Apple Music Lossless: What Devices are Supported?

[grumnz]

The Internet sure is full of bent out of shape people today. I agree Apple's messaging on this could have been better, but surely the summary is:
No-one will be worse off, either sonically or financially, than they were yesterday.
For those who are interested, they can now stream higher quality music at no extra cost.

Sounds like a win for everyone to me!

 

[ErikGrim]

Does anyone know what format these hi-res streams will be? I can't really find anything other than ALAC to 48kHz. Can ALAC do the 96kHz and 192kHz as well?

Yes of course.

 

[ErikGrim]

ALAC only. Your dac needs to suport it.

No. Your DAC simply gets the PCM audio. Only specialty encoders like DDS and MQA require dac support.

 

[The Weatherman]

So my 2016 iPhone SE can natively play lossless through 3.5mm jack...

... but the state of the art AirPods Max connected to the latest iPhone 12 Pro Max can't?

Getting rid of the jack port was indeed outrageous. Sorry I meant courageous.

 

[EricNau]

The Internet sure is full of bent out of shape people today. I agree Apple's messaging on this could have been better, but surely the summary is:
No-one will be worse off, either sonically or financially, than they were yesterday.
For those who are interested, they can now stream higher quality music at no extra cost.

Sounds like a win for everyone to me!

My take is that far more customers would have benefitted if Apple had instead spent its resources on improving the stability and performance of the Apple Music app/service. It’s still not as performant as Spotify, or the iTunes of years past. Frankly, it’s pretty bad.

Is that as sexy from a marketing perspective? I guess not… but it would have benefitted more people for sure. That’s why I think it’s not a win for everyone.

 

[rdy0329]

Sonos???

I hope they do native support but for now the only way is through the music app on the Apple TV with a SONOS soundbar as the output speaker.

 

[Jedicruces]

ok, apple make an audio feature, an this feature isn’t compatible with any audio product. Well done!

 

[puckhead193]

Will I get Lossless when connected with CarPlay into my BMW? (IDrive 7)

 

[severe]

Listen, as a mix engineer who mixes the records you're listening to, I can confidently say I am not getting them mixed up and I confidently wager £50,000 that you couldn't tell the difference between a FLAC file and a 320kbit MP3 of the same source - so far no one has been able to do - as said, there's an entire blind test on the most detail speakers they could find in a fully audio treated room.

In the greatest respect I drive a Tesla with the premium audio system which has been further enhanced and it's still a million miles away from anything remotely capable of being able to recreate the audio frequencies you can't even hear anyway! As I said, you and neither do I have the best car audio system in the world and even if we did it'd be at the **** end of hi-fi speakers which are at the **** end of studio monitors.

I've got a pair of £1400 Sennheiser HD800s, with a £800 super flat amp to drive them and a £1000 DAC - that combo alone still can't let you hear the difference in compression between a 320kbit MP3 and it's lossless brother, so your car certainly can't - that's why I am able to be bold about my assumptions.

What an *******. Ok, Danny. As a professional audio engineer for decades myself, I'm calling this out. PM me. I do not do this often. Bring your credits.

FWIW, I disagree. A lot.

 

[ErikGrim]

Will I get Lossless when connected with CarPlay into my BMW? (IDrive 7)

Why do people ask this? It doesn't matter for the same way it doesn't matter that the old wired earbuds support lossless: you won't be able to hear it.

 

[neilpmas]

For real - just try this: test

I guarantee you won't be able to hear a difference.
I bet Apple could say it works and nobody would even bat an eyelid.

I always wonder about arguments like this. I love my 4K telly, but normally forget to wear my glasses when I watch it.

If Apple made a button that did nothing but made you believe the sound was 10% better would it be worth it.

I dunno.

 

[MacCheetah3]

I guarantee you won't be able to hear a difference.
I bet Apple could say it works and nobody would even bat an eyelid.

In 99% of cases, true.

Lossless audio in the article subject's context has multiple problems.

• The original track would need to have been recorded with high-quality equipment, in a well configured environment, etc to contain fine details.
• Apple would need to have kept files in lossless format as well as AAC or require every artist to re-record — which of course isn’t possible — with such quality
• The listener’s hearing ability
- Some people can’t distinguish certain sound variances or the full (typical human) frequency range.
- Some people just don’t care and have not trained themselves to notice audio details.
• The speaker(s) plus other audio equipment used by the listener need to properly reproduce the full frequency spectrum, or as much as possible. A single speaker (per channel) setup can’t — most instances will require at least three drivers.

 

[cheekyjeremy]

In 99% of cases, true.

Lossless audio in the article subject's context has multiple problems.

• The original track would need to have been recorded with high-quality equipment, in a well configured environment, etc to contain fine details.
• Apple would need to have kept files in lossless format as well as AAC or require every artist to re-record — which of course isn’t possible — with such quality
• The listener’s hearing ability
- Some people can’t distinguish certain sound variances or the full (typical human) frequency range.
- Some people just don’t care and have not trained themselves to notice audio details.
• The speaker(s) plus other audio equipment used by the listener need to properly reproduce the full frequency spectrum, or as much as possible. A single speaker (per channel) setup can’t — most instances will require at least three drivers.

This relies on an assumption that the differences across the board are so minimal that it is hard to tell. For a lot of songs this is true, but when I go across my catalog, some songs are just not close at all and most people could easily tell the difference.

 

[elmarjazz]

So my 2016 iPhone SE can natively play lossless through 3.5mm jack...

... but the state of the art AirPods Max connected to the latest iPhone 12 Pro Max can't?

Getting rid of the jack port was indeed outrageous. Sorry I meant courageous.

Ha! I knew there was another reason - besides a small portable light meter for my old meterless film cameras - to keep this 'back to the future' design and super compact iPhone ;-)

 

[MacCheetah3]

This relies on an assumption that the differences across the board are so minimal that it is hard to tell. For a lot of songs this is true, but when I go across my catalog, some songs are just not close at all and most people could easily tell the difference.

I agree there are instances in which lossless would be noticeable — well recorded “classical” music comes to mind. My point is the original recording must have at least low noise and the listener must be using a sound system with speaker arrays (i.e., tweeter, mid-range/small woofer, and large woofer/subwoofer) capable of properly reproducing the entire (hearable) spectrum.

How many people do you know satisfy those requirements?

Sound system aside, listen to the top 100 or even top few hundred songs of any decade. You’ll notice what I’m getting at.

 

[cardfan]

My hunch => When it comes to music and accessories, Apple caters to the mass consumer market and for that market their vision is Spatial Audio. I suspect this was also play a big part in their AR / VR hardware efforts as well. When it comes to the audiophile market that cares about lossless, they probably have no issue letting them be taken care of by 3rd party hardware providers. Again, that's just my hunch.

Probably so. It's bold to say "this changes music forever." I have a hard time thinking they mean lossless in that context considering that's definitely nothing new. If they never said lossless or hifi, people would be jumping up and down thinking great, another feature (spatial audio for music) added to airpods pro and max, homepod, etc.

Instead, those users feel disappointed. Way to go Apple. That's killer marketing. Maybe they're too focused on the trial.

 

[mebehere]

They make everything sound like 128kbps MP3s, so no.

You’re pretty smart hiding behind that mug. Since you’re so confident in pushing Apple’s products, why don’t you come out of hiding and wear a pair?

 

[Xak444]

Wait till you starting listening to Apple Music tracks (assuming you're a subscriber of course) encoded in Spatial Audio. Chances are you won't regret your purchase.

I love spatial audio with movies and shows. I’m sure it will be awesome with music. I don’t regret the purchase at all they’re super comfy and the sound quality is fantastic. I just thought I was getting more than I got.

 

[MacsRgr8]

I don’t understand the need for usb Dac. My Mac mini has hdmi and it supports 24 bit 192khz. Should Apple Music be able to use this? Also iTunes used to use a single sample rate for all its output based on a system setting. I wonder if they would have a setting similar to Apple TV where they have a match frame rate so that we have a match sample rate setting.

Not many Macs support up to 24 bit 192 KHz, as stated on Apple's page:

Play high sample rate digital audio on Mac computers - Apple Support

The audio hardware in some MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, and iMac computers supports 176.4 kHz and 192 kHz digital audio when connected using optical output.

support.apple.com

I have a Mac mini (2012 model) connected to a "classic" amplifier via minijack. The Audio MIDI app can set the max bit rate to 24 (or 32) bits 96 KHz.
Also I have an M1 Mac mini connected to a surround AV receiver via HDMI, and IIRC there is now way to support that setup up to 24 bit and 192 KHz (either stereo, or surround).

 

[interbear]

A lot of technical commentary in this thread. In my simpler world I see this move as follows:

• I currently subscribe to Apple Music via the One Premier bundle, so the family gets everything Apple.
• I recently invested in a CD player so that I could dust down my large CD collection that had been on the shelves for years. Did the CDs sound better than Apple Music via the same device? Yes, unquestionably.
• I was considering Spotify as an alternative due to their recently announced HiFi tier, which is ”CD quality”. CD quality is good enough for my ears.
• This news from Apple tells me that CD quality streaming will be possible via the standard lossless service on Apple Music. So no need to switch to Spotify, I can stick with Apple One Premier and get CD quality sound at no additional cost. That’s great. At the very least I’ll be able to stream CD quality to my speaker at home (a Naim MuSo 2) via Airplay. I might get even better quality as the Naim is connected via HDMI to my TV, which in turn will be connected to a new Apple TV 4K when it arrives later this month.
• I will now package up and take a significant number of my CDs to a charity shop. I’ll keep some, not sure why, but I can’t bring myself to get rid of them all.

I think I’ve interpreted all of this correctly, but happy to be corrected if not.

 

[Abazigal]

I really don't understand the uproar in this forum.

Apple Music is getting both spatial and lossless audio.

Nobody is talking about spatial audio, which is likely going to result in the most significant improvement to one's listening experience. Because it's apparently taboo here to praise Apple for doing anything right or well.

On the flip side, people are losing their collective minds over the AirPods not supporting a feature which you won't be getting on any pair of wireless headphones anyways, plus most people are never going to be able to hear the difference without the right specialised equipment at any rate, and these people are not only in the overwhelming minority, but they also know well enough to hold their tongues on this matter.

What am I missing?

 

[hereforbeer]

Well there isn't three tiers - there's one. All lossless means is that it's in a container that plays back the original audio bits without removing any information from them. It'll play back any bit rate or sample rate. Most record companies won't have masters above 16bit 44khz (because really there is no point, and 95% of electronic producers will only be writing recording at this rate) some live and orchestra stuff will be tracked and recorded higher - if a record label has something up to 24bit 192khz (none of them will, it'll top out at 96khz) then they can release that too. ALAC has always support all of this.

Apple has been requiring a 24 bit, 192 khz “iTunes Master” for all music for a while now. So most companies do master for that for like a long time now.

Also, while you may not hear the difference, I can very well tell the different between AAC and 24/48. I can tell enough difference between 48 and 96 and 192. How can you not hear the enhanced highs at 192, punchier vocals at 96, wider sound stage at anything 24 bit? What I have hard time distinguishing is AAC and 16 bit CD quality, except for some classical music sounding cleaner, don’t really see much benefit there. But I can guarantee you that people out there can. Just because one set of ears can’t, doesn’t mean the other 7 billion are same. Don’t just trust “studies” done on like 5 middle aged folks. Here’s a better way of testing, make someone listen to 192 for a month and then give them AirPods and watch them hate their lives.

 

[chasemac]

From my personal Library on Apple Music for Mac. Remove download! First on the Menu! Lossless? What? I've got other gripes!

 

[Ace of aces]

What an *******. Ok, Danny. As a professional audio engineer for decades myself, I'm calling this out. PM me. I do not do this often. Bring your credits.

FWIW, I disagree. A lot.

From the source to the speakers, can you please tell us the price tag of each element to have an idea of what is really necessary to be able to listen to the difference and then, what "kind" of difference are you listening to ? Is there like a 30% difference ? Maybe less ? Maybe less than 1% on certain 1 ou 2 seconds parts ?
Can you as well post a screenshot of the blind tests posted before ? -> test

And because you are really good, please enlighten us by posting here a hearing test to teach us what kind of frequencies you are sensitive to. Once for all maybe we'll know what "golden ears" really are capable of and by doing a simple hearing test before a purchase we'll have a golden standard to refer to an avoid falling in the trap of marketing, that it's not "sounds better to me" psychological difference only.

 

[jprmercado]

I've been getting huge enjoyment out of mine over the past 4 years. It offers fantastic sound quality in a super sturdy, very well-built metal case.

One drawback I can see is that it is pretty power hungry and will get surprisingly warm, which means it isn't ideally suited for battery-powered devices even though it works well plugged directly into the USB-C ports on iPads (using the appropriate cable or dongle). If you want to use it with iPhones/iPads that only have a lightning port, you'll need the Lightning to USB 3 Camera Adapter connected to a power adapter plugged into an outlet, iirc.

Some people may mind the fact that it uses bright LEDs to permanently display the volume level while playing music, which can't be turned off.

Oh, awesome! Thanks for sharing your experience with the Apogee Groove!

Glad to hear it works well with iPads because I might use it with my 4th-gen iPad Air the most. Appreciate the heads-up on the camera adapter—I have both the Lightning and USB-C versions.

I don’t think I’d mind the bright LEDs… Well, maybe a little, when I’m listening at night.

I’m thinking of getting the 30th anniversary edition, which apparently has updated hardware. In the meantime, I guess I can still use my ever-faithful Apogee Duet (Firewire) with my 2012 MBP.