dannyyankou
macrumors Pentium
Not an MP3, but you can with WAV, AIFF, and ALAC which are all compatible with iTunes.
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.
Spotify Launching 'HiFi' Lossless Streaming Option Later This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Would definitely be great for a HomePod (not airplay) or wired airpods max though.
It takes a good bit of training to know what to listen for when it comes to lossless audio. Most people shouldn't even bother paying extra for it. Your average listener using only bluetooth headphones probably shouldn't purchase this add on.
Apple_Robert
Contributor
That is true. I do like the sound quality of FLAC files compared to MP3.
ouimetnick
macrumors 68040
My friends use it instead of Apple Music because they feel that Spotify has better algorithms and suggests music that they like better than Apple does. I don't use streaming services so I can't compare.
TheDailyApple
macrumors 6502a
Alright Apple, knock everyone’s socks off and make HiFi available to Apple Music subscribers at no further cost. I’d love to think Apple has a codec up their sleeve to allow that level of audio over Bluetooth to headphones like their AirPods Max. They could keep costs down by only streaming the HiFi version to compatible headphones and wired connections.
Not really. The more layers of compression the worse it is. Hope apple will offer high quality ALACs. I’d totally dust off my FIIO DAC for that
kaycrystal626
macrumors 6502
contacos
macrumors 603
I am one of those deaf people that cannot distinguish between sound quality unless it’s mono lol
Apple has to compress audio after muxing it with system notification sounds before streaming it at 256kbps via BT. With lossless audio source, this compression happens only once. With lossy audio source, this happens twice. I have Airpods Max and tried this on Mac and iPhones with lossless and lossy source and there is a small noticeable difference.
This is ********. I can clearly tell the difference, specially on cymbals, percussions and classical guitars. It's not about the higher frequencies, it's a about dynamics and compression specially on very crowded ranges. On my genelecs and KEF LS50 with acoustical instruments, I can clearly tell the difference. If it was produced naturally, without a lot of killing dynamics compression, a lot of people can tell.
alexjholland
macrumors 6502a
Great news, NOT because I think I'll notice a huge difference in Spotify on Airpod Pros.
...but because it could shift the market towards higher-quality bluetooth codecs and components.
...but because it could shift the market towards higher-quality bluetooth codecs and components.
Last edited:
opiapr
macrumors regular
I can’t wait for Apple Music to offer HiFi and HiRes plans. I currently have 850gb of HiRes and HiFi music on my Walkman Nw-Zx2 but still subscribe to Apple Music for convenience specially with CarPlay. Tried Tidal and while it works fine on HiRes receiver and Mac the iOS app is not good.
I don't understand modern people. I listen to what I want and I don't need any algorithms.
The iPod craze decades ago pulled a fast one on a whole generation of young listeners -128kbs MP3s. It's safe to say that a significant portion of the human population now has no idea what Hi Fidelity is / cuz they've never heard it
TheDailyApple
macrumors 6502a
TheDailyApple
macrumors 6502a
Even if your track is ALAC, it will be transmitted over Bluetooth by AAC. I was referring to a Bluetooth codec that would allow high quality tracks (like ALAC) to be transmitted at a practically lossless level.
And Apple Music can’t stream ALAC anyway.
headlessmike
macrumors 68000
That's not really a fair comparison. An MP3 file compresses the data (among other techniques for reducing the bitrate).
16-bit 44.1kHz ALAC files can contain the exact same data as an audio CD with a bitrate of 400 kbit/s or less.
ClockWork72
macrumors member
No wireless can’t not stream at that high of a rate and that’s why I doubt Apple will offer anything like this anytime soon. AirPods max, HomePod etc... as far as I know wouldn’t be able to take advantage of higher bit rates since they are all wireless and would currently require a physical line connection. Would be nice though to listen at a higher rate and would definitely cause some waves if Apple came out and said that they could stream at a higher rate and there current audio hardware was capable.
repoman016
macrumors 6502
Back when I had the choice, it was pretty much between spotify or pandora. I chose spotify because a few reasons.
1. I could search for songs/artists and play them, pandora was just a giant playlist in my experience
2. The ability to download and listen to songs offline.
3. The ability to turn up the audio quality going from free to paid membership
GreenLightLuke
macrumors member
How do you discover new music?
We all like what we like, but when it comes to venturing outside of your usual albums, playlists and artists algorithms are very helpful.
cesarbm
macrumors newbie
I would be happy enough if Apple wouldn't downgrade audio quality of old music (80's). Every time I play an '80s track on Apple Music the sound quality is very far from what I get from a current pop hit like Dua Lipa, Ed Sheehan, Lady Gaga, etc. And it is not because '80s music is old or has not been remastered, my car has a Bose audio system and if I play an '80s audio track from my personal collection (ripped CDs to iTunes), it just blows your mind in the same way that a new song does, the same happens with de radio, an old song sounds as good as a new one. But just play an '80s track on Apple Music and the quality is just flat, dull.