i do hope for this, and if songs already purchased get this added, that somehow itunes is updated to indicate this and allow us to re-download the higher quality file.
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 Teaser References 'Hi-Res Lossless' and 'Dolby Atmos'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i do hope for this, and if songs already purchased get this added, that somehow itunes is updated to indicate this and allow us to re-download the higher quality file.
So, if it is going to cost the same price of $9.99 will the current Apple Music customers going to enjoy the high-quality music audio? And what about those with student discounts?
Wonder if Itunes Match will upgrade my 70k song library to Apple Lossless for $5 extra per year?
Am I missing something here? Why would someone stick with the current individual sub if the new tier costs the same and has a higher quality?
and according to that report, the new tier will cost the same $9.99 as the current individual Apple Music subscription.
Any source for this? And will existing hardware and Apple headphones / earbuds support this new bluetooth codec?
Last edited:
To gain market share. Then later Apple will increase the price over the years.
It is also the reason why Apple TV and Disney+ are so cheap as they want to steal people away from Netflix. But once they have grown enough in size, watch them jack up the prices alot.
That's exactly what Netflix has been doing for years, and Disney also following the path. That is to be expected. They all do. I am just baffled that they don't simply have one upgraded tire, the high quality one and then they can brag all they want about how good or better than competition it is.
You got a point. I just hope that this spacial audio will live up to my expectations of real 3D.
I find this whole thing interesting. I personally can’t hear a difference between bitrates unless something is mono and my uncle thinks he hears everything in the most amazing quality, while listening to his 64kbs YouTube rips on his 500€ headphones 😅
what I do find redic, is charging extra for 4K let alone HD in 2021. that difference I can actually see
what I do find redic, is charging extra for 4K let alone HD in 2021. that difference I can actually see
I don’t know about other claims, but this patent is a few years old now. (US patent number 20190104424)
Its going to be interesting to see just exactly what this means, both in terms of cost and what the product is, given that the majority of Apple Music subscribers are going to be listening on speakers and headphones which don't naturally lend themselves to (traditional) high quality audio. Maybe this is where Apple's "secret sauce" comes in?
I wonder how this will work with the 'matching' function of Apple Music - if I have a track I've ripped from a CD in my music library, will AM match it to a lossless/Atmos version if one is available? And will I then also be able to do the old iTunes Music Match thing of replacing my original with the DRM-free improved one?
AAC is junk but iOS VSTs the ying yang out of it when you play it to make it sound better than it actually is. That's why it doesn't sound as good on any other OS.
If we can already have 5.1 with an AppleTV and a regular Home Cinema for music, this would be great. Currently I think that we can only have it for movies.
Recorded: yes, most of the production today sets up their template at 192 when they do premixing and mastering (I would argue how many of them actually know how to work it properly).
Published: no, most of the go for CD quality publishing
Will push competitors for sure. Hope to see atmos mixing features in Logic Pro as part of this rollout.
"Only certain albums will get that option"
Well it would be pointless as virutally no one records and mixes that high. Nearly all electronic music is recorded and mixed at 44.1khz - they'll just use upsampling within individual plugins to reduce minor (practically unhearable) aliasing effects.
Classical music can afford to record at high sample rates as little processing happens to each track in comparrison.
But bands are never tracked this high, there is just no point in recording higher than 96khz - you can't hear the difference between 44khz and 96khz, the reason to use 96khz again is so that any digital audio processing reduces anti aliasing - 96khz is the sweep spot, especally when you use a filter which takes out everything over 22khz in sound (effectively making the track 44khz anyway) - you get 44khz but without any aliasing from digital processing - up sampling during mixing gives you the same effect though with a lot less processing power required, which is why almost all electronic artists with the exception of a few with write and mix at this sample rate.
I would agree except that it's not all that black and white. Human can hear above 20kHz, I can "hear" 22 except that you don't actually hear it, you feel it as some sort of pressure or annoyance. Sound design and Mixing at above 48 gives you headroom so you can get fuller timbre as harmonics can span and bounce wider. Unfortunately it doesn't work like video where 4:4:4 12bit color data is obviously uniformly better than Rec709 4:2:0 8bit and you can easily downscale 12bit to 8bit. In audio production high res or 192 bounces harmonics all over the place and it affects all of your range making it sound worse than actually doing it in 48, that's why proper setup is really important before you begin and while you are doing it. Not all elements and timbres need to go that high in resolution. Result of doing audio in high resolution is wider, fuller sound stage but just as easily result could end up being a complete razor sharp mud.
Bottom line: people should not fall for the trick that something will look or sound better just because its delivered in higher resolution. It all depends on the craft of the people behind the production. Proper producer could give you his 196kbps MP3 and it will sound better than YouTube tutorial self trained no-hardware-equipment so called producer enthusiast's WAV mastered and delivered in 24/192
24 bit has nothing to do with sound quality though - it's about headroom. In terms of listening back to a mastered recording it's irrelevant. We use it in the tracking and recording process as it means we have more headroom in the levels. Once it's mixed and mastered it's irrelevant to the sound quality.
As mentioned above, almost no one actually records and mixes at 192khz. You might get some live work done at this rate. Movie sound tracks almost always done no higher than 96khz. It'd be almost impossible for them to mix the 500+ track or so they use at 192khz. Some bands who just track a 4 piece with vocals and have it mixed **might** use 96khz in pro tools. Almost no electronic muscians will bother with anything higher than 48khz.
I always find it laughable how audiophiles claim to be able to hear things that the worlds best mix and mastering engineers can hear - who's entire job is to have golden ears.