Well, that depends entirely on the type of music, most my ripped files are between 660 and 900 kbpsThat'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.
Well MQA is false marketing, (look at us we can deliver 24 bit 384 kHz files....well in reality they are 17 bit with some 12 dB extra noise on top)'CD Quality' is at least 3 times that BUT the bigger question is can people tell the difference? Answer to that is often down to headphones, phone, DAC etc. Personally the difference between TIDAL MQA and Apple Music is night and day using my Momentum 3s and Dragonfly Red DAC. Will be please if AM offer a lossless+ service.
I think lossless audio streaming is kind of a low hanging fruit for these companies. Not sure I would personally pay more for it, but I would try it on my hifi to see if I can hear a difference. Apple should certainly make a move, don't they have an awesome lossless codec?
I honestly believe this would just be paying more money for no audible difference.
Maybe your dog will appreciate it.
Check this out:
Since Apples algorithms have not ever suggested something good for me I agree. I listen to one playlist they make - the New Music Daily and they cannot even regularly put that in front of me. I search for it every time.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.
Agreed. And one of the few scenarios in the Audiophile world that can be backed up objectively.Cringe; using ATH M50s and using a website's built in HTML audio players to play average recordings (magna carta holy grail is not a good recording) what does he expect to happen. The fact she was able to get 4 out of 6 with everything working against her speaks to the fact that there is a difference. If he was using higher end gear and playing local files with high quality recordings the difference would be night and day. Best example for why higher res audio matters is whenever I play a high res recording of a piano you can literally hear how the pianist is holding their hands whilst playing (e.g, you can hear their fingernails lightly tapping the piano keys sometimes and can hear them breathing along with the music)
Yep. Apple will follow soon after. They don't care about audio quality but will definitely care about losing subscribers to Spotify. It's about money after all. But we do get to benefit. I would kill for FLAC support on iTunes and FLAC syncing on iPhone. ALAC does not handle corruption as well as FLAC.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.
Lossless format has nothing to do with it. Most of 80s music was recorded on tape. That's why it sounds different from current music recorded on hard drive/SSDs. We would benefit from lossless music on iTunes Store/Apple Music. That's the ultimate format for consumers. You can convert to whatever you want without transcoding when you need and can keep an archive for long term. I've been using lossless rips from my CDs for 6 years now and I can definitely spot the difference when I play them on Spotify.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.
That's not how lossless works. If you take a 1411kbps WAV and convert to FLAC/ALAC whatever, the data will be compressed like a ZIP file. It will be smaller but when you play them, you will hear the same 1411kbps WAV. When you convert the file to AAC or MP3 the song will never be able to sound like the original 1411kbps because these codecs compress the songs by throwing away data it thinks we can't hear.oh jeez..."Hi-Fi?" What relation does that even have to CD quality, let alone high quality sound. No matter how good you try and make stuff, you can't compete with uncompressed CD's..
It maybe lossless, but that stlll does not overcome the fcact at some stage bits are thrown out. It's still compressed.
Airplay is lossless. Even Airplay 1.Airplay is lower quality than Spotify/Tidal connect, plus with airplay the phone is busy transmitting the audio (battery drain)
There are other headphones and speakers...I don't see how high res audio streaming will be a benefit for AirPods Max customers. The bluetooth streaming technology that Apple uses will down sample any high res music.
A lossless source to lossy wireless headphones is better than lossy source to lossy wireless headphones.I don't see how high res audio streaming will be a benefit for AirPods Max customers. The bluetooth streaming technology that Apple uses will down sample any high res music.
Airplay is not lower quality than Spotify connect.
Airplay 2, when using Apple Music, works exactly like Spotify connect and the HomePod/Apple TV or whatever just takes the link and does all the streaming itself, no battery hit from the controller device.
When streaming anything that’s not Apple Music, or using legacy AirPlay 1, the device sends it to the speaker via Lossless codec (ALAC), with no sound quality loss whatsoever from the original source but does take a hit on battery