How does Deezer HiFi’s FLAC streaming compare in blind listening tests to Spotify’s lossless offering?
Executive summary
Blind-listening comparisons that used high-quality DACs and wired headphones frequently found Deezer HiFi’s CD‑quality FLAC and Spotify’s recently introduced lossless streams effectively indistinguishable to listeners, though outcomes hinge on test tracks, equipment and whether Spotify’s lossless is delivered at higher-than‑CD specs in some cases [1] [2] [3].
1. What the services actually stream: formats and claimed specs
Deezer has long marketed a lossless FLAC tier delivering CD‑quality files at 16‑bit/44.1kHz (1,411 kbps) under its HiFi/Hi‑Res branding and in some reporting even across payment plans [4] [5], while Spotify rolled out a lossless option to Premium users in 2025 and has been described as offering lossless audio comparable to CD quality and—by some outlets—as potentially higher bitrate or higher‑resolution than Deezer’s CD‑level streams [6] [3].
2. What blind listening tests have actually found
At least one hands‑on test that compared the same album through both platforms using a dedicated DAC and wired headphones reported the difference as indistinguishable, specifically noting matching crispness in hi‑hats and comparable bass depth between Spotify lossless and Deezer FLAC on Daft Punk’s Random Access Memories [1]. Other reviewers testing lossless rollouts emphasize that with the right equipment the higher‑quality streams from modern services can reveal wider soundstage and more nuance—an effect that depends on streaming implementation and playback chain rather than a simple brand label [2].
3. Why some tests show no difference and others hint at a gap
When both services deliver true CD‑quality FLAC (16‑bit/44.1kHz), perceptual parity is common in double‑blind listening because the files contain the same information limits of that format; a DAC and neutral headphones will often render them similarly, producing indistinguishable results in controlled tests [1]. Where differences emerge, reviewers point to three levers: whether one service offers higher than CD resolution (24‑bit/96kHz), bitrate or different mastering/streaming transcoding; playback equipment sensitivity; and test methodology—any of which can tip a blind test one way or the other [3] [2].
4. Equipment, tracks and methodology matter more than brand
Multiple outlets caution that listeners need “the right equipment” (DACs, balanced IEMs, studio monitors) to exploit lossless benefits, and that some music reveals quality differences more readily—complex mixes and dynamic recordings show more nuance than heavily compressed modern pop [2]. Reviews that used transparent DACs and reference headphones found audible benefits from lossless tiers overall, but emphasized that blind tests with identical format specs (CD‑quality FLAC) often show negligible differences between services [2] [1].
5. Competing claims and implicit agendas in the coverage
Coverage from services and some fan sites leans on catalog counts and feature lists to favor one platform; outlets that previously framed Deezer as the HiFi leader noted Spotify’s late arrival and have updated opinions after Spotify’s rollout [4] [6]. Conversely, specialist audio reviews that compare multiple hi‑res services place Spotify’s lossless differently depending on whether they measured “better‑than‑CD” delivery versus CD‑quality only—this can reflect both technological nuance and editorial stance toward premium tiers [3].
6. Bottom line for blind‑test outcomes
If test conditions use identical file specs (CD‑quality FLAC at 16‑bit/44.1kHz), many blind listening tests and expert writeups report no clear audible advantage for Deezer over Spotify; perceptible differences typically appear only when one service supplies higher‑resolution masters, when playback gear is capable of revealing small details, or when test design is flawed [1] [2] [3]. Given the available reporting, the prudent conclusion is that Deezer HiFi and Spotify’s lossless offering are broadly comparable in blind listening when both deliver CD‑quality streams, with any edge contingent on service‑specific resolutions, mastering and listener setup [1] [3].