This is indeed not possible, since you cannot conclusively prove a negative with a non-exhaustive number of tests. The onus is on the golden ears to subject themselves to proper blind tests and substantiate their claims. For some reason most refuse to do so.
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.
Apple Lossless on Apple Music
- Thread starter SDAVE
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Quality can be quantified. Scientifically and objectively. Go talk to a sound engineer or a person with good ears.
Can you get by eating McDonalds? Sure. Is it healthy? Will you die from eating only McDonalds?
Will your 1982 Datsun take you to work? Do you need to drive a 2015 BMW 7 Series?
I really hate getting into these arguments.
There are plenty of forums dedicated to the difference between Lossless and compressed audio. There are forums with millions of users, Google it. I can post dozens of links for you but you will ignore it and so will the rest of the people here.
Human audio perception is not easily quantifiable. The ear/brain system is not a microphone. When it comes to subtle differences, you tend to hear exactly what you expect or want to hear. Unless you eliminate this expectation bias using a proper methodology, subjective listening tests are meaningless.
Here's a very interesting video from one such person (whom I personally met at that conference):
Don't care. Good and bad can be quantified. We're getting a bit too existential here.
Go put on a Dave Brubeck album at 256kbps and a 24/96 or even a 44/16 flac. I can totally tell the difference on my $80 headphones (directly connected to my Mac Pro) and my $1,000 headphones with my $1,000 amp.
No, the onus is on people claiming there isn't ever a difference. I have proven a difference in the output with the graphs in the Stereophile link. Now prove to me that lossy files are the same quality as lossless. You can't, because they aren't the same. I am not aware of any expert even making the claim. Most are saying something along the lines "that most people, under most scenarios, with most music, probably won't notice a difference".
With lossy, bits are tossed with the hopes that no one will notice. In the Steve Jobs' quote, I don't see him making the point that having everything thrown in the case haphazardly is good enough because under most scenarios, most people won't notice. He was about end to end quality. Only lossless provides that same degree of quality.
Do you listen to music or stare at graphs of it?
Every music reproduction system introduces differences compared to the source signal. The question is whether humans can perceive them. For example, "audiophiles" spend a lot of time discussing the evils of jitter in digital systems. But even on cheap consumer equipment, distortions introduced by jitter are almost always more than -100db below the music. This distortion is measurable and shows up in graphs, but no human can hear it.
Why don't you try a double-blind test and see if you can tell the difference? I have and I couldn't (at the kind of coding rates we're discussing here).
Your ears just doesn't have the capability to tell the difference. Deal with it. You probably can't tell the difference between good Sushi and bad Sushi. Or color differences in film, or lighting.
Go talk to David Fincher about micro-differences that people with such talent are capable of seeing. Steve was one of those people, so is Jony Ive.
This isn't about jitter, so don't change the subject. This is about garbage in, garbage out. No consumer playback system can bring back the bits that are destroyed with lossy compression, so that argument is more about the end of the chain which isn't relevant to the discussion of the input source file.
The graphs prove a scientific difference. It is the best thing we can judge by since we can't ABX every single file in every environment. If you have an ABX test that conclusively shows that humans can never hear a difference, please link it. Until that happens, I will go by the best information I have available that applies to all music compression...and that is the absolute fact that the lossy file is not the same quality as the lossless file.
Once again, this doesn't fit in with the end to end quality asserted by Steve Jobs in the quote you ignored.
Lossless is lossless. It will be ALWAYS noticable difference in sound quality between losy and lossless compression formats (even not for audiophiles only). Period.
Over and over and over. It is a little off-topic in fact, but something about mp3 320 kbps blah blah blah:
using compression for mp3 over 192 kbps is crazy. You will have larger file size only, and sound quality will be the same for mp3 192 kbps and for mp3 320 kbps for 99,9999% of people! And the same sound output quality in losy compression for AAC you will have in bitrates about 112÷136 kbps (and 48÷56 kbps for HE-AAC) [VBR].
BTW: I see sometimes encoded mp3 in 320 kbps with joint stereo mode… It is worser than mp3 128 kbps with normal stereo. And AAC 256 kbps (LC) is more detailed in sound characteristics than mp3 192÷320 kbps.
Over and over and over. It is a little off-topic in fact, but something about mp3 320 kbps blah blah blah:
using compression for mp3 over 192 kbps is crazy. You will have larger file size only, and sound quality will be the same for mp3 192 kbps and for mp3 320 kbps for 99,9999% of people! And the same sound output quality in losy compression for AAC you will have in bitrates about 112÷136 kbps (and 48÷56 kbps for HE-AAC) [VBR].
BTW: I see sometimes encoded mp3 in 320 kbps with joint stereo mode… It is worser than mp3 128 kbps with normal stereo. And AAC 256 kbps (LC) is more detailed in sound characteristics than mp3 192÷320 kbps.
Are you kidding US ALL in this topic?! You are declarated as talented audiophile, with ultra superb abilities to hear details with your ears, and you just ignoring what means Dolby?
If you are an audiophile you will hear easily difference in lossless compression compared to mp3 encoded with ANY bitrate. But if you are still realy good audiophile you will not hear any difference between mp3 192 kbps and mp3 320 kbps, and that AAC 256 kbps reproduces far way better sound quality than mp3 (with ANY bitrate!).
You don't understand what I'm saying. Your argument is that the output after compression is not bit-for-bit identical, therefore it's flawed. My argument is that it doesn't matter as long as the differences cannot be perceived by humans. Again, all parts of the reproduction chain introduce errors. The goal of audio reproduction technology is not mathematical identity (which is impossible to achieve in practice), but audible transparency. That goes for audio encoding just like for amplifiers, speakers, playback devices etc. They, just like the audio codecs, have been designed by engineers to achieve varying degrees of audible transparency. And that is not measured by looking at graphs, but by what humans can perceive (BTW, the errors introduced by speakers and headphones are *orders of magnitude* bigger than those introduced by encoding audio with 256kbps AAC).
As I wrote before, it is impossible to prove a negative. It would be much easier to prove that they are not transparent by coming up with a single scientific study showing such results. Most so-called audiophiles steadfastly refuse to participate in a real double-blind test. Wonder why?
That fact depends on your definition of "quality". If it means audible transparency, then that statement is far from an "absolute fact".
Jobs never pushed for lossless music in the iTunes store, did he?
No, that wasn't my argument. My argument is that the lossless source file is the benchmark. If you listen only to the best available format, there is nothing to ABX test.
Jobs lived in an era where no one was offering lossless files. Maybe he pushed for it and it wasn't allowed by the studios because they preferred a to sell CDs? In this era, Tidal and Deezer are using lossless files, so it might be time to go back to the labels for lossless quality?
This is more of an argument about Apple being perceived as having THE quality product on the market. If they used lossless, they could make that argument. Now they can't.
I bet the people against lossless look like this haha
I don't trust people with a bad sense of clothing and large sideburns to have good taste or know what's good and what isn't.
If we let the computing industry be the way it was then everyone would still be running Windows 98esque operating systems and watching 320x240 video on dialup.
It is good to be elitist. That's why Apple exists and this forum exists.
I don't trust people with a bad sense of clothing and large sideburns to have good taste or know what's good and what isn't.
If we let the computing industry be the way it was then everyone would still be running Windows 98esque operating systems and watching 320x240 video on dialup.
It is good to be elitist. That's why Apple exists and this forum exists.
I told myself not to post again but I see Rigby wasting his time here so I'm gonna make this last one lol.
By the way, nobody here is "against lossless". We just don't care about it being offered in the store (like most consumers) and were trying to explain to you why it's not likely to ever be offered.
Rigby, these guys don't care about practical differences; their arguments come from the conclusion they already support: They want lossless downloads in iTunes. That's why SDAVe has no problem pivoting from "People can hear the difference!" to "Well, Apple should offer the highest quality possible." When you demonstrate why one argument is flawed, he pivots to the other effortlessly.
But I wanna challenge the notion of "highest quality possible" with a simple question:
Who gets to set the "standard" or "benchmark" audio quality? You may say 16-bit/44.1 kHz is enough but others may argue for 24-bit/192 kHz. Who gets to say the other is wrong? When you refuse to make your argument about practical usage and instead about some principle that higher numbers are always better, there's nothing to limit it. If studios start recording with 48-bit/384 kHz, should that become the new consumer standard?
Btw, science doesn't work by proving a negative as that's impossible. The best we could do is show low numbers of correct identification in an ABX test.
SDAVE, commenting on people's looks is ad-hominem. It has nothing to do with the arguments at hand and makes you look extremely petty. Ironically, this tells us more about who you are as a person than the outward appearance of the people in the video.
By the way, nobody here is "against lossless". We just don't care about it being offered in the store (like most consumers) and were trying to explain to you why it's not likely to ever be offered.
Rigby, these guys don't care about practical differences; their arguments come from the conclusion they already support: They want lossless downloads in iTunes. That's why SDAVe has no problem pivoting from "People can hear the difference!" to "Well, Apple should offer the highest quality possible." When you demonstrate why one argument is flawed, he pivots to the other effortlessly.
But I wanna challenge the notion of "highest quality possible" with a simple question:
Who gets to set the "standard" or "benchmark" audio quality? You may say 16-bit/44.1 kHz is enough but others may argue for 24-bit/192 kHz. Who gets to say the other is wrong? When you refuse to make your argument about practical usage and instead about some principle that higher numbers are always better, there's nothing to limit it. If studios start recording with 48-bit/384 kHz, should that become the new consumer standard?
Btw, science doesn't work by proving a negative as that's impossible. The best we could do is show low numbers of correct identification in an ABX test.
Professionals who do this for a living. If it wasn't for the crazy people out there you'd still be listening to voices via tin cans.
It goes back to vintage Apple.
So why don't you defer to them now? Clearly, they think 256 AAC is fine because they're not lobbying for higher bitrate files...
And I disagree with your assertion. Video professionals keep pushing for higher resolution video because audiences enjoy it. Same with cameras, in phones or standalone.
I'm just curious: What's your explanation for why lossless hasn't taken off in a major way?
You have no idea what you're talking about regarding video professionals. Companies like Arri and Red are pushing boundaries that were never possible before with film. It's NOT because "Audiences enjoy it" it's because people make things, smart people, to push our society further. In the last 10 years film as a capturing format has diminished because a few crazy people pushed the technology further and artists took it and pushed it FURTHER. I really don't understand why people are so stagnant and your thought process is extremely boring, honestly and that's not an ad hominem attack, just reality.
My explanation for why Lossless hasn't taken off is because of the lack of space, demand, and other factors. Companies like Apple set trends and sometimes follow trends themselves (ie force touch, fingertip scanning, larger iphones [although they fought really hard against having a big phone, they succumbed to a larg market demand]).
You're not going to see lines and lines of people standing outside of Apple just so they can get new phones that support Lossless audio, but the reason, that I think it hasn't taken off is because like I said, it just wasn't time for the market to move into that direction.
I just have a problem with people saying 256kbps is "good enough" and that there is no way I could tell the difference between 256kbps and lossless. That is a crazy crazy statement and it doesn't matter how you cut it, A COMPRESSED FORMAT WILL NEVER BE AS GOOD AS THE ORIGINAL.
A lot of music especially now is mastered all digitally at 24/96 and up. They then dither it down to 44/16 and they cater toward compressed music audience. Your Katy Perry albums will be catered toward a large market...but there is also a LARGE market (anyone remember the baby boomers? even the millennial?) that came from a time where music was still mastered on analog reels and NOT catered toward a digital market. There are MILLIONS of amazing albums that deserve to be heard in Lossless. Everything from the whole Beatles collection down to the Pixies, Velvet Underground, etc. These albums contain patina that can only be enjoyed via Lossless and usually in the privacy of your home.
The point is, music is probably the only medium where it's so universally piercing in the fabric of our culture that it deserves more love. It's much bigger than the movie industry.
The time will come and Apple will have Lossless support, that's just the way it is. I'm sure they had plans before I remember an interview somewhere with Steve back in the day talking about this, but I can't find the link for you at the moment.
People said they didn't need Toy Story and look at it now, 99% of 3d movies are Pixar style and Pixar pushed computers and technology further.
I'm not saying Apple supporting Lossless will save the planet, but it will save the legacy of some of the people who put their hearts and souls into the music and a lot of them have now passed away. Music is a personal experience, sometimes enjoyed with others, but mostly a personal experience. It is hard to sit down and talk about bitrates and data.
Here's an example: I brought my father and put on his favorite Beatles album on my "mid-range" "audiophile" setup and I left the room and let him enjoy it. I came back and saw him wiping tears away and after I asked him how does he feel he told me he felt like he went back in time to his golden days because the music felt so "real". Now bear in mind my father is super stoic and this would never happen. Ever.
So what is my point? There are things that can't be explained by long-sideburned people on Youtube or scientists and engineers. Some things are felt not told.
Just watch this:
You still ignore the practicality argument. If few people can hear the extra kHz, for the rest of us the lower resolution file IS "good enough." But that's already been stated a million times, you just want lossless no matter what. It's fine, but I wish you didn't try to couch it in logic like "consumers will appreciate it" or "Apple has always been about quality". You just want them to support lossless just because, end of story.
Aight bro, be sure to message me when Apple supports lossless streaming. Until then, I'm just gonna enjoy the services we have now.
P.S. iPhones already support lossless playback, you just have to sync it locally...
I'm glad you finally admitted that this argument is emotional and not rational.
Aight bro, be sure to message me when Apple supports lossless streaming. Until then, I'm just gonna enjoy the services we have now.
P.S. iPhones already support lossless playback, you just have to sync it locally...
You still ignore the practicality argument. If few people can hear the extra kHz, for the rest of us the lower resolution file IS "good enough." But that's already been stated a million times, you just want lossless no matter what. It's fine, but I wish you didn't try to couch it in logic like "consumers will appreciate it" or "Apple has always been about quality". You just want them to support lossless just because, end of story.
I'm glad you finally admitted that this argument is emotional and not rational.
Aight bro, be sure to message me when Apple supports lossless streaming. Until then, I'm just gonna enjoy the services we have now.
P.S. iPhones already support lossless playback, you just have to sync it locally...
"Aight bro...." ok....?
If life was only practical then you'd be sleeping without a mattress right now.
You keep saying "If people can hear...." YES people CAN hear. That is the argument here. You just answered your own question about what is "good enough" and what is "better." I just gave you a giant rhetoric and you still ignored and nitpicked.
I "don't want" lossless no matter what, I already have lossless and enjoy it. I want lossless to be enjoyed by everyone else too just like Steve had his engineers and designers implement good typography in the first Mac up to the new Macs and trickled it down to all their devices and packaging and as a brand. It takes people like Steve until their deathbed to keep going and challenging the status quo.
If it wasn't for Apple, you wouldn't have Windows 10 now. Look at how popular it is. It took Microsoft 20 years to come up with a decent looking UI and it's still a mess.
This is something that only artists and certain people that walk this life that have a bit of taste will understand. You won't get it. It's our job to move society forward.
I honestly can't argue with a person who thinks the compressed mp3 on some service is better than the source material. It's crazy to me.
Come back to this thread in a few years and see that Apple will support Lossless. It's a matter of time.
If my own experience and study after study confirm that there is no audible difference, I'm confident enough to enjoy my music without further worrying about it. Just as I'm confident in the quality of my trusty Senn HD600 and my O2/ODAC combo.
That would be wrong. HDTracks has been around since at least 2008 (I know, because I have some AIFFs that I bought from them back then).
256 AAC sounds excellent. I'm much more worried about the quality of the mastering these days (loudness wars etc.).
Lastly, here's a "classic" video that shows how easily human perception of sound is fooled by non-auditory influences:
The same thing happens when you do a sighted listening test while seeing the super-expensive Audiphool 2000 Platinum with gold-plated cables in front of you ...
Last edited:
Apple had two tiers once. If I remember the details correctly it was 128 kbit/s DRM-ed AAC for $0.99 and 256 kbit/s DRM-free AAC for $1.29.