I am a man o science, I don't trust my ears.
Lossless for music reproduction is a total marketing gimmick.
Beats One is in fact free and doesn't require a subscription.Best part of MTV? It was FREE! ( actually my parents had to pay for the cable tv fees monthly ). Music 24/7. Not this subscription based BS on Beats radio.
Beats One is in fact free and doesn't require a subscription.
Not with Jimmy Iovine running the show. Ugh.Exactly. How about funding videos for artists who can't afford to put together their own? Somehow I don't see Drake's label is strung for cash – ALL his albums plus last two mixtapes reached US #1. How about funding videos for Fish? Asgeir? Suzanne Vega? Tori Amos? Anderson Paak? Tame Impala? Escort? Vanessa Daou? I'm not even going to list myself, but really...
He's probably referring to the fact that tests have shown again and again that people generally can't tell the difference between a good MP3/AAC encoding and the lossless original if the test uses proper scientific methodology (i.e. double-blind, level-matching etc.). Which of course doesn't mean that it has no subjective value if you believe in lossless audio (just like some audiophiles probably perceive Shakti stones as a great value because they give them warm feelingsAnd your scientific reason for this is?
He's probably referring to the fact
He's probably referring to the fact that tests have shown again and again that people generally can't tell the difference between a good MP3/AAC encoding and the lossless original if the test uses proper scientific methodology (i.e. double-blind, level-matching etc.). Which of course doesn't mean that it has no subjective value if you believe in lossless audio (just like some audiophiles probably perceive Shakti stones as a great value because they give them warm feelings).
Music is crap after 2006.
It's good they're being bold about this. Go bold, or go home.
MTV in the 80s and 90s? No wonder I have zero interest in Apple music and never have any idea who these supposed talented "artists" are. I never cared about or paid attention to MTV in the 80s or the 90s (or the 00s or the 10s) because I don't need a TV or radio station to tell me what music to listen to, I already know and own the music I like and have no need to "discover" aggravating obnoxious noise that is called "music" for some reason.
MTV in the 80s and 90s? No wonder I have zero interest in Apple music and never have any idea who these supposed talented "artists" are. I never cared about or paid attention to MTV in the 80s or the 90s (or the 00s or the 10s) because I don't need a TV or radio station to tell me what music to listen to, I already know and own the music I like and have no need to "discover" aggravating obnoxious noise that is called "music" for some reason.
That is a common argument from audiophiles ("if you can't hear it, your equipment must be junk") and makers of high-end gear or esoteric voodoo products, but no, I don't think that is the point. The artifacts introduced by good perceptual compression are for the most part simply inaudible given enough bandwidth, no matter how good your equipment is. That is, after all, the purpose of it, and the inventors of this technology are very smart people who knew exactly what they were doing. There are some rare exceptions where artifacts are clearly audible, but most consumers don't even know what to listen for.I think you are right.
Generally people cannot tell the difference , this mainly comes down to the hardware/gear.
Setup a proper DAC and reference headphones and you realise how awful your music collection actually is. With poor quality gear, this is not exposed.
Every major study performed by real experts that I have seen comes to a different conclusion. Most people who claim to hear the difference have never done a proper double-blind test (or even a simple blind ABX test on their own).you need to trust your ears, and even doing blind tests as you listen from CD quality MP3 to DSD .... I'm yet to find someone who cannot tell the difference.
There's something about owning your own music that just feels good. I mean I get why people enjoy the convenience of these streaming services, but having your own music, to listen when you want to, without a paywall is very nice.I hate to see music going the way of exclusives, because no one service will get them all. No one wants to join Apple Music, Spotify, Tidal, Google Play, and Amazon Prime just to listen to all their favorite artists. I'll stick with buying CDs before I subscribe to 5 music services.
Apple isn't making anything. The artists are making the content.
Spotify had nothing original, Rhapsody has been doing that way before them.The funny thing is that Spotify has been working on something original for years! They've been the ones doing all the leg work for music streaming. Apple was the last to join and are now trying to buy their way into the mainstream.
And your scientific reason for this is?
This has been discussed and demonstrated over and over again, I'm not wasting my time with people who aren't bothering to google it.
That is a common argument from audiophiles ("if you can't hear it, your equipment must be junk") and makers of high-end gear or esoteric voodoo products, but no, I don't think that is the point. The artifacts introduced by good perceptual compression are for the most part simply inaudible given enough bandwidth, no matter how good your equipment is. That is, after all, the purpose of it, and the inventors of this technology are very smart people who knew exactly what they were doing. There are some rare exceptions where artifacts are clearly audible, but most consumers don't even know what to listen for.
Every major study performed by real experts that I have seen comes to a different conclusion. Most people who claim to hear the difference have never done a proper double-blind test (or even a simple blind ABX test on their own).
Aka, I do know, and I do know how much "audiophiles" tend to stick their head in the sand and ignore arguments and I'm not willing to waste my time.aka: I don't know. Google it to to see there is an active debate over this!
Aka, I do know, and I do know how much "audiophiles" tend to stick their head in the sand and ignore arguments and I'm not willing to waste my time.
Though hey, you believe everything apple says so that makes sense.
You already start with BS arguments like this.
I'm doing myself a favor.
Go find another one to piss off.
Everybody "hears the difference" if they know what they are listening to. Assuming you prepared the source material correctly and did precise level-matching, it was very likely just your brain tricking you to hear what you were expecting. People need to realize that the human hearing system is not a microphone; what you hear is heavily preprocessed by the brain.ive heard the differenc on a HD800 setup, I was amazed how bad some of my collection was.
My gear is pretty good. Scientific listening tests are usually done on studio-grade equipment.So let me ask you, have you heard high end gear or are you just going off what others say?
Yes, but unless you just want to confirm your existing beliefs, you need to eliminate expectation bias.I don't trust others opinions , I need to try it myself.
Indeed. Not the right thread for this.Edit : I can see this becoming a topic that has been discussed many times over .
The reality is that Apple is innovating
I asked for your scientific evidence to prove audio quality , as you stated you knew thier was no differnce, and a man of science....
It repeats itself.
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...nalysis-and-more.1977653/page-5#post-23018634
Pretending to be smart and scientific , while having no evidence or understaffed , as per the INS discussion, absurd to suggest an iPhone can be used an an INS. Please google what an INS is, to understand.
Feel free to have an opinion, but don't patronise people as being not intelligent enough to deserve your replies. Cause it's not true. Don't behind science when you don't understand it.....
Good day to you also. I believe we are done
Must be hard making completely false statements and believing them.Nobody cares about lossless, total marketing gimmick.