Apple Music Teaser References 'Hi-Res Lossless' and 'Dolby Atmos'

[RaceTripper]

yet none have the library of music catalog to match Apples. Therein is the key.

That depends on what you listen to. I listen to jazz and classical. I pretty much find what I want on Qobuz, but that wasn't true with Apple. Maybe it's better now, but it wasnt great in the past. Not to mention, Apple's presentation of classical metadata sucks, and Roon does a far better job sorting that out.

 

[Rigby]

Well that’s why there’s two H1 chips in the AirPods Max, it doubles the bite rate. I would know, I’m smart

You could always try buying a second pair and then stick two Airpods in each ear. That will quadruple the bandwidth.

 

[1258186]

How many of those apparently “hyped” by this announcement actually have the equipment capable of listening to hi-res audio?

 

[RaceTripper]

I would be interested to know how many of those tracks are available natively in 24bit against 16bit?

Again you mentioned buying music in 24bit format. I’ve used the website HD Tracks to buy lossless music but even they have a limited collection of 24 bit tracks to download and most of those are classical music.

If Apple start selling 24bit tracks to download that could hopefully make the technology more widely available.

I mostly listen to jazz and classical (digital and vinyl). I don't really pay much attention to what other genres are available in 24-bit downloads.

 

[Tsubame]

On one hand, I am not much of an audiophile and probably wouldn't notice the quality difference. If I had to pay any extra for it, I wouldn't.

On the other, if I get better quality at no extra cost, sure why not. The music I listen to probably wouldn't super benefit from it, but a free improvement is something.

 

[Techwatcher]

Cannot wait for this. Been on Tidal HiFi for a while and yes there is a difference with the right equipment. Cancelled because I decided an Apple One subscription was a better deal. Looks like I had good timing.

Also, Apple needs to relax @ the "Music is about to Change Forever" slogan lol. Tidal HiFi (and other platforms I'm sure) already had Atmos and Spatial. But Apple will be Apple. Regardless, this is going to be a good week. Happens on my birthday too haha.

 

[Logic368]

So, likely, while I'm on the table of a modern medical marvel, Apple will be rewritingg the music worldd.

Awesome. I remember taking two clips of the same music, one original release, and one 'remastered', and looking at them with an electronic oscilloscope, andd being blown away. The 'remastering' of music was striking in how it filled in the 'empty' spaces with more sound.

I tried, decades ago, to put full fidelity tracks on an iPod. It was really hard for me to gget 'full fidelity' tracks. I really wondder if 'full fidelity' tracks even exist any longer.

But...

The reason I carry 'inferior' music is because (pre-pandemic) when I was on a plane, usually headed (at the time) to Tampa, it was on a flight full of wise people travelling with children who didn't want to pay the 'Orlanddo Tax' to fly there. The last flight, there was a mother and young child, who was feeling anxious after an hour on the plane (the child) and I wiped out my iPad with Finding Nemo on it. I went for the win for the day. The mother was very grateful I had that on my iPad. Her child was instantly zoned into the iPad and not freaking out for being trapped in the plane. As a backup, I had Ratatouille. Both movies are in my book as amazing movies. Great pops to mind.

I cann't wait to see what they release, if it happens that day. We ddon't need 'full fidelity' music clips, but there are ways to wow people.

(The duplicate letters are the result of the 'butterfly' keyboard Apple saddled us with. I LOVE my MBP, but have to reread the posts and email before I push 'Send' or 'Post reply'. Not that it's bad, but it does connsume some time)

(Oh, and my 'local' Apple Store keeps running out of the keyboard spares kit to fix this system. I may have an appointment on Wednesday to get it swapped out (for the first time))

('Wow', I know)

You post makes my heart ache. I have the same keyboard (2016) and just worried all the time whether something similar will start happening soon (got a replacement keyboard in 2018 and then again this past year when I got a battery replacement).

 

[ani4ani]

should Apple’s Lossless coded and music library not be available on AirPods Pro, Max or high end Beats … and only on the AirPods 3’s there will be a lot of backlash occurring. If nothing comes to the previous mentioned headphones in 30 days after launch then I’ll see what the upcoming Sony WF’4’s support and I’d iOS and Apple Music lossless works with those.

Even the WF’3’s already support LDAC allowing for much higher bitrates than conventional Bluetooth plus they also can be used with a headphone Jack

 

[anshuvorty]

Cannot wait for this. Been on Tidal HiFi for a while and yes there is a difference with the right equipment. Cancelled because I decided an Apple One subscription was a better deal. Looks like I had good timing.

Also, Apple needs to relax @ the "Music is about to Change Forever" slogan lol. Tidal HiFi (and other platforms I'm sure) already had Atmos and Spatial. But Apple will be Apple. Regardless, this is going to be a good week. Happens on my birthday too haha.

Apple marketing is and always has been hyperbolic....they will never change...

 

[1258186]

I mostly listen to jazz and classical (digital and vinyl). I don't really pay much attention to what other genres are available in 24-bit downloads.

That makes sense given your high end set up. I like classical but not into Jazz. I’m using Deezer with Bang & Olufsen speakers. Some of the HiRes streaming services are claiming “better than CD quality” which is presumably where 24 bit comes in. I’ve been following this subject for years waiting for hires music to hit the mainstream.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Even the WF’3’s already support LDAC allowing for much higher bitrates than conventional Bluetooth plus they also can be used with a headphone Jack

Actually the WF-1000XM3’s (in-ear true wireless) does not support LDAC. The WH-1000XM3’s/4’s (over the ear) does.

https://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/truly-wireless/wf-1000xm3#product_details_default

PS: Unless added over 7mths after launch, up to when i owned a pair - didn’t have LDAC support which I found incredibly odd for Sony.

They do have “Digital Sound Enhancement Engine HX (DSEE HX™) upscales compressed digital music files, bringing them closer to the quality of High-Resolution Audio”

 

[ani4ani]

Actually the WF-1000XM3’s (in-ear true wireless) does not support LDAC. The WH-1000XM3’s/4’s (over the ear) does.

https://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/truly-wireless/wf-1000xm3#product_details_default

PS: Unless added over 7mths after launch, up to when i owned a pair - didn’t have LDAC support which I found incredibly odd for Sony.

They do have “Digital Sound Enhancement Engine HX (DSEE HX™) upscales compressed digital music files, bringing them closer to the quality of High-Resolution Audio”

You’re quite correct...I always get my “H & F’s” mixed up I was referring to the headphones whilst I now see you were discussing the buds.

 

[iOzzie]

Rebooted iPod Classic pllllllllease. I can only dream....

 

[DeepIn2U]

You’re quite correct...I always get my “H & F’s” mixed up I was referring to the headphones whilst I now see you were discussing the buds.

No worries mate … i think with enough conversation everyone will mess up the H/F’s in Sony’s lineup. Imagine if they named the PlayStation like they did their headphones? Lol. Eeeek.

you are in fact correct about what LDAC provides … great technology really. I had hoped Apple would license it just before the AirPods where announced. Now we’re hoping Apple has something close or as equivalent with this Apple Music Lossless rumour.

 

[joeljoslin]

Absolute nonsense.

Apple may try to market it that way, but anyone that actually knows how digital audio works can tell you anything above 20/48 on the playback side is utterly pointless and that most albums aren't even actually using 12-bit resolution on the masters.

24/48 is great for recording headroom, but if anyone starts talking about stair-steps and digital and how more bits = less jaggies on the steps, RUN away because they're certifiably IGNORANT about how digital audio works.

Bits=Dynamic Range
Sampling Frequency = Bandwidth

No human can hear above 20kHz.

Oversampling solved "brick wall" filtering issues around 1983. 48kHz is more than sufficient for any recording needs. Most signals are nothing but noise much above 20kHz and you can't hear them regardless.

Vinyl LP records that many audiophiles rave about have "effective" equivalent dynamic range of 11-12bits maximum. Sadly, the "loudness wars" mean many CDs "used" even less than that, some far less than 8-bits even.

The best made recordings in the world rarely contain more than 18-bits dynamic range.

Mist people would not like 18-bits of dynamic range even if they could get it because dynamic range is the difference between the quietest sounds and the loudest. You would go from barely audible to horn honking loud in an instant. Think real cannons going off in the 1812 Overture and you standing right next to them loud. Most people don't like that at all!

In fact, the compression methods that lead to the so-called loudness wars are due to people not being able to hear the quieter passages of music without turning up the volume to the point where the loud parts are blasting their ears and/or causing hearing damage.

Dolby movie standards are 105dB peaks for regular channels and 115dB for the subwoofer. Most people don't play movies (let alone music that peaks louder longer) anywhere NEAR that at home! Yet people think they need more bits (out of sheer ignorance what they're used for).

I know many won't believe me here either, but it's the truth. They chose CD standards for a good reason back in the early 1980s. Few recordings ever came near the limits of what the CD is capable, but people ignorantly believe poor sound quality is due to hardware limits rather than poor recording and more likely poor mastering issues.

Most SACDs sound better than the CD version because they remastered them for better sound quality, nit because they need greater than CD standards to achieve it, but marketing loves a good lie. Sony's dual market discs have a CD side and a SACD side. The players are set to play the SACD signals slightly louder than the CD so any direct comparisons will think the SACD sounds better (You tend to always choose louder as increased fidelity).

Now going to multi-channel like Atmos is a whole different story. But selling music as "hires" based on bits alone is utterly deceptive marketing.

Thank you. Spot on.

It's no fun for audiophiles, but it's the truth and multiple peer-reviewed studies have proven so. Give me a well-mastered 128kbps AAC over a poorly-mastered 24/192 uncompressed file any day.

 

[AirJordanFan93]

I just hope this means they will finally allow lossless purchases on iTunes. I don't need full-on 24/192 quality just 16/44.1 ALAC will suit me fine.

 

[ThatGuyInLa]

If we could get lossless Atmos for movies? Wow.

 

[geminicon]

Will be interesting to see who the flagship artists are when this launches. Hopefully it’s a few that I listen too

 

[gene731]

A high-res music service would sound great through... the Apple Homepod!

Oh wait, they discontinued that just as soon as they were making plans for upscaling their music streaming...?‍♂️

You can still buy those if you are so inclined.

 

[gene731]

Listening to them how? Very few albums are available on SACD despite the fact the technology has been around for over 20 years.

Check out mobile fidelity website. Think it is mofi.com. They have a good amount of sacd as well as a fair amount of vinyl.

 

[gene731]

You could always try buying a second pair and then stick two Airpods in each ear. That will quadruple the bandwidth.

Per Pete Townshend The Who and their album Quadrophenia it would be Quadraphenic. Nearly 50 years after the release it is still my favorite Who album. YMMV.

 

[ian87w]

Absolute nonsense.

Apple may try to market it that way, but anyone that actually knows how digital audio works can tell you anything above 20/48 on the playback side is utterly pointless and that most albums aren't even actually using 12-bit resolution on the masters.

24/48 is great for recording headroom, but if anyone starts talking about stair-steps and digital and how more bits = less jaggies on the steps, RUN away because they're certifiably IGNORANT about how digital audio works.

Bits=Dynamic Range
Sampling Frequency = Bandwidth

No human can hear above 20kHz.

Oversampling solved "brick wall" filtering issues around 1983. 48kHz is more than sufficient for any recording needs. Most signals are nothing but noise much above 20kHz and you can't hear them regardless.

Vinyl LP records that many audiophiles rave about have "effective" equivalent dynamic range of 11-12bits maximum. Sadly, the "loudness wars" mean many CDs "used" even less than that, some far less than 8-bits even.

The best made recordings in the world rarely contain more than 18-bits dynamic range.

Mist people would not like 18-bits of dynamic range even if they could get it because dynamic range is the difference between the quietest sounds and the loudest. You would go from barely audible to horn honking loud in an instant. Think real cannons going off in the 1812 Overture and you standing right next to them loud. Most people don't like that at all!

In fact, the compression methods that lead to the so-called loudness wars are due to people not being able to hear the quieter passages of music without turning up the volume to the point where the loud parts are blasting their ears and/or causing hearing damage.

Dolby movie standards are 105dB peaks for regular channels and 115dB for the subwoofer. Most people don't play movies (let alone music that peaks louder longer) anywhere NEAR that at home! Yet people think they need more bits (out of sheer ignorance what they're used for).

I know many won't believe me here either, but it's the truth. They chose CD standards for a good reason back in the early 1980s. Few recordings ever came near the limits of what the CD is capable, but people ignorantly believe poor sound quality is due to hardware limits rather than poor recording and more likely poor mastering issues.

Most SACDs sound better than the CD version because they remastered them for better sound quality, nit because they need greater than CD standards to achieve it, but marketing loves a good lie. Sony's dual market discs have a CD side and a SACD side. The players are set to play the SACD signals slightly louder than the CD so any direct comparisons will think the SACD sounds better (You tend to always choose louder as increased fidelity).

Now going to multi-channel like Atmos is a whole different story. But selling music as "hires" based on bits alone is utterly deceptive marketing.

Hush!! Your accurate facts are interfering with my magical golden ear. I would need those audiophile grade earplugs. ??

 

[ClockWork72]

Perfect timing Apple I just bought a pair of Hi Fi speakers a few weeks ago, it's like they knew!

 

[ErikGrim]

How does this compare to Tidal?

Tidal uses a lossy format called MQA for their high res audio. Despite their promises, this is indeed worse than lossless audio and can introduce noise into the audible hearing range on "unfolds".

 

[Eorlas]

"Music is About to Change Forever" ???

As usual, Apple loves to take someone else's idea and "invent" it. There's been several streaming services with lossless hi-res audio for some time now -- including Amazon.

they might be stretching the wording, but if they bring atmos to the headphones and smartphone in your pocket, that's pretty cool. tidal has some spatial audio that's fun to listen to, but it's some alternate standard and not atmos. it's like the hd dvd vs blu ray competition, much like with hdr10+ vs DV. dolbys offerings are winning out on both fronts by big margins, it's just a matter of time before the other companies stop messing around.