# Deezer vs Spotify - bitrate / sound quality



## fufula

Both services claim "up to 320kbps" bitrate, yet some people say they hear a difference in sound quality between the two and insist Deezer sounds better than Spotify. Is anyone able to confirm this? Has anyone done any extensive A/B comparisons? If so, can you point me to the songs where you hear the difference? The difference is obvious to me between normal and high quality streaming or, say, Rdio and Deezer/Spotify HQ, but Spotify and Deezer in high quality mode sound exactly the same.
  
 I'm just curious about this. If the difference is as apparent as some people say it is, I should be able to hear it. So is it me or is it yet another case of people hearing something that isn't there?


----------



## shondek

Hi fufula I did a comparison last night and Deezer is miles better than Spotify ..Sound wise spotify is smoother and can sound more impressive than Deezer but I feel Deexer is much more musical ie you can follow the interplay of the musicians better , Prat is superior, diction is better, music sounds more exciting and alive. The only thing going for spotify is its more stable. Although I think having spotify loaded affects Deezer ..that could be chrome ..ill be comparing browsers today.Even comparing Deezer through my Note 2 pissed over spotify which has a higher bit rate ..this is through 10GBP skullcandy earphones(which are amazing!!!)and aktiv Linn Klouts


----------



## fufula

Hi there,
 were you using a dedicated app on your Note 2? If so, what's the bitrate in it? It's only 128kbps in the Windows Phone app vs 96/160kbps (the latter is optional) in the Spotify app.
  
 As for desktop, are you talking about web players or were you using the Spotify desktop client? If so, did you enable high quality streaming and disable normalization and hardware acceleration?
  
 There's also WiMP and MOG that offer 320kbps streaming if you want to test even more stuff.


----------



## shondek

Hi Fufula its the dedicated app on phone ..its only 120 odd kbps but I don't hold too much credence with bit rate ..I have an mp3 player that sound better than a wav player and all iPhones..I judge it more how the player renders the file; compressed or not. Linn DS klimax playing mp3 sounds close to magik DS playing flacs..spotify was maxed out ..always thought it sounded really dull ..thanks for the heads up


----------



## fufula

To me, even between 160kbps and 128kbps the difference is easily discernible, with the former sounding better. Deeper soundstage, more space between instruments, punchier bass and the highs aren't as garbled. Then again, it's hardware and OS dependent. Not to mention the sound coming out of my phone ain't nothing to write home about, and that's putting it lightly.
  
 I did some more tests with the desktop players, as that's what I'm mostly interested in.
  
 I measured the amount of data downloaded per song for at least 20 different songs on both, Deezer and Spotify. It turns out that with the high quality streaming enabled Spotify always streams 320kbps files. Deezer, on the other hand, seems to stream a lot of files at only 128kbps even though I always kept HQ enabled. What's interesting is that despite the differences in bitrate, I couldn't easily tell which service sounded better. So it makes me wonder, does the music I used for the tests sound equally bad in 128kbps and 320kbps or do both companies get 128kbps encoded material from the labels but only Spotify reencodes it at 320kbps (which would be kinda stupid)?
  
 Does anybody use these services? If so, it'd be nice if you guys could chime in on this. I'm going to try and compare some music that I own physically with the streamed stuff some time later this week.
  
 My setup:
 Essence ST > DT990PROs
 Samsung Omnia M > MH1Cs, KSC75s


----------



## shondek

I hear you fulula .that's good to know but for me Deezer at 128 sounds better than spotify at 320 much more musical ..I know some Naim heads who buy CDs from Naim and rip them to the same high quality mp3 that can be downloaded from Naim site and they can't get their mp3s to sound good as Naims ..which do you prefer D or S!?


----------



## fufula

fufula said:


> What's interesting is that despite the differences in bitrate, I couldn't easily tell which service sounded better. So it makes me wonder, does the music I used for the tests sound equally bad in 128kbps and 320kbps or do both companies get 128kbps encoded material from the labels but only Spotify reencodes it at 320kbps (which would be kinda stupid)?


 
  
 I did a lot more A/B testing with Deezer HQ/Spotify HQ (and / foobar FLAC for good measure) using well recorded music. Spotify always came out on top when Deezer streamed at 128kbps (even though it was set to HQ streaming the entire time) and it wasn't really discernible when it streamed at 320. So, to answer my own question, it was the former.
  
 It seems Deezer encodes the less popular stuff at 128kbps hoping people won't notice to preserve bandwidth. So the "up to 320kbps" statement on their website basically translates to: it's either 320kbps or 128kbps. And if you happen to be listening to less known stuff like I do, you'll be getting most of your music at crappy 128kbps. My recommendation is to stay away from this particular music streaming service until their get their act together and start serving all of their collection at an acceptable bitrate.


----------



## shondek

Hmm not so sure about that F..let peoples judge for themselves ..spotify sounds more Hifi and impresive..smooth but to my ears Deezer is way more musical and listenable. .bass midrange and treble blah blah blah spoty wins ..but dead boring ...did you do a blind test fufula or were to looking at the numbers while listening ..numbers mean hehaw


----------



## fufula

I did blind tests. I also asked other people what they thought and they confirmed what I thought (without me telling them which one *should* sound better or anything like that of course.)
  
 320kbps Spotify streams sound better than 128kbps Deezer ones, not that I'm discovering America here (the thing that surprised me was that so much stuff from Deezer was streamed at 128kbps; Rdio streams at 192kbps and they've been getting a lot of flak for that.) Let's say it's an opinion, though, and if some people doubt that -- go ahead and decide for yourselves...


----------



## Harryhar

I ran into the same problems with Deezer.
  
 Of all the music I have tested on Deezer, non was played back at the advertised 320 Kbps. It's always between 128 and 160 Kbps. Regardless of the HQ switch which does not make any difference in quality.
  
 When play music  from Deezer via a Sonos device, the same music is streamed at 320 Kbps.
  
 I have contacted Deezer about this issue and they just tell me they stream at 320 Kbps, but when you measure the output with a Scope or spectrum analyzer you see it's not the case. I've tried al sorts of albums.
  
 With Spotify I don't see these problems.


----------



## imeem

what bitrate is deezer @ standard quality? I notice that my 128 kbps mp3 sounds better than deezer. One thing i notice is that the bass is deeper. I'm using the desktop version.


----------



## fufula

Standard quality is 128kbps. What software are you comparing it against? What settings?
  
 Also, regarding the non-HQ with HQ enabled issue: when testing the bitrate on my PC, I used the method of measuring the amount of data downloaded and converting it to the appropriate units. I made sure to disable any auto-updates and/or apps that could interfere with the measurements beforehand. At the time of testing I didn't encounter any music encoded at 160kbps, which, of course, doesn't mean there isn't any.


----------



## imeem

fufula said:


> Standard quality is 128kbps. What software are you comparing it against? What settings?


 
 I'm comparing with jriver media center via wasapi and using speakers. for deezer, i try turning up the volume to see if the bass response wold improve, but it still not as deep as compare to the same music file on my computer @ 128 kbps. 
  
 EDIT: i did some more testing. I tried foosbar and tried directsound. It seems like the sound difference is due to jriver and wasapi combined. Using them separately, my 128 kbp files sound pretty much the same as deezer. However, the combination of jriver and wasapi gives my music a bit more punch even tho i disabled all DSP. So something is altering my music.


----------



## fufula

imeem said:


> I'm comparing with jriver media center via *wasapi*


 
  
 That's probably it. Unless you did the tests expecting jriver to sound better and it's just placebo. From what I've read, dsound should sound just like WASAPI/ASIO if no streams are being mixed, but that's just theory.


----------



## imeem

read my edit.  using jriver and wasapi separately, deezer and my 128 kbps file sounds the same. Using them together, the difference between the low-end is like night and day.


----------



## stuzzyapple

I use them both and must say there isn't a noticeable difference imo.


----------



## soziblewuup

I have started a thirty day free trial with Deezer, and to my ears with HQ enabled the sound quality is not 320 at all. I'm tempted to give Spotify a try with HQ enabled. 'HQ' tracks on Deezer sound like a typical transcoded file you'd find cut off at 16khz; everything sounds muddy. 
  
 I'm interested to hear other peoples opinions on this who have Deezer. I've seen some threads where people swear by the service. I am open to the possibility that this could be all psychological. Maybe there was one 128kbps file and it changed my outlook.


----------



## MarioD

Can't comment on Deezer, but this thread got me interested, since I occasionally use Spotify premium on my mobile phone. I burnt some songs from my CD's and converted them to 320kbps mp3's. The mp3's I burnt sounded better on my phone and way better on my big rig using various headphones. I've got a bunch of theories why this is, but it doesn't matter. Unfortunately Spotify doesn't provide true 320kbps quality.


----------



## fufula

I probably should've updated the thread, since it's been a while and Deezer seems to have upgraded their entire library to 320kbps since(according to the amount of data that is transferred during streaming). I've actually moved from Spotify to Deezer around 3 months ago, and as far as sound quality goes, I've got no complains.


----------



## DaniloMisura

fufula, have you compared today's Deezer with actual CDs you have? And the same comparison with Spotify premium? Have you noticed any difference? (Not that I believe it's easy to discern a good codec at maximum bitrate from uncompressed audio.)


----------



## Vorpax

Hi people, I've been testing Premium+ Deezer (supposedly 320 kbps), I mainly listen to japanese artists and the sound quality on Deezer is crap. Not true 320 kbps whatsoever, sounds more like 128 kbps most songs (not popular ones I must say) I've tested. However, when listening to more mainstream artists (eg Kendrick Lamar) it sounds good though.I've been looking for discussions about this issue, but just what I've seen is Deezer propaganda, until I found this forum. Sorry, but I think all these streaming music services are pure scam, true 320 kpbs (let alone lossless!) is just for the well known artists, so people won't complain that much.
  
  
 EDIT: I forgot to report that enabling HQ makes no difference at all on the "128kbps" songs.


----------



## fufula

DaniloMisura, I'm not noticing any difference between Premium Spotify and Deezer. As for Spotify/Deezer HQ vs CDs/FLACs, well, it's the usual case of 320kbps/v0 vs lossless: sometimes you can hear a difference and sometimes you can't. Did A/B tests with the help of another person.
  
 Vorpax, I disagree. Like I said, according to my ears -- and trust me, I can tell a 128kbps songs from 320kbps ones -- there isn't any difference between the two services. The streamed files are encoded at or around 320kbps, I measured it again on some obscure (6 fans obscure) electronica released this year. Can you provide specific examples where you hear a difference?


----------



## voxxonline

I am using deezer for more than 4 years and can confirm their SQ improved a lot. 
 Sadly there is no other option than to stream it using smartphone. I'd prefer dedicated player though.


----------



## Jonadesmond

I was given Deezer for free as part of my Mobile phone package... and already had Spotify.
  
 Tested them both by how they sound on: 
  
 i) MacBook Pro output via HRT Streamer II to Ruark 4i compact 
  
 ii) New MacBook output via HRT HD Streamer to Linn LK! and Isobarik Speakers
  
 For me it's correct that Spotify sounds smoother, better separation and bass / treble response. But Deezer's not nearly as bad as I-Tunes which offered me a 3 month free trial!
  
 For all their market domination the sound of I-Tunes new streaming service is relatively poor when they could so easily revoloutionise the quality of sound output. The whole world has broadband now and there's no excuse for continuing with small packets of MP3 levels of reproduction.
  
 I suppose if streaming was as good quality as CD's no-one would buy them (the cd's).
  
 Anyway, I've  cancelled my Free Trial and I'm staying with Spotify.
  
 PS - I can also run 'Pure Music 3' as an addition / overlay to the MacBook's audio set-up.
  
 Works well - most of the time. Intermittent very slight interferencee but I understand the company's working on it.


----------



## erik701

If you want better quality go for TIDAL.


----------



## davidmolliere

Deezer has raised 100 millions €, if only they would extend Deezer Elite (FLAC) to all subscriber not just Sonos speakers...


----------



## GourouLubrik

erik701 said:


> If you want better quality go for TIDAL.


 
 When I reviewed Tidal, I came accross many tracks that was NOT lossless, even some unbelievably crappy 96kbps tracks.
 So I rage-quitted the service, and now fight against spreading the Tidal marketing ********s. So, I've have to correct you, not all tracks have better quality than Deezer/Spotify.
 As far as I know, only Qobuz have 100% of their catalog lossless. but their catalog is not as good.
  
  


davidmolliere said:


> Deezer has raised 100 millions €, if only they would extend Deezer Elite (FLAC) to all subscriber not just Sonos speakers...


 

 Same here, and I wish it has more Open API and integration services, it can be used on Google Cast and Logitech Media Server, but cannot use it yet with my openupnp/dlna/openhome ecosystem.
  
 As a premium subscriber, I don't have complaints with Deezer 320kbps. no problem so far on my smartphone, I love the app.
 On PC, I don't like to use deezer with my browser (because of Flash!), so I use LMS + LMS-2-UPNP + Foobar2000. So I can use my foobar DSP and output device of my choice, at the price of a much weaker ergonomy.


----------



## davidmolliere

Good points, but I think Deezer would really rock the streaming market if they decided to widen the Elite offering... the fact they do offer it for Sonos customer might be a hint they're planning on this contrary to Spotify would has no plan apparently to go lossless :-\
  
 You're stuck with Tidal or Qobuz if you want better quality... and my main complaint with Tidal is the lack of decent algorythm to build radios or mixes, curated content is good but not enough by far. Spotify is very good in that respect. The issue streaming services will have to go premium is that most customers are unwilling to pay extra for better quality. Not everybody is audiophile or music lover... the business model make it hard to have a wide catalog, decent features and high quality. I think Tidal is losing a lot of money because they over estimate the quality argument for most people.


----------



## ksinn71

As a premium subscriber, I don't have complaints with Deezer 320kbps. no problem so far on my smartphone, I love the app.
On PC, I don't like to use deezer with my browser (because of Flash!), so I use LMS + LMS-2-UPNP + Foobar2000. So I can use my foobar DSP and output device of my choice, at the price of a much weaker ergonomy.
[/quote]Hello, I also like Deezer. But in my pc windows10 I used bubbleupnp server with Foobar2000 but can not make it work with Deezer. In my android tablet I receive no http stream found. In am interested in the detail of your setup to control Deezer from my tablet. Thank you.


----------



## GourouLubrik

Well, only way to use bubbleupnp + deezer on a tablet is to use the Audio Cast function.
 This specific option use Wanam Xposed (which itself need the Xposed Framework and a rooted compatible table).
 Bubbleupnp just doesn't support Deezer as a cloud service.
  
 Since I do not use Wanam Xposed anymore, I use AirAudio for Deezer ( https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.airaudio )
 Off course, you still need a rooted device for AirAudio (because root access is needed to capture audio from other programs).


----------



## 435090

How long ago did you review TIDAL?
  
 I liked Spotify mostly for the library, but often times that SQ is lacking. What do you recommend? Deezer? Spotify? TIDAL?
  
 I suppose improvements will always come to any of the three.


----------



## fluidz

Deleted


----------



## fufula

I've been testing Tidal again the past few days and I find it hard not to appreciate the improved SQ compared to lossy streaming services. It's not the kind of difference you hear when you go from 128kbps to 320kbps or even 192kbps, but the extra crispiness, deeper base, better instrument separation boderlining on placebo all make for a significant difference -- the kind people around head-fi usually pay good money for.
  
 Problem is, I just cannot get over all the other flaws. The UI is lacking (and ugly) compared to Spotify or Deezer and the library is smaller.
  
 What puts me off the most, however, is the way music discovery / radios / playlists etc. are handled by the people behind Tidal. I could be listening to some 70s funk one minute (song-based radio) and then get served a house track out of nowhere or go straight to punk from UK garage. The playlists and radios plain suck for anyone who isn't interested in listening to mainstream music that they play over and over and over again in every radio station anyway. There are no suggestions based on what you listen to, very little ways to look for new music other than sifting through the similar artists page. I've received an e-mail from Tidal this morning about a new song or something from Beyonce, despite the fact that I have never looked for or listened to any of her songs. I could feel the vortex of ****ty cookie-cutter music trying to envelop me. Not quite the experience I expected from a HiFi lossless streaming services, but there you go. And it's probably my third time forcing myself to like Tidal (just because of its SQ.) I'll probably be going back to Spotify in a few days.


----------



## JesseA

fufula said:


> I've been testing Tidal again the past few days and I find it hard not to appreciate the improved SQ compared to lossy streaming services. It's not the kind of difference you hear when you go from 128kbps to 320kbps or even 192kbps, but the extra crispiness, deeper base, better instrument separation boderlining on placebo all make for a significant difference -- the kind people around head-fi usually pay good money for.
> 
> Problem is, I just cannot get over all the other flaws. The UI is lacking (and ugly) compared to Spotify or Deezer and the library is smaller.
> 
> What puts me off the most, however, is the way music discovery / radios / playlists etc. are handled by the people behind Tidal. I could be listening to some 70s funk one minute (song-based radio) and then get served a house track out of nowhere or go straight to punk from UK garage. The playlists and radios plain suck for anyone who isn't interested in listening to mainstream music that they play over and over and over again in every radio station anyway. There are no suggestions based on what you listen to, very little ways to look for new music other than sifting through the similar artists page. I've received an e-mail from Tidal this morning about a new song or something from Beyonce, despite the fact that I have never looked for or listened to any of her songs. I could feel the vortex of ****ty cookie-cutter music trying to envelop me. Not quite the experience I expected from a HiFi lossless streaming services, but there you go. And it's probably my third time forcing myself to like Tidal (just because of its SQ.) I'll probably be going back to Spotify in a few days.




The featured and curated playlists are also way too focused on uninspired "hip-hop"


----------



## akira281

I just signed up for the 30 day free trial of the Deezer "Premium +" since I have a Bose code for a 50% discount @ $5/month. Strange that the audio quality settings have only one setting choice: standard so there is no confirmation what bitrate this was. (Tidal displays the bitrate as the track plays - no hiding quality there)
  
 Deezer's sound is a shockingly horrible low fidelity - not even close to Spotify not to mention Tidal. I had a 6 month subscription earlier this year to Tidal at their top level and it was very, very good. I mostly used a 3rd party app on a Windows Phone and was extremely satisfied with the audio quality. The app had some issues but it became stable. I would rate it's app better than Spotify or Deezer. I would rate Tidal's top tier sound the best, it second tier 2nd, Spotify's top tier 3rd and Deezer's supposedly Premium + completely unacceptable.
  
 Please note I don't have any use for extra features that don't involve playing tracks that I program to play (example Flow). My main criteria is audio fidelity and app stability.


----------



## bichpm

what about now? does something changed?
 At work I can't install Spotify application, so I was thinking about switching to Deezer to listen in HQ trough the browser but, is it really HQ 320kbps????


----------



## bichpm

I've got other 30 days trial premium on Deezer so I've tested it a bit today. From the network analysis in Chrome it seems that the downloaded files are at 320kbps instead of 160kbps from Spotify web player and the difference is noticeable with my Shure SE125. I ate my earphones because of the fatiguing and confused sound but at 320kbps music seems more clear and airy. I've done also a test with some High-end songs like "Train Song" of Holly Cole and yes, with Spotify web I can definitely hear aliasing and muddiness in the shaker sound that doesn't move as in the HQ version in Deezer.
 So after my 6 months subscription of Spotify I will move to Deezer because of my needing of using the browser version (and I also prefer the Deezer mobile app).


----------



## cesko

hi
  
 well if deezer  or spotify stream @ 128kbps instead 320 in high quality setting it is a issue...
  
  
 the problem is that same say it is deezer does not stream @320 and some report that is spotify.....
  
 Soon i will use streaming from the iphone or ipad or from a mac chorme browser by google chormecast audio to my hifi
 and i guess there is not difference of streaming based on the device
  
 btw i think that that TIDAL is the answer with hifi profile also i think  too expensive.


----------



## jessieclarke

Deezer vs Spotify? Worth noting if you have a Sonos system, that Deezer is fully integrated, where Spotify isn't. Sonos app only plays playlists from Spotify, which means transforming every album into a playlist (easy), but they will only appear in the order they were added, and no one knows how to make this listing alphabetical. Deezer, however, lists albums alphabetically by album or artist directly in the Sonos app, making music selection a breeze, I have run both systems together for four months and have settled on Deezer because of this and it's less depressing interface, although arguably Spotify gives a slightly higher range per artist.


----------



## gohminghui88

I uses HibyMusic and Spotify.


----------



## gvl2016

I've recently tried Deezer lossless on Windows desktop, no bit-perfect playback in the app, pretty disappointing. Cancelled the trial right away.


----------

