Apple Lossless on Apple Music

[Uofmtiger]

AAC is a more efficient codec than MP3 so you can get a lower bitrate file with similar or even better audio quality. Don't let the numbers thing fool you. Unless you can tell in a blind test, there's no benefit to higher bitrate. Many cellular plans are limited in data so it's not in the interest of consumers to stream higher bitrate files when nearly all of them won't be able to tell the difference.

SDAVE, maybe you are one of the exceptions but do you really think it makes sense for Apple to build their model around you?

You even said you weren't willing to pay $20 a month for it. So I don't even know what point you're trying to make. If you, a self-proclaimed audiophile, wouldn't pay for it, why would any regular consumers?

You also perfectly illustrated my point about audiophile gear. $2000 is boatload of money on audio equipment for 99.99999% of people. People get heart attacks just paying for beats headphones. I know they're terrible for the price but my point is people are barely willing to pay $300 for headphones. This bolsters my point about the audience for lossless streaming being next to nonexistent.

Uofmtiger, presumably streaming higher bitrate files will require more bandwidth. Hence, more infrastructure costs. Tidal can do it because they're charging $20 a month for it and have less customers. I would be willing to bet that by fall, Apple Music has more subscribers than tidal's total service, let alone its lossless service. That all adds up.

The fact that the vast majority cannot tell the difference or even cares about the difference, combined with the extra costs of having to run such a service make it unlikely to ever occur. I'm not against it on principle or anything, I just don't see it happening. But I'm not the one you have to convince, Eddy Cue is

Tidal has two tiers and Apple could to. Also, those paying for lossless would not all be streaming in lossless simultaneously.... many would pick lower bit rates when on cellular. There is no reason Apple can't offer a premium tier. They have a Mac Pro which isn't a mainstream computer, but it worth it to them to have it for branding. They have the Edition watch...which I guarantee has a smaller audience than those that care about sound quality.

If Tidal had Siri integration and my lossless music catalog I would gladly pay $20 for the full package. They come up short in many other areas, so the trade offs plus double the cost doesn't make it is a good value. In other words, they aren't failing because they have a premium tier. Their extremely horrific marketing, lack of integration with iOS, late start, lack of money to pay for three free months for every customer, lack of a free tier, lack of a recognizable brand name, just now coming out with a desktop app, lackluster curation, are all bigger reasons for their lack of success. I don't know anyone that is not using them because they have a premium tier. In fact, everyone I know that uses them has the service for their lossless music tier.

Personally, I don't think Apple will budge from 256k, but that doesn't mean it is good for their brand to offer lower bit rates than every other service. Read just about any article on the service and this shortfall is mentioned. For my needs, I can live with the lossy file trade offs to get the upsides to the service, but I would feel better about it if I had an option for a premium service.

 

[SDAVE]

Hearing a badly mastered album is easy. As to the rest, I have to agree with the previous poster. It is very unlikely that you can actually hear a difference at these coding rates. You may think you do, but unless you have run proper double-blind tests with precise level-matching, it's very likely a placebo effect. This has been scientifically studied (and the results of those studies went into the design of perceptual codecs). The exception are people with certain hearing defects, who may be able to detect lossy codecs where others can't because their hearing diverts from the perceptual models that are the basis for these codecs.

Are you kidding me? Is this a joke?

 

[Julien]

Hear (pun) is a good blind (not double) test (levels are matched well, which is the most common mistake in comparisons) anyone can try.

http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

 

[SDAVE]

AAC is a more efficient codec than MP3 so you can get a lower bitrate file with similar or even better audio quality. Don't let the numbers thing fool you. Unless you can tell in a blind test, there's no benefit to higher bitrate. Many cellular plans are limited in data so it's not in the interest of consumers to stream higher bitrate files when nearly all of them won't be able to tell the difference.

SDAVE, maybe you are one of the exceptions but do you really think it makes sense for Apple to build their model around you?

You even said you weren't willing to pay $20 a month for it. So I don't even know what point you're trying to make. If you, a self-proclaimed audiophile, wouldn't pay for it, why would any regular consumers?

You also perfectly illustrated my point about audiophile gear. $2000 is boatload of money on audio equipment for 99.99999% of people. People get heart attacks just paying for beats headphones. I know they're terrible for the price but my point is people are barely willing to pay $300 for headphones. This bolsters my point about the audience for lossless streaming being next to nonexistent.

Uofmtiger, presumably streaming higher bitrate files will require more bandwidth. Hence, more infrastructure costs. Tidal can do it because they're charging $20 a month for it and have less customers. I would be willing to bet that by fall, Apple Music has more subscribers than tidal's total service, let alone its lossless service. That all adds up.

The fact that the vast majority cannot tell the difference or even cares about the difference, combined with the extra costs of having to run such a service make it unlikely to ever occur. I'm not against it on principle or anything, I just don't see it happening. But I'm not the one you have to convince, Eddy Cue is

I will pay if Apple does it for $15 or $20/month. I don't like Tidals interface that's why I don't think they're worth $20/month. I have a huge collection of ripped music that I own which complements my mp3/aac collection.

There are millions of people out there who are audiophiles. The same people collect vinyls etc. I think it would be worth it for Apple if they allow a Lossless option with 256kbps being a default so people can make a selection.

$2000 is nothing for audiophiles. I know people who've spent $10,000+ on audio gear, that is headphone gear.

I just think since Apple always puts quality on a pedestal and they're self proclaimed musicians themselves (And I quote Steve Jobs) it would be worthwhile to invest in Lossless. It's not even high bitrate, its about 768kbps for 44/16.

Also remember it is a good marketing gimmick and will steal spotify and tidal clients. People who don't have a trained ear like me will buy into the gimmick and THEY are definitely part of the placebo effect.

But I think Apple in general does not care about niche markets anymore. They're making OS X worse. The Mac Pro is a bottom feeder. Etc. etc. It's just not their primary business. It is a business company after all, but they need remember what Apple is about and not turn into HP, Dell, Microsoft.

 

[navaira]

I don't think there are millions of people who are audiophiles. Thousands, yes.

I did the TIDAL blind test where you're supposed to pick the high quality vs lower quality stream and got 4 out of 5 but I had to really focus on listening really close and re-play some of the clips three times. The difference wasn't exactly striking. It was a "marginally clearer sound on the cymbals" kind of difference.

I listen using studio monitors and 96kHz soundcard.

I know precisely one person who can really tell the difference between 256kbps iTunes Plus and WAV, Billie Ray Martin (a singer best known for her work with Electribe 101 and a solo hit "Your Loving Arms"). I was working on a remix for her and sent her a 256kbps file. Her reaction was "why does this sound so flat? it's completely different from the previous mix! oh, I see, it's not a WAV file, please only send me WAV files". I tried and tried and couldn't hear the difference, for her it was obvious. To me, Spotify sounds perfectly good.

 

[SDAVE]

I don't think there are millions of people who are audiophiles. Thousands, yes.

I did the TIDAL blind test where you're supposed to pick the high quality vs lower quality stream and got 4 out of 5 but I had to really focus on listening really close and re-play some of the clips three times. The difference wasn't exactly striking. It was a "marginally clearer sound on the cymbals" kind of difference.

I listen using studio monitors and 96kHz soundcard.

I know precisely one person who can really tell the difference between 256kbps iTunes Plus and WAV, Billie Ray Martin (a singer best known for her work with Electribe 101 and a solo hit "Your Loving Arms"). I was working on a remix for her and sent her a 256kbps file. Her reaction was "why does this sound so flat? it's completely different from the previous mix! oh, I see, it's not a WAV file, please only send me WAV files". I tried and tried and couldn't hear the difference, for her it was obvious. To me, Spotify sounds perfectly good.

This is horseradish.

There are more than 7 billion people on this planet. There are millions out there who can tell the difference. There are plenty of people on HeadFi and a lot of other musicians and professionals out there who don't have an online presence.

I can tell the difference. Come to my apartment and I will show you a test on my Sennheiser 700, 800, Woo Audio Tube amps & a HiFiMan headphone I am currently giving a try (I need a better amp to drive this). I also have KRK studio monitors here and I can totally tell the difference, although it is harder on external speakers than headphones.

Some music needs to be listened to the way it was recorded. If you're listening to a Miley Cyrus record, that is a different story. An album like those are recorded with certain standards, not the same as a Pixies album recorded by Steve Albini or someone like Trent Reznor, who has an impeccable ear for sound.

I'm not going to sit on the internet and argue about how good sound is worthless or that this is a placebo effect. This is a crazy conversation.

Go tell Jony Ive that precision doesn't count and it can't be enjoyed by millions. Your arguments are invalid and anyone who says you can't tell the difference between a PCM track and a 256kbps track is insane.

All the media you enjoy, whether movies, music, design, whatever, is created by millions of people who have a precise understanding of what that medium is. Sound is one of them. You go and tell these artists that what they're doing is worthless.

Compression gets rid of data. The compression mechanism guesstimates and trims out sound that it doesn't need. A cymbal might get removed or a sound of flute in the higher range. The human ear is not limited to 22khz, it is perceptual. There is dynamic range in WAV that AAC or MP3's can't touch. It is the same in video compression.

I actually enjoy certain Vinyl records more than their CD counterparts. The human ear and the eye is wonderful and certain things cannot be put into words. Vinyl (for some records) are more enjoyable to me, that includes the patina of the vinyl pop and click.

Here's a decent article and what compression does to audio:

http://blog.bowers-wilkins.com/speakers/definitive-guides/the-definitive-guide-to-24-bit-flac/

 

[HopefulHumanist]

Lol ok Dave, believe whatever you want. You're gonna be here complaining about the lack of lossless forever. Does head-fi even have a million users?

 

[Uofmtiger]

Lol ok Dave, believe whatever you want. You're gonna be here complaining about the lack of lossless forever. Does head-fi even have a million users?

This site doesn't have a million users. Does that mean that there aren't a million Apple users? The people on forums are a small subset of the market.

 

[Julien]

Lol ok Dave, believe whatever you want. You're gonna be here complaining about the lack of lossless forever. Does head-fi even have a million users?

AVS forum has 1.2 million members.

 

[HopefulHumanist]

This site doesn't have a million users. Does that mean that there aren't a million Apple users? The people on forums are a small subset of the market.

When it comes to "enthusiasts" willing to spend literally 10x-100x more than the average consumer, usually forums like those are where they all hive together.

The 7 billion figure is so damn stupid. You're including all the developing nations in this stat, as if they have $10k speakers lmfao.

But whatever. Basically, the market for this is tiny and some people can't accept that. That's fine. It just makes the discussion go around and around in circles because "I want what I want".

Not only is the market tiny but you would have to be able to convince people who've, as you said, spend decades purchasing records and managing their library by hand to somehow give that up for a streaming service? I don't see that happening either.

But again, I'm not the one you have to convince. You have to first convince Apple then consumers. Both are unlikely.

 

[SDAVE]

Lol ok Dave, believe whatever you want. You're gonna be here complaining about the lack of lossless forever. Does head-fi even have a million users?

I don't care I'll always get lossless somewhere else, the point is this is a market Apple can penetrate because they have the biggest user base by far embedded right in mobile and connected devices. They can kick Tidal out of the water and get their members who pay $20 for that service. Now I don't have numbers on the people who do pay $20 instead of $10 for regular service, but I'm sure it's in the tens of hundreds of thousands at least. They have 15 million subscribers and 60 million active users.

The average Joe does not care obviously (that's a more important market than a niche market), but there are plenty of people out there who do. The infrastructure is there, it just needs to be expanded. I bet you Apple has experimented with this before..

People used to laugh at the idea of streaming video on Netflix, but look at it now, its going up to 4k UHD. Now does the average joe NEED 4k UHD? NO not really.

I just really dislike attitudes like yours having no to ideas to move this culture forward. Thankfully you probably haven't done anything in your life that does anything for society to move it forward in any regard.

The best stuff happens when someone out there pushes society to a place they never thought they needed to go. And there are people out there doing this while people like you sit on computers and stick to old ideas.

 

[Uofmtiger]

When it comes to "enthusiasts" willing to spend literally 10x-100x more than the average consumer, usually forums like those are where they all hive together.

The 7 billion figure is so damn stupid. You're including all the developing nations in this stat, as if they have $10k speakers lmfao.

But whatever. Basically, the market for this is tiny and some people can't accept that. That's fine. It just makes the discussion go around and around in circles because "I want what I want".

Not only is the market tiny but you would have to be able to convince people who've, as you said, spend decades purchasing records and managing their library by hand to somehow give that up for a streaming service? I don't see that happening either.

But again, I'm not the one you have to convince. You have to first convince Apple then consumers. Both are unlikely.

No where did I mention 7 billion. Maybe you are responding to someone else? The entire global paid steaming subscription market is currently only about 41 million people. The percentage of the market Apple will get will be small potatoes for Apple's bottom line. Everything that I have read says that Apple is doing this because they care about music because "it is in their DNA". If you really care about music, you should offer the music in a lossless format.

You are making this about the audiophiles and I am saying that the audiophiles have little to do with it. They should offer a premium lossless service because they have always prided themselves on offering premium products and services. 256k is not premium. The argument here is that it is "good enough", which I am not arguing against, but Apple's brand has never been about offering products that are just "good enough".

In other words, decisions like this chip away at their branding.

 

[entropi]

I could also stream from my iOS device in HiFi and go to my music player via Bluetooth 4.0 vehicle and I could totally tell the difference between 256kbps and Lossless.

Is it even possible to stream audio in lossless with bluetooth!??

 

[Julien]

Is it even possible to stream audio in lossless with bluetooth!??

Yes, you can get 2.0 96/24 lossless (HD audio) and 5.1 48/16 lossy using the aptX codec.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AptX

 

[SDAVE]

Yes, you can get 2.0 96/24 lossless (HD audio) and 5.1 48/16 lossy using the aptX codec.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AptX

Exactly. BT 4.1 is available, but a bit rare in the states. I got a BT receiver with aptX (BT4.1) from Japan and it sounds amazing in my car. Wayyyy better than the built in bluetooth.

 

[SDAVE]

No where did I mention 7 billion. Maybe you are responding to someone else? The entire global paid steaming subscription market is currently only about 41 million people. The percentage of the market Apple will get will be small potatoes for Apple's bottom line. Everything that I have read says that Apple is doing this because they care about music because "it is in their DNA". If you really care about music, you should offer the music in a lossless format.

You are making this about the audiophiles and I am saying that the audiophiles have little to do with it. They should offer a premium lossless service because they have always prided themselves on offering premium products and services. 256k is not premium. The argument here is that it is "good enough", which I am not arguing against, but Apple's brand has never been about offering products that are just "good enough".

In other words, decisions like this chip away at their branding.

Exactly what I wanted to say. Thank you.

Apple gets put under the microscope all the time because of how they pride themselves in being Apple, and this is no exception. They should start offering Lossless audio like DTS Master on their iTunes Movies too with higher bitrate video.

 

[Julien]

Exactly what I wanted to say. Thank you.

Apple gets put under the microscope all the time because of how they pride themselves in being Apple, and this is no exception. They should start offering Lossless audio like DTS Master on their iTunes Movies too with higher bitrate video.

Actually they could (and would) use ALAC for this. It can handle 24 bit multi-channel also.

 

[SDAVE]

Actually they could (and would) use ALAC for this. It can handle 24 bit multi-channel also.

Very true. It's also open source, but FLAC is still king for that stuff.

But DTS-Master audio has other features like fallback to lossy, not sure if Apple Lossless has that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTS-HD_Master_Audio

 

[Julien]

Very true. It's also open source, but FLAC is still king for that stuff.

That is the kicker. Apple could require the studios to supply it and they could use 3ed party solutions without having to license from Apple.

Apple is already paying a Dolby license fee (doubt they would add a DTS licenses fee) and we know how bad Apple hates paying any license fee or being reliant on.

Also Apple could use Dolby's TrueHD and avoid involving DTS at all. It is covered under the fee Apple is already paying.

 

[SDAVE]

That is the kicker. Apple could require the studios to supply it and they could use 3ed party solutions without having to license from Apple.

Apple is already paying a Dolby license fee and we know how bad Apple hates paying any license fee or being reliant on.

I really think Apple made it open source for a reason, not just for it to compete with FLAC, but to penetrate the market a bit with enthusiasts etc....not that it has, but they probably want to implement it in more of their products not just as a playback codec but a streaming one as well (I'm not really speaking about AirPlay, which does use ALAC via WiFi).

They could easily add FLAC to their current line of products for free, but we all know how they are.

 

[entropi]

ah, ok thanks for the info!

Yes, you can get 2.0 96/24 lossless (HD audio) and 5.1 48/16 lossy using the aptX codec.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AptX

Regarding ALAC: I would like to have the option to buy ALAC-files on the iTMS. I have no interest in renting music and stream it.

 

[HopefulHumanist]

No where did I mention 7 billion. Maybe you are responding to someone else? The entire global paid steaming subscription market is currently only about 41 million people. The percentage of the market Apple will get will be small potatoes for Apple's bottom line. Everything that I have read says that Apple is doing this because they care about music because "it is in their DNA". If you really care about music, you should offer the music in a lossless format.

You are making this about the audiophiles and I am saying that the audiophiles have little to do with it. They should offer a premium lossless service because they have always prided themselves on offering premium products and services. 256k is not premium. The argument here is that it is "good enough", which I am not arguing against, but Apple's brand has never been about offering products that are just "good enough".

In other words, decisions like this chip away at their branding.

I've been responding to both of you... SDAVE made the argument about audiophiles; which I was responding to...

Ok, that's your opinion. But it's not like with video where the average person can appreciate higher quality. To most people, it's like paying more for essentially the same thing. That just won't fly with most people.

The argument is that people can't appreciate the higher audio quality, not that it's "good enough". And yes, there's a difference. "It's good enough" assumes people would be able to appreciate the higher quality; which isn't the case. That makes higher bitrates just a waste of bandwidth and server space.

In my view, your conflation of better quality hardware, software or services doesn't make sense. In all those areas, people can appreciate the improved quality. That isn't the case with audio.

You believe, *on principle*, that Apple should offer lossles files. I'm saying that it isn't practical. And quite frankly, I think it's silly because virtually no one will appreciate it.

I've made my point several times so I don't think there's anything to be gained by further discussion; at least on my part.

 

[SDAVE]

I've been responding to both of you... SDAVE made the argument about audiophiles; which I was responding to...

Ok, that's your opinion. But it's not like with video where the average person can appreciate higher quality. To most people, it's like paying more for essentially the same thing. That just won't fly with most people.

The argument is that people can't appreciate the higher audio quality, not that it's "good enough". And yes, there's a difference. "It's good enough" assumes people would be able to appreciate the higher quality; which isn't the case. That makes higher bitrates just a waste of bandwidth and server space.

In my view, your conflation of better quality hardware, software or services doesn't make sense. In all those areas, people can appreciate the improved quality. That isn't the case with audio.

You believe, *on principle*, that Apple should offer lossles files. I'm saying that it isn't practical. And quite frankly, I think it's silly because virtually no one will appreciate it.

I've made my point several times so I don't think there's anything to be gained by further discussion; at least on my part.

Your point is valid and it's a very common point - but this thread is about Apple and what they stand for as a company.

Apple cares about music, they had the Apple LP service added for additional album artwork - even if you remember coverflow, flipping through albums, they want people to have a personal experience with music. Having a locked down 256kbps is a disservice to what Apple stands for. That is the point of this thread.

So what has been established so far, and this is not subjective:

1) Apple can afford to stream/sell Lossless tracks (at least 44/16, 24/96 withstanding). The internet bandwidth and drive space is already there. Lossless 44/16 is about ~768kbps.
2) Lossless and 256kbps AAC can be differentiated. Not on a tinny speaker, but a decent pair of headphones ranging from $40-$5,000.
3) Not only audiophiles can enjoy high quality music.
4) They can get by with 256kbps forever, but there will always be a market for people who enjoy higher quality audio and video. Many people still buy Blu-ray because it provides higher bitrate video and better audio. People still buy vinyl. People still buy HD tracks. People still rip their own collection to ALAC or FLAC.

 

[Uofmtiger]

The argument is that people can't appreciate the higher audio quality, not that it's "good enough". And yes, there's a difference. "It's good enough" assumes people would be able to appreciate the higher quality; which isn't the case. That makes higher bitrates just a waste of bandwidth and server space.

In my view, your conflation of better quality hardware, software or services doesn't make sense. In all those areas, people can appreciate the improved quality. That isn't the case with audio.

Just take the gold edition as an example. How does it improve the watch? It still does the exact same thing as the $350 watch. It is exactly the same with the exception of the casing. It is all about imaging and branding.

Please point me to a test that shows conclusive results that people can't ever hear a difference between 256k and ALAC. I have yet to see such a test and I am not sure such a test is even possible.

There are plenty of graphs out there that absolutely show a difference, so unlike the watch, we are definitely getting different sound.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mp3-vs-aac-vs-flac-vs-cd-page-2#QzUlwVyUOuqDi5Pc.97

You keep saying that humans can't ever appreciate the difference. Please show me proof.

I want to add a note from the Steve Jobs biography:

"He loved doing things right. He even cared about the look of the parts you couldn’t see.”

http://www.stevejobsthebiography.com/extras.html

Anyone looking at this with a rational eye realizes that using compressed lossy audio doesn't meet this standard. It is throwing out bits with precision and hoping no one will notice.

 

[Rigby]

So what has been established so far, and this is not subjective:

[...]
2) Lossless and 256kbps AAC can be differentiated. Not on a tinny speaker, but a decent pair of headphones ranging from $40-$5,000.
[...]

Unless you can provide results of a properly conducted test with a suitable methodology, this claim is absolutely subjective.