I would love a lossless Apple Music tier.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Amazon Music Adds Lossless Streaming Tier for $14.99/Month ($12.99 for Prime)
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ah, alas Im not a classical music fan, more a floyd head..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...
Amazons stream of say, the who's Quadrophenia for example is completely hampered by not having gapless in my humble opinion. That split second silence between the rock and love reign o'er me is quite jarring when its turned up to 11.
Id imagine a classical piece would be very difficult to immerse yourself in if not played gaplessly?
Last edited:
The problem is when gapless is NOT offered as an option. When I had a free subscription to Apple Music with EE, Android Apple Music had no gapless option which ruined the atmosphere of lots of music I listen to, where the INTENTION is for the music to flow with continuous sound from one track to the next. The classic example of this (that many people will know) is "Dark Side of the Moon".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...
For such a short quote, it contains a whole lot of logic fail. Pretty sure you knew that @jonblatho was referencing the sound and not file size. The presumption that a difference can't be heard is the joke. As many have already noted, lossless benefits from the right equipment. It's a choice that Amazon is offering customers. It's not for everyone. Could Tidal not be the worlds largest service because no one wants to pay that much for lossless? I'd bet they'd be a lot bigger if they charged what Amazon is charging. Or could it be that the audience for that type of fidelity is niche?
Decent wifi? Decent sound system? Appreciation for better sounding music? This is priced pretty nicely for a customer in that demographic. iPhone guy with AirPods... not so much.
Ah, alas Im not a classical music fan, more a floyd head..
Amazons stream of say, the who's Quadrophenia for example is completely hampered by not having gapless in my humble opinion. That split second silence between the rock and love reign o'er me is quite jarring when its turned up to 11.
Id imagine a classical piece would be very difficult to immerse yourself in if not played gaplessly?
Yah I get how that works.. it would be like the feeling one has when sightreading a lengthy and complex work on the piano, and not having a page turner present to make the necessary transitions seamless.
The discussion in this part of the thread speaks to different needs for editing tools and playback options in getting to desired effects when listening to digitally recorded music.
Average people listen to music with average devices in an average way. This is a fact.
Audio reproduction has made big improvements in the last 30 years and yet people listen through simple earbuds or, even worse, mediocre (should I say crappy?) speakers (like those in a computer). I see this almost every day.
Forget Hi-Res, Multichannel, Dolby or whatever for a moment. Let's stick with the old, good, plain stereo.
How many guys do you know have really, properly listened to a stereo reproduction?
The listener in the middle (sweet point) of two speakers (not Hi-End, just good enough) positioned in front of him/her, evenly distant forming a triangle shape, without other distractions. The first time I listened stereo in the way how it is supposed to be enjoyed, I was in my 20s. Quite late to the party, because my family couldn't afford a Hi-Fi.
It was a revelation. Like the first time I, say, flew with a helicopter. Seriously.
You can see – yes, I've written see – the singer in front of you. Feeling his/her lips and breath. B&W (a famous speaker producer) had a payoff years back: Listen and you'll see. Sure, a marketing sentence, yet a beautiful, really spot-on definition, in my opinion.
Today we have the technology. It's quite affordable. Still, people usually don't seem to care about quality.
Don't get me wrong. Music is enjoyable even with below average components. When you're "in the groove" of your favorite music, you just listen to the music and not the reproduction. That's perfectly fine, it's the essence of music, actually.
I use earbuds too and enjoy walking and listening at the same time. I know, though, that Hi-Fi audio is different. After all, the recording has been made having in mind a spacial stereo reproduction. At least it should be. Like binaural recordings are supposed to be listened with headphones and not speakers.
As far as I observed, fairly speaking, most of composers/musicians don't listen to music with exceptional gear as well. That's curious.
The same can be said for video. Most TVs I see around show unnatural saturated colors. People don't "feel" something is wrong.
It's a little bit sad. That's the reason Tidal is a niche service, IMO.
Sorry for the long post.
Maybe Apple never designs HomePod to support higher than AAC quality music playback or even Apple Lossless format, I think. Basically An expensive speaker that can only support AAC decoding.
Yes, this is one reason why I always prefer high quality music, besides providing richer sound field and clearer sound in some cases.
Maybe they are counting the free 2 million Prime music included with Prime. Then the 100 plus million Prime members all have this service. Makes the numbers large.
You could also download specific songs/playlists to the device via wifi. I mean why wouldn't you at least want lossless as an option?
Anyone have firsthand experience with Amazon Music and can tell us if its personal recommendations or discovery algorithms are any good?
I had Tidal but was disappointed in its ability to surprise me. I added Spotify for the playlist recommendations, which I then used to find content on Tidal. Ultimately, I quit Tidal altogether and was hoping Spotify would eventually have CD quality tracks.
I had Tidal but was disappointed in its ability to surprise me. I added Spotify for the playlist recommendations, which I then used to find content on Tidal. Ultimately, I quit Tidal altogether and was hoping Spotify would eventually have CD quality tracks.
There could be a number of explanations for not hearing the difference. High-res streaming via bluetooth to AirPods just wouldn't do it. I am returning my PowerBeats Pro because the sound is so awful.
And there are papers that say that they do:
https://www.audiostream.com/content/its-official-people-can-hear-high-res
But you absolutely have to have good equipment/music provenance. I have seen some articles (from audiophiles, of course), saying why these results aren't correct for many people. I'm sure some people can't hear the difference.
And there are also a ton of individuals that will swear to the opposite conclusion. The ability to differentiate is dependent on so many things. The original source material, the delivery system, etc. 325 Kbps for me is the minimal acceptable number on good equipment. Where I really notice it is with percussion instruments - symbols and drums. I would have a harder time differentiating it if those instruments were not included.
I do agree that on typical audio equipment differentiating may be impossible. I often see statements about studies. I have never seen anyone of these people say "I wanted to check it out. Went to my high end dealer and listened to one of my favorite recordings (on CD) on $5,000 speakers and it made no difference". You don't need $5000 speakers for good quality, but if you can't hear the difference there then you never will. Different speakers give different results. I just got a new pair of headphones and I am hearing things in recordings that I had never heard before, even on very good equipment.
Tidal CD quality is 1411 kbps well within the capacity of your DSL bandwidth.
Same here. Sound is just awful. The only redeeming quality is its sporty design, which I do like. If it has decent sound, I might keep it, but well.
My DSL's plan speed and the actual experience are amusingly at variance with each other. Amusing as long as I maintain my sense of humor, which I can usually manage if it's just music. Software updates maybe not so amusing.
Anyway it's relatively painless to download what I want rather than stream it even if I have the choice. I'm generally good with 256 AAC format downloads. If I like something well enough I'll get a CD I can stick in a rack system and use with good speakers, but also convert what's on it for use on mobile gear for casual listening off the gear's speakers or via a BT speaker, and to a higher bitrate for use on a laptop w/ nicer earphones.
Not even close. This is like saying that some VHS recordings are in many ways better than 4K Blu-ray.
I don't think they would do it... innovation my a$$ - Nonetheless, if they do actually offer it, it would be most welcomed!
Yeah, I bet a lot of people would get confused between the hd and the mastered for iTunes versions of songs, hehehe - Maybe, one of the reason Apple still doesn't offer this service?
I agree in part with what you are saying, but the counter-argument is how many companies have sprung over the last decade, if not more, offering hi-def sound components (DACs being the first example, obviously Amps, Speakers, Headphones, etc)? I can tell you right now, HUNDREDS! Thus, this shows that there finally is an interest in listening to music in a PROPER way, and not the tragedy called "lossy compression".
Sure, a lot of people may not hear the difference, but that doesn't mean that a lot of other people shouldn't enjoy the music as it was meant to be enjoyed, even with sub-par hifi equipment (sub-par meaning not your average crappy stereo components, i.e. internal sound cards, internal dacs, cheap headphones or speakers, etc).
In fact, Apple should have been the real "leader" also in this regard, as it was the first company to go the digital route and offer ipods and iTunes, back in the day, to be the first to offer hd music and not Tidal, which came out of nowhere. There are a lot of such decisions within Apple, that I will never understand (another one being buying Fox when they could, so as to better compete with their streaming service, etc).
Many audio experts have said the Mastered for iTunes recordings are the best versions of particular albums they have ever heard. You don't have to search very hard to find these examples.
Apple's format for distributing these tracks is virtually lossless. It is far ahead of competing compressed formats such as MP3. Would a lossless version of the same Mastered for iTunes track sound even better? Maybe for some, but most people will never be able to tell the difference.
In one very, very small way they did. Some years ago I went to a parade. Usual thing, lots of floats blasting out horrible sounding music. Then came thousands of Apple Employees, including Tim Cook. The music from their float gave me chills. I have always wondered how they did it given the horrible listening environment (city streets, tall buildings, noisy crowds). They know about good sound. They just have to be convinced to deliver it.
Mastered for iTunes encourages the labels to provide masters in higher than CD quality which Apple then re-encodes to the exact same lossy bitrate as everything else. In which many ways is that better than lossless high bitrate files from Amazon?
That's no different than 256 kbps files though. Higher quality hardware = higher quality reproduction for both formats. If you have a hard time telling the difference on AirPods, you're going to have a hard time telling the difference on a pair of $1,000 headphones.
That's unquestionably wrong, but who am I to disavow you of that notion? You roll with that opinion and I'll roll with mine. We'll both be okay.