Qobuz android?

[Gdhdhdjdh]

Can I use qobuz android bubbleupnp with USB c to audio jack adapter on pixel 6 phone to get hi res music
I will be using apple usb c to audio adapter which is 24 bit 48 khz that is good enough for listening to music? Also is there a significant difference between 48 and 96 or 192 khz music

 

[staticV3]

I will be using apple usb c to audio adapter which is 24 bit 48 khz that is good enough for listening to music?

Yes.

Also is there a significant difference between 48 and 96 or 192 khz music

There is no difference.

Can I use qobuz android bubbleupnp with USB c to audio jack adapter on pixel 6 phone to get hi res music

Ideally, use USB Audio Player Pro as it allows bit-perfect playback of Qobuz via USB.

 

[Gdhdhdjdh]

Yes.

There is no difference.

Ideally, use USB Audio Player Pro as it allows bit-perfect playback of Qobuz via USB.

Any free alternatives that can get at least most of the playback?

 

[staticV3]

Any free alternatives that can get at least most of the playback?

All apps except UAPP will route Qobuz through Android's resampler and mixer.
What sample rate and bit depth it'll resample to, depends on your specific Android ROM.

 

[somebodyelse]

Also is there a significant difference between 48 and 96 or 192 khz music

Not because of the sample rate. Sometimes they use a different mix for CD and 'Hi-Res' but the difference between the mixes would be audible even at the same sample rate.

 

[Jimbob54]

The small fee for UAPP (there is a free trial) is worth it, especially if you stump up for the c$5 EQ add on too. Bit perfect (or even better, full DSP in a player) for less than $10. Really gets the most out of your Qobuz sub for headphones and IEM.

 

[Gdhdhdjdh]

Not because of the sample rate. Sometimes they use a different mix for CD and 'Hi-Res' but the difference between the mixes would be audible even at the same sample rate.

Are the bits and khz more important or the file type (flac,mp3)

 

[Gdhdhdjdh]

The small fee for UAPP (there is a free trial) is worth it, especially if you stump up for the c$5 EQ add on too. Bit perfect (or even better, full DSP in a player) for less than $10. Really gets the most out of your Qobuz sub for headphones and IEM.

I see some files on qobuz have 16 bit 44.1khz cd quality instead of 24bit 48khz hi res will those songs sound significantly worse

 

[Jimbob54]

I see some files on qobuz have 16 bit 44.1khz cd quality instead of 24bit 48khz hi res will those songs sound significantly worse

Not at all. The version/master of the record has far more impact on sound quality than file type or bit depth /sample rate. Your apple dongle is capped at 48khz anyway.

High quality Spotify (lossy) is more than good enough for most ears and systems , CD /lossless is as good as anyone needs.

Choose the playback system and streaming service that meets your content preferences and library management /playback needs.

 

[somebodyelse]

Are the bits and khz more important or the file type (flac,mp3)

It depends...
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html should give you a detailed explanation of most of it.
https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Choosing_the_best_codec and https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Hydrogenaudio_Listening_Tests should give you some pointers on the codecs.
Flac is lossless and includes checksums so any file corruption can be spotted. What you get out is exactly what went in. When it comes to lossy codecs like mp3, aac etc. you need to consider the bit rate(including whether it's constant or variable) and the encoder as some encoders are better than others even at the same bit rate. At the upper end of their bit rate and with a good modern encoder, most formats are indistinguishable from the original for most people most of the time. As the bit rate drops the chance of telling the difference increases. Variable bit rate will on average save a bit of space over constant bit rate while remaining similarly difficult to tell the difference - it uses a higher bit rate on the difficult bits and a lower bit rate on the easier ones.
If you want to know where your limit is then try some ABX tests with foobar or similar, as mentioned in the links above.
It is possible to learn to learn to recognise the artifacts that different encoders produce, at which point you can't really 'unhear' them.

 

[Woofle Mc Woofmix]

Can I use qobuz android bubbleupnp with USB c to audio jack adapter on pixel 6 phone to get hi res music
I will be using apple usb c to audio adapter which is 24 bit 48 khz that is good enough for listening to music? Also is there a significant difference between 48 and 96 or 192 khz music

This is the explanation from an actual DSP engineer working on some very advanced CODECs.

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

people.xiph.org

According to it:

As I read it, more bits of resolution could possibly help (though dithering properly pretty much eliminates any practical noise advantage), but at least it can't hurt. Higher sample rates above 48 Khz on the other hand, can't help fidelity, but may hurt it.

Higher sample rates like 96-192 Khz can represent and deliver significant ultrasonic energy. Unless you're playing music for your dogs or cats, all this extra energy does is stress your amplifier and potentially create intermodulation distortion products that may well fall within the human hearing range and degrade the overall delivery of sound. At best it just wastes amplifier power and reduces headroom to make sound you simply can't hear. (I reduced my maximum to 24/48Khz and the cat can file a complaint in the suggestion box if it bothers him.)

If this reference has it right, sounds like higher sample rates are a marketing gimmick to sell streaming services and gear and has no scientific support.
May be interesting to do a big double-blind test between 24 bit at 44.1 Khz and 24 bits at 192 Khz (or higher)... and settle the matter objectively.

(In 2007-ish, Boston Audio Society put an A/B/X switchable 16 bit / 44.1 Khz (CD spec) "bottleneck" in a SACD/higher rate digital stream and over a year of testing, nobody could reliably tell whether they were listening to the 16 bit 44.1 Khz downconverted version or the full rate stream over a year of testing with many subjects, including trained musicians and audio professionals. The selection was close to 50%. This strongly indicated nothing was being heard.

However, they did note 24 bits was better at conveying absolute silence.

That's my amateur attempt at a summary of a couple longish articles for what it's worth.