AHHHHH good to know!!! I did not know that. Thanks!! "Stop the presses" was hilarious
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.
When will iTunes offer lossless? It's 2015!
- Thread starter Gym Hellwig
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
AHHHHH good to know!!! I did not know that. Thanks!! "Stop the presses" was hilarious
Streaming service Tidal relaunches in 20 minutes. They just cut their FULL RESOLUTION price from $20 a month to $9.99.
It's over for Spotify. Beats never stood a chance, especially since Apple refuses to do full resolution downloads, they surely won't with their streaming services.
It's over for Spotify. Beats never stood a chance, especially since Apple refuses to do full resolution downloads, they surely won't with their streaming services.
Where did you get that out from?
The only thing I can see is that now there's a second subscription option. There's the $20 for HiFi quality streaming and $9.99 for "Normal Quality", which, according to Tidal's FAQ, means superb 96kbps AAC+ sound.
Last edited:
I used to think so as well. Then, a couple of years ago, I did a proper double-blind listening test together with a few friends (some of which consider themselves "audiophiles"). None of us could reliably tell the 256 kbps AAC or MP3 files from the uncompressed originals. Since then, I don't bother with lossless music anymore.
Proper mastering is much more important. Unfortunately many modern recordings are mastered miserably, e.g. applying too much dynamic range compression. I applaud Apple for trying to do something about that as part of their "Mastered for iTunes" best practices (although I wish they were more forceful about it).
I consider myself an "audiophile"
The difference between lossless formats (WAV, AIFF) and lossy formats (with bitrates 128, 256, 320 kbps and etc.) could be none, or day & night. Can you guess why? HARDWARE!!
If you listen to music through consumer-grade speakers, even the most expensive top-of-the-line models, there's no quality difference beyond 320kbps, perhaps even 256kbps. Hence, your double-blind observation.
But if you purchase a pair of "studio monitors" (professional reference speakers used for studio recording) and an "audio interface" capable of producing "balanced sound output" to your studio monitors through "balanced cables", then the difference will be midnight, and noon
A decent setup like this costs between $2,000-20,000
You should try it, you'll never go back!
That's what audiophiles always say to justify their expensive hardware. Problem is, we did the blind-test on professional studio equipment that's easily worth as much as a Porsche or two.I consider myself an "audiophile"
The difference between lossless formats (WAV, AIFF) and lossy formats (with bitrates 128, 256, 320 kbps and etc.) could be none, or day & night. Can you guess why? HARDWARE!!
The thing is that "balanced cables" and other audiophile magic has very little bearing on hearing compression artifacts. It is sometimes possible to hear the differences if you know what to listen for, but at the high bitrates we are talking about that's a rare occurrence. There are also a few "killer samples" that can trip up perceptual compression algorithms.
I'd suggest the same to you: Try a *real* double blind test! It won't diminish your enjoyment of high-end audio reproduction, but may clear up some myths.
Last edited:
no they didnt and the service is a total flop. the app isnt even in the top 700 i think and they just fired the CEO and other people because of their incompetence and ignorance.
It's still a streaming service with lossless quality in the US, so I haven't seen any worthy alternatives yet.
Why would Apple put in poor quality audio hardware into any of their Macs which for many of us would be around $1500 or more?? Also I've ripped all my CDs into 256kbps MP3 but I've considered going to AAC at possibly 320kbps. Is it worth it?
I think you'll hear a bigger difference between 320 kbps and lossless than between 256 kbps and 320 kbps. Although AAC is better than MP3 at the same bit rates.
Netflix exists because of its DVD and BluRay library; not because of your desire to stream everything. Know what else is extremely poor, Netflix's streaming selection when compared to its physical media library. But at least you can stream Ghostbusters 2 instead of Ghostbusters 1.
Who cares what you want.
----------
That's what audiophiles always say to justify their expensive hardware. Problem is, we did the blind-test on professional studio equipment that's easily worth as much as a Porsche or two.
Used 944s probably.
You don't even have to be trained in music. The people who say there is no difference don't know what they're talking about -- and I don't mean that in an insulting way. Unless you can side-by-side the configurations, it's hard to understand what is missing.
Some friends and I have reasonable hardware that we often compare -- like my Sennheiser HD800s, and switching between Spotify and Tidal is just.... no comparison. It's blatantly obvious that they are different. Even on my Sennheiser Momentum V2s it's rather clear.
Yes, if you listen on laptop speakers or Apple earbuds, there is no perceptible difference.
Generally I don't argue about this stuff. If people don't know what they are missing, that doesn't effect me. But in this case, I really want to see the major content providers offer me lossless. I'll pay the $20 I currently give to Tidal -- no problem. Just give me the option.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but switching between Spotify and Tidal is a completely useless methodology if you want to compare encodings. The perceived difference can be from any number of things that have nothing to do with the encoding, ranging from simple loudness differences over different client software to different source masters.
Valid point, but regardless of the origin of the issue, Tidal HiFi is consistently better sounding than either Spotify or current iTunes downloads on good hardware.
Well, if it's just louder, that's pretty meaningless.
If you really want to learn about codecs, I'd recommend to get the CD "Perceptual Audio Coders: What to Listen For" by the Audio Engineering Society. It demonstrates what audible differences perceptual codecs can really cause. Hint: If you think one candidate sounds "fuller" than the other, you're probably not hearing differences caused by the codec.
NPR posted a test for audio quality:
http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
The modern mastering techniques are more of a problem than bitrate. It doesn't matter if you listen to Garbage's Not Your Kind Of People in 256kbps or lossless, it will still sound like a mess due to the wall of sound mastering. Depeche Mode's Playing The Angel benefits GREATLY from listening to the DVD version, because the mastering is quieter and so you can hear much more detail. With many old albums the remastered version ruins the sound making everything LOUD.
I played Liza Minnelli's album Results yesterday from my library, and my reaction was: what the hell? It sounded terrible. Then I checked and it was ripped in 128kbps. I switched to Apple Music and the difference was night and day. But I don't hear the difference between iTunes Plus and lossless, and I listen to music using studio monitors. Perhaps I need to buy gold-plated cables (I also need to re-rip Results, when I find it in my 1000+ CD pile.)
I played Liza Minnelli's album Results yesterday from my library, and my reaction was: what the hell? It sounded terrible. Then I checked and it was ripped in 128kbps. I switched to Apple Music and the difference was night and day. But I don't hear the difference between iTunes Plus and lossless, and I listen to music using studio monitors. Perhaps I need to buy gold-plated cables
(I also need to re-rip Results, when I find it in my 1000+ CD pile.)Really? Last time I checked going from 256 GB SSD to 1 TB SSD on a MBP is still a $900 upgrade. I don't consider that dirt cheap. And I also don't consider carrying around and disconnecting and reconnecting an external drive with my laptop something I aspire to.
How come that many double blind tests using music experts show the opposite? I don't doubt that there are many people that can hear the difference, but there are many more people, even among experts who cannot hear the difference.
I don't aspire to that either, and I use an iMac. So, use iTunes Match or Apple Music.
You can get an external hard drive very cheap. I got a 2TB for $90 a few months ago.
I already said that I didn't want to lug around an external drive. What is the point of your post? Are you trying to win an argument by ignoring what the other party has said?
That's fine, just making a point. Depending which Mac you have, you can upgrade still (unless you have a current one). I can get a 1TB SSD for my MacBook for under $400 easily.