners. The aftermarket producers typically publish collections, such "36 Greatest Hits."
 
Back
Top Bottom