That would be incredible. And something only Apple would do. Not sure if they actually will do it, but there's a chance, considering their precedent in upgrading 128kbps to 256kbps for free years ago.
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.
iOS 14.6 Beta 1 Code Hints at Upcoming HiFi Apple Music Support
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I absolutely can tell the difference, but it’s more feel instead of “oh hey the 8k and above spectrum is far more detailed.” Compressed music (either Bluetooth or compressed format) feels harsh on my ears. CD quality feels smooth and clear. Like spring water vs tap water.
But yeah, most people probably can’t tell and don’t care.
Just looking through comments on first page …
I’m MORE focused on finding out:
- what will the codec be?
- what will be the full Hz and nitrate average?
- which units ’could’ support the new lossless codec?
- which units will require a major firmware update to support lossless Apple Music audio?
> WHICH tracks that have already been streamed and added to an Apple Music playlist locally on devices (Macs, iPhones, iPads, heck does HomePod/HomePod mini cache music?)? More importantly our PURCHASED music from years before Apple Music became a streaming services WILL:
automatically (no fee) get the Lossless version ~ without giving us the ‘clean‘ version meant for kids vs the original content, usually having ‘R’ rated lyrics for tracks we may own/purchased?!!!!
Which tracks will we NEED/HaveTo pay for the new lossless version of songs we’ve already purchase and own in our library?!
THESE should be the questions most of us SHOULD be focusing on.
I’m MORE focused on finding out:
- what will the codec be?
- what will be the full Hz and nitrate average?
- which units ’could’ support the new lossless codec?
- which units will require a major firmware update to support lossless Apple Music audio?
> WHICH tracks that have already been streamed and added to an Apple Music playlist locally on devices (Macs, iPhones, iPads, heck does HomePod/HomePod mini cache music?)? More importantly our PURCHASED music from years before Apple Music became a streaming services WILL:
automatically (no fee) get the Lossless version ~ without giving us the ‘clean‘ version meant for kids vs the original content, usually having ‘R’ rated lyrics for tracks we may own/purchased?!!!!
Which tracks will we NEED/HaveTo pay for the new lossless version of songs we’ve already purchase and own in our library?!
THESE should be the questions most of us SHOULD be focusing on.
The highest quality media format ever produced was the compact disc of the late 80's early 90's. This was audio where the digital master process was figured out and before the loudness wars began. (Google or Wiki "loudness wars" if you don't know what I'm talking about).
It will be nice to see Apple bring "iTunes"/Apple Music to CD quality and beyond with a lossless option. However, I hope they only do this for "mastered for iTunes" content, as converting super-compressed/clipped/distorted masters to lossless won't likely yield any audible improvement for consumers. Crap in = crap out.
It will be nice to see Apple bring "iTunes"/Apple Music to CD quality and beyond with a lossless option. However, I hope they only do this for "mastered for iTunes" content, as converting super-compressed/clipped/distorted masters to lossless won't likely yield any audible improvement for consumers. Crap in = crap out.
Apple is looking to services to provide growth as other segments (iPhone, iPad) sales flatten. Services gross margin is 68%, vs 39% for the company. Restricting this growth by rigid hardware requirements doesn't make sense.
This argument has been going on for decades and likely will never be resolved. There are studies supporting both positions. Personally the difference between listening to compressed vs uncompressed is like the difference between eating bland oatmeal and lobster thermidor. If you want to insist that you can't hear the difference (which could be true for a lot of reasons) just enjoy your oatmeal. I am just going to enjoy my lobster.
SACD was the highest quality music media format. Disk player had to support it, which very few did/do.
Last edited:
As somebody who has spent many weekends of the pandemic updating ripped CDs in iTunes to lossless, having an opportunity to get high-bitrate updates to my digital purchases would certainly be welcome.
Considering I still have 128kbps "protected" files in the collection that I was unable to PAY to upgrade the last time Apple introduced a higher bitrate, though, I'm not holding my breath.
I agree there is a huge difference and it most can definately be discerned by the human ear. But compressed and uncompressed is not the argument; it's about lossy and lossless. You can have compressed lossless and uncompressed lossy. All the streaming services are using compressed and lossy with the exception of e.g.Tidal who are using compressed lossless; aptX is "CD like" but the stream has to be [is] compressed to allow it to be transmitted over bluetooth
Don’t forget DVD-Audio. Between that and SACD, there was a real bright future for sound quality until the iPod prioritized portability and sent them both to their graves.
I used this test here and I can't hear any difference between AAC 256kbit/s and uncompressed music.If you really think you can hear the difference between a good mp3 and lossless, test yourself:
How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?
A hi-def test for your ears (and your audio equipment): Listen to these songs and see if you can tell the difference between an MP3 and an uncompressed audio file.www.npr.org
For 99,9% of the population it is completely pointless... I'd say I have very good hearing (and almost perfect pitch), I managed to guess 4/6 correct (with good headphones) and even then I wasn't sure for the most parts.
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 iTunes-compression quality audio
abx.digitalfeed.net
No.
When you go to a Mexican restaurant and they offer nachos and nachos supreme, does that mean the nachos are subpar?
What sent them to their graves was that the vast majority of people didn’t care about differences in sound quality that they couldn’t hear.
Once Spotify HiFi goes live, I think all major services except Apple Music will be compressed lossless (FLAC) Tidal, Qobuz, Deezer, Spotify, AmazonHD, Primephonic, etc.
I have to say that I find it amusing
i'm sorry - is this intended to be satire? I don't have anything personally against the CD. Heck, I have over 10,000 CDs in my collection. I found the CD to be an improvement over the LP and cassette in many respects. But to suggest that the CD is the highest quality media format ever produced is laughable. Like other formats that preceded it, the CD involved compromises. In terms of sheer audio quality, I'd choose a 15ips tape copy of an original analog two-track master recording over a CD in a heartbeat. Of course that's not a viable option for most people. But if you've ever heard reel-to-reel recordings made straight off the master, I don't think you'd argue with me. In terms of digital formats, for analog source tapes, I'd choose 96/24 FLAC over CD - again, assuming access to the same master tapes. For digital recordings, I'd take a straight copy of the digital master - same sampling rate, same bit rate. Some Redbook digital transfers made 30-40 years ago may sound better that high res digital transfers made today due to deterioration of the master tape. But again, all things being equal, I'd take hi res FLAC over CD. I find hi res digital files more convenient. My only real disappointment with hi res digital files is the lack of artwork - I never understood why it didn't become standard for digital music files to come with a PDF containing all the album artwork, production credits, liner notes, etc.
Apple’s millions of die hard apple fans will make sure apple can get away with limiting the headphone lineup to just one or very few number of AirPods headphones while offering zero third party device support. They are the reason apple can afford to do this whole limiting thing.
They charged me the same amount of money to get HD version of Tom and Jerry despite me purchased SD version already. So what do you think?
Nah, apple will be just fine. Millions of die hard apple fans got their back. Heck, apple can quote all kinds of crazy things to not offer third party support and outside of maybe a few news articles and some criticism, nothing will happen.
I know but FLAC is more popular and superior to ALAC since it can detect corruption.
People that keep thinking Apple will do a hard coded limit to HiFi to their own headphones need to remember that Apple Music exists on Android. Stop being up in arms about nothing.
No, it’s an acknowledgement that, as always, people will pay more for biggerer numbers.
Don't follow. If you have an original source and distribute as it is, uncompressed bit by bit accurate, how is it "lossy"?
If the original was analog, then, compressed or not, any digital representation is lossy.