Worse Quality than Deezer! :-(

Hey guys!
I am really disapointed! I just compared my Spotify-Premium with Deezer and came to the conlusion, that the same track sounds ways better on Deezer. Could you please tell me why I'm paying the same price for worse quality?
Best regards
Camillo

All of this debate about audio quality between Spotify and Deezer is purely academic. I must admit, I was intrigued to read that Deezer might sound better than Spotify, so downloaded their iOS app to my iPad and iPhone 5 to test it out. It crashes constantly on the iPhone. Therefore I very soon deleted it and realised that, for now at least, I was very happy to continue giving Spotify my tenner a month for a decent iOS streaming service that NEVER crashes. Plus, I stream Spotify via Bluetooth to my fairly decent hi-fi set-up at home - and while this may make audiophiles wince (ie delivering music via the lossy streams of Spotify and the lossy wireless tech that is Bluetooth) the resulting tunes sound perfectly fine to my ears. Then again, I really must make that doc's appointment to get my lugs syringed soon ;) 

Similar Messages

  • I updated my software for my Iphone and my maps disapperead. New maps provided by Apple or of significantly worse quality than my previous Googke maps. How can I get my Google maps back?

    I updated my software for my Iphone and my maps disapperead. New maps provided by Apple or of significantly worse quality than my previous Googke maps. How can I get my Google maps back?

    This app does it well, including StreetView
    http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/ifindview-connect-to-facebook/id480510706?mt=8

  • Why is the iDVD-burned CD of worse quality than the raw quicktime movie?

    Hello,
    I have digitzed some old VHS movie to quicktime using a simple USB video grabber. The quicktime movie that I got is of good quality. Then I have imported to iMovie, made the editing, finalized the movie, and shared to iDVD. The encoding is set to best performance, the format is PAL, 4:3, and then I have burned the DVD. When I look at the DVD on our TV the dark parts are really awful - digitizing noise all over the place.
    I then connected the computer directly to the TV and this is much better in quality . the background has no or little flicker, and the dark parts remain dark.
    What am I doing wrong? I refuse to beleive that this is as good as it gets - commercial DVDs are much better and this is from a €%&/# VHS, so there should not be any real degradation?!?

    anderssunesson wrote:
    When I inspected on a huge flatscreen it turns out that
    -all the iDVD movies have TERRIBLE pixellation
    Clearly when you look at a 720 x 576 DVD on a 42" LCD it will not look good unless you have good source footage AND a good encoder AND good upscaling from your player. iDVD does provide a good encoder but the other two may just not be up to the task.
    I personally made DVDs that looked good on a 42" Sony TV. But they were encoded in Compressor and played on a Blu-Ray player with excellent upscaling.
    anderssunesson wrote:
    How can I burn the mpeg-4 to a DVD without incurring the loss in quality? How do studios do this?
    You can't and they don't. First of, studios don't start out with highly compressed videos and secondly they have much better software encoders (which cost $$$$) like CinemaCraft or hardware encoders.
    anderssunesson wrote:
    There were some tips on round pixels vs square pixels. I will look into that. Do you need a special "DVD-digitizer" to save your old VHS movies??
    You can get something that goes from VHS to DV (instead of MPEG-4) like the Canopus converters and then edit in either iMovie 6 or FCE (both are EOL). In any case, bear in mind that you start out from VHS.

  • Why is an "original" iPhoto export poorer quality than my original photo?!

    Hi Everyone,
    I hope you're all well. I had a question regarding iPhoto - I have an SLR which takes really good quality pictures, and I wanted to back them up in more than one location. I already have them in my iPhoto library - however, when I tried to export them with the "Original" option on File Export, and compared the exported version to the ones in iPhoto, its poorer quality than the one in iPhoto! Even though I selected "Original" quality!! However, when I exported it using PNG, it was exactly like the photos imported in to iPhoto. I understand that PNG is a lossless file format, but I am very confused as to why exporting photos in its original format gives a worse quality picture!
    Would someone please be able to explain what is going on, and why the original export is much worse than PNG?
    Thank you for your time!
    Regards

    How are you determining that the export is "much worse" than the imported photo
    What format are you shooting on the DSLR (I assume it is digital)? What format are you exporting?
    For what it is worth I do two daily backups (Time Machine running hourly and a daily bootable clone of my entier system) and I dod an occasional off site backup and I use three 32 GB level 10 SD cards so even shooting 16 MP RAW I only rotate back to the oldest card about once a year giving me a year's originals in addito=ion to my other backups
    LN

  • Photoshop Elements 11 Organizer: Full screen view of lower quality than with PSE 10 and before?!

    Upgrading from PSE 10 to 11, I noticed that when I watch my images with the organizer in PSE 11 in full screen view mode (F11), while the images load faster, they are shown in a lower quality than in PSE 10 or any other version of PSE that I owned before. In PSE 11, after the initial viewing in full screen (in the "fit screen" mode), when I click with the mouse on an image to display the "100%" view, there is a delay and the program says "Loading...", after which the 100% view in the full screen mode appears. When I then click another time with the mouse on the image to get back to "fit screen" mode, I get an image of better quality than during the initial view!
    So it seems like the program first gives a faster, but lower quality view of the image in full screen mode, and only after the user requests a 100% view, it actually loads the image with full detail, which is then preserved when going back to the "fit screen" view. This is a serious issue for me, because I also use PSE organizer to present my pictures to other people, and I don't want to show them some lower quality versions of my images, but the full quality ones, without having to first choose "100% view" and then go back to "fit screen".
    How can I make the PSE 11 organizer give me a full-quality full screen image right away, as this used to be the case in PSE10 and before?
    (I have both versions, PSE 11 and PSE 10, now on the same computer and tested this to confirm that the PSE 11 initial full screen view is of lower quality than the PSE 10 one. Also in PSE 10, there is practically no delay for displaying the "100%" view afterwards, indicating that the image was loaded with full detail right away.)

    - Update:
    * Adobe's senior support level has replied to me about this issue as follows:
    "Thank you for contacting Adobe.
    When you press the F11 button, Organizer 11 uses the Bicubic
    interpolation mainly because it is less processor intensive compared to
    Bicubic Sharper, and it helps to create the preview on the fly, rather
    than based on the thumbnail cache.
    When you zoom out from the 100% view, Elements Organizer uses Bicubic
    Sharper. This is because Bicubic Sharper is used for image reduction, so
    if the 100% view is larger than the available screen space, it will need
    to shrink. The Bicubic Sharper images may look more crisp however, Like
    any sharpening algorithm, Bicubic Sharper introduces halos and
    edge-enhancement artifacts. Those halos are typically slight, but any
    further sharpening (which you'll need when preparing an image for print,
    for example) will exaggerate them.This is expected behavior. The
    Organizer isn't great for determining exact quality, I recommend you to
    use Elements Editor for this purpose.
    Thank you,
    Bobby Johnson,
    Adobe Technical Support."
    * My reply on this to Adobe is:
    "Hello Bobby,
    thank you for your reply. Now at least we are talking about the same thing.
    Why I am wondering about the choice to use the "Bicubic" algorithm when pressing F11 in PSE 11 is that all previous versions of PSE that I owned (which spans from PSE 6 to PSE 10) did use the "Bicubic Sharper" algorithm right away when pressing F11. So apparently Adobe didn't worry about processor intensity of this algorithm then, and computers are getting all the time more powerful.
    It is true that in some situations, the "Bicubic Sharper" algorithm may introduce halos and edge-enhancement artifacts, as you write. On the other hand, especially on smaller resolution screens, the results of the "Bicubic Sharper" algorithm may look more crisp and lively, while the ones of the "Bicubic" algorithm may look more flat and lack fine detail. This is not only my personal opinion, but as I have brought up this topic in several forums, I can see that I am not alone here.
    So assuming that the question about preferring "Bicubic Sharper" or "Bicubic" as a default algorithm when pressing F11 is partly a matter of taste, and partly a matter of the hardware the user has available, why can Abobe not give the user an option to choose which one he/she would prefer? For instance, F11 gives full screen view with "Bicubic" applied, and CTRL+F11 with "Bicubic sharper"? Or make this an option in the preferences?
    As I am using the PSE organizer also to present pictures to other people (and I know many people who use it that way too), I would like to show them my pictures as sharp and detail-rich as possible. Therefore, I would highly appreciate an option as described above to be implemented in the PSE 11 organizer via an update. It should be fairly easy from a programming point of view, since both algorithms are already contained in the program anyway."
    * If you support this suggestion of mine as stated above, please also contact Adobe accordingly! The more support requests they get for this, the more likely it is that they will implement this update! You may mention my case number 0184046323 for reference.

  • I have a few wedding projects(1-2 hours)I am trying to export at full hd quality,than burn in idvd.After rendering for 8hrs I receive error code that states "file is too big". Please help? compressing tips without losing quality?

    I have a few wedding projects(1-2 hours)I am trying to export at full hd quality,than burn in idvd. After rendering for 8hrs I receive error code that states "file is too big". Please help? compressing tips without losing quality? or any other exporting alternatives?

    Hey Z,
    Thank you for the tip on exporting by media browser (large) from imovie. But of course, if it's not one thing it's another. Now that I figured how to export a large file from imovie, I have an idvd issue. I followed the instructions for burning from idvd and changing the encoding to professional quality and the burn speed to x4, but I am receiving an error that states the following,
    Your project exceeds the maximum content duration. To burn your DVD, change the encoder setting in the Project Info window.
    Project:
    - total project duration: 79:04 minutes
    - total project capacity: 4.327 GB (max. available: 4.172 GB)
    Menus:
    - number of menus in project: 1 menus
    - total menu duration: 0:39 minutes
    - total menu capacity: 37.370 MB
    Movies:
    - total movies duration: 78:25 minutes
    - total movies capacity: 4.291 GB
    I have searched in the idvd forum for similar issues and I am stumped at this point. I have tried deleting the encoding assets and re launching idvd with the changed preferences, and still the same error. I know you mentioned something about free hard drive space available, and I have very little left. 4GB to be exact due to massive hours of non-edited footage. I am not sure if this is why, but I do not recall ever needing free space to burn memory onto a separate dvd. I would be more than happy if I am wrong, and it would be a quick fix. Otherwise, the technical nightmare continues. It's all a learning process and your expertise is greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.

  • Is m4v better quality than a remuxed MKV file via Subler?

    I'm slowly building my home media server and putting my Blu-Ray's onto it. I normally do a Handbrake conversion for ATV3, so the MKV files end up being significantly smaller m4v's and the quality is outstanding. But I recently learned about the quick remux method using Subler, which quickly converts the MKV container into an m4v container without any quality loss and while keeping the same size file.  But I noticed that, say, a 29GB MKV file is a much poorer softer picture on my plasma TV than the same movie that's only a 9GB MKV file (remuxed to m4v with subler for streaming over ATV3). I'm running a 300mbps cable modem so the streaming shouldn't be a problem over my home wifi.  But I also noticed that the smaller m4v's (say a 3.5GB file that comes from a 9GB MKV file via Handbrake) seem to be slightly better quality than the 9GB file that was remuxed.  So it seems like the larger file should be even higher quality -- but I'm getting better results with a smaller file that's Handbrake'd from MKV to m4v.
    Is there some sort of streaming setting on the ATV3 that needs to be set or adjusted that will allow the full gorgeous pic quality of a 29GB file to stream right through to it, and look better than the Handbrake'd m4v file?  It feels like there's a bottleneck somewhere that's not letting all of the complete picture information through, and an intact, perfect 29GB file should look light years better than that 29GB file Handbrake'd down to 4GB.  Trying to figure this out before I continue down this home media server path cuz it's a lot of work to do these Blu's one at a time.
    Kirby

    I have no experience of the remuxing you describe, but interesting observations.
    There is nothing you can adjust on AppleTV - it will either play the encoded movie or it won't.
    AppleTv's generally playback the h264 codec (in an m4v container) - there are many many versions/levels of this codec and each generation of AppleTv has been able to play slightly more sophisticated versions.
    I suspect but cannot prove that the issue you notice is due to AppleTV attempting to support advanced h264 features but making compromises which affect playback quality - in other words it is cutting corners to playback advanced h264 profile features rather than refusing.  Handbrake on the other hand has time at its disposal - it has been refined over many years by dedicated enthusiasts so if a simple remux is all that's required i'd be surprised they have not implemented that.  Instead I suspect it more accurately processes enhanced h264 features before transcoding into a new smaller m4v file.  Equally there might be settings in HB which artificially sharpen or otherwise alter the video which you prefer.  I'd compare the BluRay tothe remuxed or HB versions to attempt to decide which was more faithful to the original but even then it would be dependent on the BluRay player's settings in some cases.

  • Help! Took mac to store today as DVD stuck in drive- 3 hour round trip!!! Told it was fixed and it now won't even switch on :( I press the on button and all I get is a continuos loading symbol and then it shuts down . Worse state than it was before :( :(

    Help! Took mac to store today as DVD stuck in drive- 3 hour round trip!!! Told it was fixed and it now won't even switch on :( I press the on button and all I get is a continuos loading symbol and then it shuts down . Worse state than it was before :( :( not happy at all and not well enough to travel to get it fixed (my mum went today) anyone got any ideas please???

    Oh ok - Thankyou for that. I will be ringing them tomorrow and I will not be happy ! And I'm hoping they can suggest what I'm suppose to do about getting it back to them as I can't take it in myself. SO so angry!!! Does people getting it back in a worse state happen often? :| do read these discussion boards? I hope they do!!!

  • Ringtones Play At Lesser Quality Than Text Tones

    Strange thing I am noticing.
    Ringtones on my iPhone 4S (iOS 5) play back at what sounds like a lesser quality than Text Tones.
    When selecting a "ringtone", all the tones that play back sound like a low quality audio file.
    When selecting a "text tone", the very same audio files play back in full quality.
    Just sayin.

    Thought I'd be a pest and bump this (I also replied to a related thread).
    I previously was too lazy to make my own ringtones, so when I finally got around to it last week, I noticed this inexplicable and annoying bug.  Why on EARTH would ringtones play at such horrid quality?  If Apple made its own Blu-ray player, would it play movies at VHS quality??
    I'll be VERY HAPPY when this is fixed.  Then my phone won't sound like an audio Hallmark greeting card when it rings.

  • Why is ios getting worse rather than better

    Why is ios getting worse rather than better?

    It is. Why wont complete my album actually complete my album and put the songs in the same folder. Why oh why have apple sent google packing, why is the maps app so rubbish just for a starter

  • The sound of the ringtone is of lower quality than any other. I've tested it, and its happens to more people. What's it's the solution? Can I communicate this problem to apple?

    The sound of the ringtone is of lower quality than any other. I've tested it, and its happens to more people. What's it's the solution? Can I communicate this problem to apple?

    You can let Apple know here - http://www.apple.com/feedback/

  • Why are iPhotos previews higher quality than my exports?

    I have just now noticed this after using it for so long. I was using it to de-noise  a photo I took earlier today and turned it up to 100%. I looks clean and smooth like I want, so I exported it first as a jpeg with max quality, but I noticed a lot of noise in it. So I exported it again as an original and it looks the same still. I just exported it as Current to see if there is still noise, and there is. I have exhausted the other formats as well, all export with noise.
    I put iPhoto in fullscreen mode and took a screen cap of the photo via cmd+shift+4, and compared the the screen cap to both of the exports and it looks much cleaner, even though its more than half the resolution being displayed.
    This is not right, plain and simple.
    Here are two links, one to the original export, and the other is a screen cap.
    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/68608/IMG_0006.JPG
    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/68608/Screen%20Shot%202011-08-06%20at%2010.06.48%20PM.pn g
    What am I doing wrong? Are my eyes playing tricks?

    I just came to my local Apple dealer to get help and they have never encountered this before. Questions they asked that made it less clear for them; they were shot in jpeg and I have exported using every setting all yielding the same results.
    This sounds to be a software issue and I encourage Apple's staff to investigate it.

  • Why are the iPhone/Apple TV export presets better quality than QT h.264

    I've been exporting a lot of content to the web lately and we use Compressor to batch encode most of it, but one thing has always puzzled/frustrated me! If you export using one of the Apple device presets, then the quality of output is pretty **** good, and these presets are all H.264 based. But if you export as a QT file with the H.264 codec, with all the same settings the quality is noticeably worse!
    Does Apple have some special H.264 encoder hidden way for use in theIr presets?
    Its really starting to frustrate us as we want to get that some quality but have a bit more flexibility with the data rate and resolutions.
    Any ideas?

    That's why I find this so puzzling. The extra blockiness is VERY apparent when watching the video played back. The main difference I see from the Media Info analysis is that F4V says "CABAC/3 ref frames" instead of just "2 ref frames". I suppose my main question is whether or not its possible to get the same quality in an mp4 file.

  • Is IChat to Ichat better quality than Skype?

    I have a Mac and I use Skype to AV chat to a PC overseas. Would I see better picture quality If they used a Mac overseas and we went Ichat to Ichat?

    According to this post ichat is better than skype when chatting mac-mac.
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1238443

  • Is DVD Player higher quality than standalone DVD player?ne

    I tried finding an answer to this question with various searches and could not, but I apologize if this is a repeat question.
    I'm a teacher and I'm showing DVDs (not Blu-Rays) to my class. I have a fairly new LG HDTV in my classroom. I don' have the model number but it's an LCD, and I think it's a 52 inch. I'm trying to decide whether the picture quality of DVDs will be higher by playing them on my MacBook Pro or on a standalone DVD player. My MacBook is the 6,2 version (15 inch), so I can hook it up to the TV through the minidisplay port with an HDMI converter. I'm just using the DVDplayer software that came with the MacBook Pro. 
    The standalone DVD player has just standard audio/video connections--no HDMI port, (which I'm assuming doesn't really matter since I'm just using standard DVDs).
    Is there really going to be much difference, either visually or auditorially, between these two setups? It's about as easy to use either one, and from a quick visual comparison I can't see much difference, but I want the best quality I can get. So any advice would be appreciated.
    Thanks.

    No difference or worse from the MBP compared to a Real DVD player.
    A Real DVD player is designed to do one thing. That is to send a signal from a DVD disc to a TV screen. This can be done over coax cable, composite connections or HDMI cable. A computer does many things one of them is to play movie DVDs. But first it must go through all the electronics of the computer and then out through only one port and then be changed to a style of port the TV can accept.
    Also your MBP will get HOT when you are using it for this purpose. Just load up a DVD and watch how hot it gets displaying in on the internal screen.
    So use the Real DVD player.

Maybe you are looking for