Yes. Suing Apple and other American tech companies with regularity has been a revenue stream for EU countries for decades.
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.
HomePod Will Support Spatial Audio for Apple Music, But Not Lossless Audio
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes. Suing Apple and other American tech companies with regularity has been a revenue stream for EU countries for decades.
Many did claim exactly that. For years. Some still do.
If you or anyone else are happy with listening to 128 or 256 streaming that's fine. No one's going to stop you. But higher resolution is the future because people enjoy it more. Just like (before the movie theaters closed) people were willing to pay a higher ticket price for IMAX or Dolby Cinema. They aren't paying the higher ticket price because they can't tell the difference between higher quality and lower quality.
By the way, feel free to provide a link to one of those many tests showing that people can't tell the difference between 256 AAC and 24/192.
There were already posted so many links to that in the currents threads about this topic here. This one is for starters:
Blind Test Results
The file size of an iTunes song is only a fraction of its CD counterpart because it has been compressed discarding data in the process. Is the audio quality degraded? More than a year ago I devised…
cdvsmp3.wordpress.com
There are many, many more. Just google "abx blind test 256 lossless" or whatever. Everyone here will probably still believe he/she is the "golden ear" exception.
Or simply do this test yourself and tell me your honest results:
Is your audio system really ready for lossless?
Do an ABX test in your browser, and see if you can tell the difference between lossless and lossy audio
abx.digitalfeed.net
I'll wait for you.
There seem to be far more oscilloscope-lovers who think the hoi polloi couldn't possibly enjoy hi-res more than low-res. Why are people paying more for IMAX, Dolby Cinema, Dolby sound, etc., if it's not better? Just rubes fooled by marketing?
Sure, some people simply don't care. They're more worried about their commute or that suspicious mole on their arm. And some people are fine with gas station food but that's not the standard most people enjoy.
BTW, the internet blog you linked to is less than compelling.
What kind of comparison is this? Of course, IMAX is objectively better than "normal" cinema when it comes to the screen. Same goes with Dolby etc. in cinema in comparison to "normal" audio. These are different formats.
The exact same master source compressed to 256 AAC upwards vs. lossless isn't and your ears/brain anatomically won't be able to tell the difference - as real abx blind test prove. And if you do a real one (being honest about the results, of course), I'm betting my house on the exact same result with YOUR ears.
Last edited:
We're not talking about silent movies. IMAX and especially Dolby Cinema have better sound.
Some will, some won't. Some tracks yes, some tracks no. Come-one come-all internet polls aren't exactly scientifically rigorous. I've done comparisons myself at home. Like I said, some tracks yes, there's a difference, some tracks no, there's not. Generally speaking, hi-res is better.
And no, you would not be willing to bet your house on the outcome of such a test.
If you're happy with 128 or 256 streaming, great. Heck, try 64kbps.
People are losing sight of the main point of this. Lossless and Hi-Res will be available at no additional charge from Apple Music. Before this announcement, hi-res music was generally much more expensive on sites like HDTracks versus a physical CD or CD-quality download.
Even if the HomePod did support Hi-Res Apple Music, does it have the resolving power to give that additional detail to the user? I doubt it.
I just set up an original HomePod today and even though it has impressive sound, I don’t see how there would be any discernible difference with lossless playback. It doesn’t have the detail to make a difference.
Would still be nice if it were supported anyway, though.
Would still be nice if it were supported anyway, though.
That wasn't what they told everyone at the product launch of the HomePod a few years ago.
It was premium priced because Apple claimed it offered the best in class audio.
For it to not get loss less audio support now kinda contradicts that claim.
No. WiFi, which HomePod uses, has ample bandwidth for lossless audio. Bluetooth doesn't.
Best in class of small wireless digital assistant speakers. Not actual hifi.
Why? AirPlay can stream video…why not lossless audio?
Bluetooth vs AirPlay: What’s The Difference? | Cambridge Audio US
Want to know the difference between Airplay and Bluetooth? You’ve come to the right place.www.cambridgeaudio.com
ok now we start looking towards alternative wireless speaker systems and headphones than what Apple makes.
Sony WH-1000XM3/4 supports LDAC over Bluetooth 24-bit,900kbps (max as it’s variable form 600kbps) so tier 1 of Apple Musics Lossless Audio will be supported. I mention a year ago I hoped Apple would license LDAC from Sony or develop on their own.
seems like Lossless is a newer effort and collaboration with Dolby and Apple Music conglomerate partners vs something they thought of 3yrs ago when the HomePod OG was developed.
now I wonder if:
A) Sonos Play One supports HiFi / Dolby Atmos and spatial audio or
B) will Apple finally build an Amp like the Sonos with built in DAC to support the HiFi tier for playback on your own speakers?
LDAC over Bluetooth does. Look it up first please.
HiFidelity Lossless no it doesn’t support. But please research before spreading non truths or half truths.
A better, perhaps more relevant question is: will HomePod be able to play the CD-quality "less loss" stream when "Lossless" Apple Music is turned on? Because I can definitely hear a difference between current streaming Apple Music and CD-quality music from my local collection (pushed over AirPlay 2) on my OG HomePod pair. The former isn't a showstopper by any means, but the added convenience (not having to manage things from my Home Library) and even-if-only-slight improvement - ALL FOR FREE (no additional charge) - would certainly be joyously welcomed.
Last edited:
LDAC, is HiRes, it isn't lossless.
Doesn't come up to scratch either according to this audiophile review.
It's also Sony's proprietary audio coding technology.
It would seem that you are the one spreading non/half truths.
The misuse of blind tests on internet forums is appalling. A blind test can only confirm that a difference is detectable. It can NOT confirm that a difference is not detectable. That is a very important distinction. And especially, many are arguing that if a difference cannot be confirmed in a blind test, the difference is irrelevant. This is very far from the truth. The fact is, for a difference to be confirmed in a blind test, the difference has to be surprisingly large. As in, most people would fail a blind test between a bookshelf and a floorstand speaker, using everyday pop music (yes I really mean that, and yes I have tried, and yes I am an experienced listener). What this means is, there is a VERY large grey area of differences that are factually there, but will not easily be confirmed in a scientific blind test. This does NOT mean that these differences are irrelevant. Small differences sum together, and make a big difference to the whole.There were already posted so many links to that in the currents threads about this topic here. This one is for starters:
Blind Test Results
The file size of an iTunes song is only a fraction of its CD counterpart because it has been compressed discarding data in the process. Is the audio quality degraded? More than a year ago I devised…
There are many, many more. Just google "abx blind test 256 lossless" or whatever. Everyone here will probably still believe he/she is the "golden ear" exception.
Or simply do this test yourself and tell me your honest results:
Is your audio system really ready for lossless?
Do an ABX test in your browser, and see if you can tell the difference between lossless and lossy audio
I'll wait for you.
For this reason alone, I want the highest quality source possible, and I don’t give a rat’s behind what blind tests say. There are only practical reasons to want compressed over lossless, so once the practical limitations are obsolete (that would be now), you need to give me a better reason to NOT want a non-compressed source.
I know I’m fighting against the tide here, but 99.9% of the people trying to argue that they are more scientific because they base their opinions on blind tests are WRONG. Misusing blind tests is the opposite of scientific approach. Scientifically, there IS a difference, whether anyone can hear it or not. This makes this debate different than “snake oil” debates, where people hear differences that factually aren’t there. Compressed is worse than lossless, and that is a FACT.
1 small mistake I made.
but from Apples description stating Lossless (level 1) Sony’s LDAC supports this over Bluetooth. That’s facts. Proprietary, and just like Bluetooth was originally by Ericsson, it was licensed. Unfortunately, unlike Bluetooth doesn’t seem anyone is ready to license LDAC.
I agree. People don’t grasp what the results of these tests are actually saying.
I don’t believe the HomePod won’t play lossless. They may have been referring to high res or something. I will wait and see. If it doesn’t, they need an explanation for it because it doesn’t make any sense.
That being said, spatial audio may be a better solution for my Homepod ( and HomePod mini) anyway. I will listen to lossless on my computers, but still wondering if Apple will update the Remote app, add bit rate switching on the fly with the Mac Music app, etc. Lots of issues that need to be resolved if they want to make this a top service.
Airplay has a different eq setting. Sound profile is much different than native playback.
I have 2 OG HomePods. They sound good but not good enough to tell the difference with lossless