Just because a feature is not useful to literally everyone, doesn’t make it “moot”. I see it the other way around: People who actually care about this aren’t using bluetooth headphones in the first place, because they know it sounds worse regardless of whether the source is lossless or not. Noone is losing here.So AirPods, Pro or Max will not support Lossless audio I’m afraid.
Not that surprising, but it renders the Lossless part of this announcement a little moot given how many people use Bluetooth headphones nowadays.
AirPods Max don't support Apple Music's lossless songs, Apple says
Apple's new lossless Apple Music won't work with AirPods Max, Apple reportedly told T3.www.imore.com
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.
Apple Music Launching Spatial Audio With Dolby Atmos and Lossless Audio in June at No Extra Cost
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually, I listen mostly (but not exclusively) to music from before I was born. Yet, I hear tracks I didn’t know almost every day. That’s the beauty of having a huge back catalog of musical history. “Unknown” does not have to mean “new”.
Yes, you’re not losing anything. But the majority of listeners (using the Bluetooth headphones Apple have been promoting for years since the iPhone 7) are not gaining anything from the lossless part either - so as I said it‘s “a little moot”.
As a “free” upgrade feature it’s good to have more options with Apple Music for sure. It’s just not quite what Apple would have you believe given their marketing. They should make it clear that lossless audio will not be taken advantage of by any of Apple’s AirPods or Beats Bluetooth headphones. I’ve read through the press release and updated Apple Music webpages and nowhere does it say this, but Apple have confirmed it to the press.
The professor told me to start listening to music. But you seem to have your wired crossed here. I want to re-buy my music in the highest quality and am being told that my library is impossibly small and I should only want the highest quality if I have access to 75 million songs for £9.99 a month. My music is important to me, I didn't hand pick my songs and listen to them for decades because they where garbage.
Sincerely: may I ask why you bought it on iTunes in the first place, when ripping it from CD would have provided better quality years ago?
If you wish to believe it is a straw man (argument) that is on you. To me it very much implied I somehow only need the best music quality if I have millions of tracks. I have some impressively good studio speakers and a record player just for that one record I have so I can enjoy that on the best quality possible. Is there a library size where someone is deemed to have the right to want higher quality? You know I will be listening to these same tracks until I die, 256 bit if I must.
I didn't own any CD's and at the time I considered optical media to be obsolete. It was a period where we still had floppy disks and CD's but I was using a USB drive and consider it the coolest thing ever. And of course buying a CD would mean owning albums when I wanted individual songs. Without iTunes I likely would have never even considered buying music nor listening to it. Now I just want to keep listening to the music I enjoy and use to time my tasks at the best quality I can.
Edit: Just to contextualise the cost to 16 year old me. My job paid £860 a month, my bursary was about £40 a week on top of that. Rent was £280 a month and I had food and bills. iTunes music where 79p a song or less. 267 songs would cost me about £200. Now if I had bought CD's that would have been at least 200 albums at however much a album would have cost. I was then able to upgrade my entire library to 256bit and DRM free at some point for 'a' cost.
Last edited:
Exactly. As I said upthread, everyone is going to go out and buy new headphones and think they are getting an improved Bluetooth experience and they won’t be. Misleading marketing designed to fool the masses.
I actually rather doubt that “everyone” is going to go out and buy new headphones. “Everyone” is more than likely to completely ignore this. There will be a bunch of folks curious about the whole “Spatial Audio” thing, and they’re likely to pick up some AirPods BUT as this works with devices Apple’s been selling for YEARS, they’re actually UNlikely to I guess.
Then there’s a really small number of folks that will swear on a stack of non-denominational papers that they can ABSOLUTELY hear the difference in quality (just don’t ask them to take a blind test because those are unfair in that eyes are… I don’t know, important to the listening process?). Those folks still own the gold plated deity blessed audiophile approved listening gloves they bought as a gift for someone else, but they improved the quality of pushing “play” buttons so much, they kept them for themselves. THOSE few may go out and buy new headphones and think they’re getting an improved Bluetooth experience but… yeah, not like you’d be able to stop them anyway
I’d agree. I think it’s one of the barriers for going with digital music but the other main one is that it’s missing loads of songs from certain albums or missing lots of movie soundtracks which I love listening to
You have probably figured this out by now, but in case not, yes you can play lossless tracks from their source and hear the music on your APM. But, not until they are downsampled to 256 AAC. That's what you're hearing
No wireless headphone will deliver a true lossless experience. Also, isn’t the definition of Hi Res greater than 16/44.1 kHz?
Apple specifically using Hi-Res for only 24/192. Lower sampling rates aren’t considered Hi-Res by Apple.
Me to!! He must not know very many people. 63 here and my contemporaries are also discovering new music all the time! That's what I love the most about AM.
That really is terribly sad. You are missing so much, locked away in the past.I'm 63 and just the though of never having heard all the music I've bought and enjoyed even since age 21 is just terribly depressing.
This may or may not be useful. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/what-you-need-to-know-about-bluetooth-audio/
If you only listen to 257 songs you don't like music and the upgrade to lossless would not be worth it to you at any price it seems.
Agree. I actually detest music used as background "noise". I could never study or read with music on because I always want to give it my full attention(driving and other physical tasks excepted).
All power to you, do what you like. As long as you understand that you are not a typical user, and noone will build a business case around your use case.
You read things into my replies that I did not write. That is not on me, but on you. I don’t need millions of songs. But I don’t know of a streaming service that only provides JUST the few thousand tracks that I will probably get through over a decade. The millions are needed for the service to pick from, to show me music I didn’t know I wanted.
Many people spent tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars on gear to listen to a few hundred albums. That’s fine - I’m not one of those telling you that you SHOULD get a streaming service. My gripe is with your relationship with music in general, and your refusal to take in “new” (could be old recordings) music. No, Beethoven won’t make more symphonies. But what if there is a better version that you are missing out on? The quality of the performance and the recording has a MUCH bigger impact on your listening experience than the codec. So if you ACTUALLY are willing to pay a premium to get a better experience, you need to start searching for better versions of what you have. Streaming or not.
For the record, I still think you are a troll and made it all up, but I don’t take debates with random people on the internet too seriously anyway…
To be more precise: My gripe isn’t that you have this relationship with music. It’s that you seem to think it’s normal.
Why is there some song threshold to like music and be deemed worthy to want that music at higher quality? I like the Danse Macabre and enjoyed playing it on my violin and I play it well, I don't enjoy playing other music on it so why should it have too? The same for my music collection, I already said I am happy to re-buy it, I was fully expecting to re-buy it all, but it is locked behind an expensive subscription.
Last edited: