Amazon Music Adds Lossless Streaming Tier for $14.99/Month ($12.99 for Prime)

[Stratus Fear]

Waiting for Apple fans say we don’t need it or they can’t hear the difference
[doublepost=1568728133][/doublepost]
It’s not lossless I’m guessing or they would have bragged about it

I use Apple Music and if Apple offered a lossless tier, I would probably subscribe to it. I’m glad Amazon is offering it, as it adds another lossless option to the market and puts pressure on other service providers to add such a tier to their subscription options.

That being said, there have been numerous studies and countless numbers of people that have ABX tested this stuff, and the number of people that can notice the difference between 256kbps AAC and lossless on high end equipment is pretty small, and the number that can notice it on typical audio equipment is even smaller. This isn’t a thing where “Apple fans say they don’t need it or they can’t hear the difference,” this is an everybody thing.

 

[Marco Klobas]

Apple already has its exclusive Mastered for iTunes offering which in many ways is better than this.

It's not the same, although surely a good thing.

Then, we can talk for days about how/if people can hear the differences. Personally I heard more dynamic and spaciousness in some HD (>96kHz) classical tracks I listened. Placebo effect? Who knows, maybe yes, maybe not...

 

[ThisBougieLife]

I don’t care much about streaming (I listen primarily to downloaded tracks and tracks ripped from CDs), but I’m glad that more streaming services are offering lossless. As a self-proclaimed audiophile with some high-end equipment, there is absolutely an audible difference between lossless and compressed music. What I would like to see is the ability to download lossless music from iTunes. I would willingly pay more for lossless downloads.

 

[Marco Klobas]

People will definitely notice the difference in data use.

It should be optional, of course. Those interested will opt, others will stick with regular tier.

 

[QquegChristian]

I use Apple Music and if Apple offered a lossless tier, I would probably subscribe to it. I’m glad Amazon is offering it, as it adds another lossless option to the market and puts pressure on other service providers to add such a tier to their subscription options.

That being said, there have been numerous studies and countless numbers of people that have ABX tested this stuff, and the number of people that can notice the difference between 256kbps AAC and lossless on high end equipment is pretty small, and the number that can notice it on typical audio equipment is even smaller. This isn’t a thing where “Apple fans say they don’t need it or they can’t hear the difference,” this is an everybody thing.

I am consistently critical of Apple because I want a better life / they’ve changed my life already by basically inventing the smartphone.

My thoughts are... stream it to me uncompressed if I want it. Who am I hurting to do that? If it’s a placebo, oh well, but Apple wouldn’t hurt to offer higher quality when there are competitors doing just that.

 

[Stratus Fear]

Apple already has its exclusive Mastered for iTunes offering which in many ways is better than this.

I’m pretty sure “Mastered for iTunes” is only about the master copies Apple receives from recording studios (if I remember correctly they wanted lossless 192kHz/24-bit stuff or something like that) and not the end encoded product delivered to consumers.
[doublepost=1568732864][/doublepost]

I am consistently critical of Apple because I want a better life / they’ve changed my life already by basically inventing the smartphone.

My thoughts are... stream it to me uncompressed if I want it. Who am I hurting to do that? If it’s a placebo, oh well, but Apple wouldn’t hurt to offer higher quality when there are competitors doing just that.

Sure, I think they should. I just think it’s silly to brush off anyone citing the statistics about audio quality as fanboys.

 

[triangletechie]

I have the Amazon unlimited subscription. I tried several times to upgrade to the HD version and could never get it to work.

 

[Marco Klobas]

I listen to all my music on an iPhone or streamed on an Apple TV or HomePod. How would I benefit from this?

A proper Hi-Fi system is necessary to appreciate hi-res audio, IMO. Apple TV unfortunately flattens everything at 48kHz. HomePod, although a good device (I own one and appreciate it for "casual listening") would not be on par with a Hi-Fi.
[doublepost=1568733096][/doublepost]

Hah. Evidence that deployment of high speed broadband is a global fait accomplit?

Well, 4K is not exactly mainstream, yet Apple TV is available in 4K.

 

[gnipgnop]

I would guess it's aimed more at home users with decent hi-fi systems than mobile users.

Scroll down on Amazon's HD music page and look at the hardware they're recommending for use. It's basically anything that supports 16-bit/44.1 kHz or higher, which includes iPhone 5s and up.

 

[greenbreadmmm]

Apple already has its exclusive Mastered for iTunes offering which in many ways is better than this.

It’s too early for satire

 

[lederermc]

I listen to all my music on an iPhone or streamed on an Apple TV or HomePod. How would I benefit from this?

Bragging rights!

 

[LizKat]

Well, 4K is not exactly mainstream, yet Apple TV is available in 4K.

I was jes' sorta joshin' about how those of us in rural areas who are still using DSL with "rated speeds" of 6-12Mbs just might have to settle for downloading the lossless music (tediously lol) rather than streaming it.... all things considered including distance from the CO and what actual dl speeds amount to.

 

[stormyuklondon1]

Great to see amazon getting on board with lossless, but have they introduced gapless playback yet? Thats the main thing keeping me on spotify, despite being a prime subscriber.

 

[Waxhead138]

Most likely you won't benefit from it. There are many studies that show that it is nearly impossible to distinguish between high quality compressed audio and lossless with any confidence.

With good listening equipment you would notice improvements in the mastering process so there is value in that. But you'd notice that improvement regardless of whether or not the music is lossless.

I can hear a difference between 256 and lossless.....but admittedly it doesn't seem to effect how I hear mids. I notice it on the high and low frequencies. But that's me.......catch is, if one ever hears the difference, it's very hard to un-hear. I first started noticing the difference on albums I knew note by note on cd....but then when downloading / streaming came along.....I could spot the differences. High end warble is the most irritating thing...imo.
[doublepost=1568734555][/doublepost]

I use Apple Music and if Apple offered a lossless tier, I would probably subscribe to it. I’m glad Amazon is offering it, as it adds another lossless option to the market and puts pressure on other service providers to add such a tier to their subscription options.

That being said, there have been numerous studies and countless numbers of people that have ABX tested this stuff, and the number of people that can notice the difference between 256kbps AAC and lossless on high end equipment is pretty small, and the number that can notice it on typical audio equipment is even smaller. This isn’t a thing where “Apple fans say they don’t need it or they can’t hear the difference,” this is an everybody thing.

I can hear the difference on recordings I know very well in full fidelity, even on average equipment.....but I admit, I get snobbish about it, and the differences won't be night and day to most people. Just the audiophiles.

 

[iRutherford]

Tidal found dead in a hitch.
[doublepost=1568734886][/doublepost]

Amazon as one of the big 3 global streaming music services? I'd like to see the metric used to determine that. Possibly taking anyone who has ever asked Alexa to play a song, or total number of Prime subscribers... maybe. But in terms of dedicated monthly paying subscribers to the full music catalog, I'd have to think Google/Youtube has more globally than Amazon.

But nobody pays for YouTube Music.

 

[LizKat]

Great to see amazon getting on board with lossless, but have they introduced gapless playback yet? Thats the main thing keeping me on spotify, despite being a prime subscriber.

One could hope that gapless playback would forever remain just an option. Some classical performers are careful to have the producer insert intentional space at the beginning of certain tracks for aesthetic purposes, e.g. in an album representing a collection of several classical works, there is a silence of at least several seconds at the start of a work, as opposed to the briefest of pauses at start of the 2nd or following movements of the same work. This so that on a playthrough of a CD or some ordered playlist of classical works, one does not hear the prestissimo wrap of a piano concerto instantly followed by some solo andante work for flute. The pause before the flute work is the audio equivalent of a palate cleanser at a formal 12-course dinner...

 

[Aquaporin]

I may be getting old, but most new music is bad at any bitrate.

 

[MauiPa]

I have unlimited and so do a lot of people. Apple can let us decide to use our data as we choose to
[doublepost=1568728919][/doublepost]
You would get better sound quality

That almost no one could hear. And in a blind test, most people would just be guessing. But, theoretically better
[doublepost=1568736150][/doublepost]

One could hope that gapless playback would forever remain just an option. Some classical performers are careful to have the producer insert intentional space at the beginning of certain tracks for aesthetic purposes, e.g. in an album representing a collection of several classical works, there is a silence of at least several seconds at the start of a work, as opposed to the briefest of pauses at start of the 2nd or following movements of the same work. This so that on a playthrough of a CD or some ordered playlist of classical works, one does not hear the prestissimo wrap of a piano concerto instantly followed by some solo andante work for flute. The pause before the flute work is the audio equivalent of a palate cleanser at a formal 12-course dinner...

I think he is talking about pop music, Not sure if lossless would ever matter, ever

 

[jonblatho]

Apple already has its exclusive Mastered for iTunes offering which in many ways is better than this.

I’m not even an audiophile and I laughed at this. Goodness.

Mastered for iTunes is still lossy. Pray tell how that’s “better” than lossless.

 

[chabig]

Mastered for iTunes is nowhere near better than lossless in any way whatsoever.

And the converse is true as well.

 

[MauiPa]

I’m not even an audiophile and I laughed at this. Goodness.

Mastered for iTunes is still lossy. Pray tell how that’s “better” than lossless.

Smaller file size. The presumption that any but a few can hear the difference is the joke, otherwise tidal would be the wold’s largest service by far.

 

[Mayostudent]

I’ll stick to my records and the occasional Qobuz. Thanks

 

[MoXoM]

I'm on Amazon Prime and just received a 3 month free trial of Amazon Music Unlimited through the post yesterday.

Looks like they might start getting aggressive in their marketing of this service.

 

[ijbond]

One could hope that gapless playback would forever remain just an option. Some classical performers are careful to have the producer insert intentional space at the beginning of certain tracks for aesthetic purposes, e.g. in an album representing a collection of several classical works, there is a silence of at least several seconds at the start of a work, as opposed to the briefest of pauses at start of the 2nd or following movements of the same work. This so that on a playthrough of a CD or some ordered playlist of classical works, one does not hear the prestissimo wrap of a piano concerto instantly followed by some solo andante work for flute. The pause before the flute work is the audio equivalent of a palate cleanser at a formal 12-course dinner...

You don‘t understand „gapless“. It is only used in cases where no gap must be.

 

[kyeblue]

first streaming service that I am considering paying for. I already has Prime but don't feel that unlimited worth the money.
[doublepost=1568740498][/doublepost]

Unbelievable to see anyone defend Apple when higher quality exists. Apple doesn’t have to offer it but they shouldn’t be applauded for not offering either. If the HomePod (I kinda want one) is as good as people say, shouldn’t it benefit from higher resolution audio? If it can’t benefit from higher quality on a technical level than that is what Apple should be striving to accommodate.

The new iPhone is in Dolby Atmos!

Why are we picking and choosing as to when audio quality matters?

Personally, I hear no difference between 16 and 24 bits but I can hear the difference between streaming and a 16 bit uncompressed CD.

But whether I can hear the difference or not, if I’m paying for the music, I want to know that I’m being sent whatever the artist wants to send me. No one can account for the wide array of playback options but I would love to start at a higher quality.

This forum is the worst place to be critical on apple on anything. But people who listen on beat over their phone don't need high definition streaming. I owns a homePod, great for radios (thanks to the new service apple added).