Apple Music Lossless: What Devices are Supported?

[dannys1]

I was able to discern the difference between the lossless wav and 128kbps, at certain part of a song only, with a room closed, fans off, earphone shoved deep in my ears, with full concentration. At a couple of points in the songs, I could make out the difference. I was able to spot the difference at 128kbps, 160kbps. Difference vanished at 192kbps, and nothing at 256kbps, 320kbps. Though I was using sony earphones (regular, not studio levels ones)

I was hoarding lossless for my listening pleasure and preferred MFSL CDs over regular ones, but I sat down and did this blind test for myself. Then I realised, I would probably never make myself spend $1000s to get hardware that will make me hear the difference. I thought maybe at that level I might be able to hear some difference.

Thanks for clearing up.

256kbps is more than you need for stereo songs

Yep you're spot on. 128kbps is definitely hearable, 100% - you've clearly explained what everyone can actually hear and anyone claiming otherwise is lying to themselves.

For the record i've got Sennheiser HD800s, a Violetic Amp and a UAD DAC - which comes to something daft like $4500 and you can't hear the difference between a 256kbos AAC file and the original uncompressed either so I wouldn't even worry about the gear being the difference!

 

[dannys1]

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.

The certainly having been requiring 24bit 192 master at all - absolutely no record labels I work with even have master copies at this resolution - most still deal with CD resolution.

It's amazing you've got ears better than grammy award winning mix engineers and can hear kilohertz beyond the human hearing range with data that quite simply isn't even in the recording! 44.1khz gives you over 22khz stereo sound, which is 2khz above human hearing range. The only reason we track/record or upsample past this is because it *can* create aliasing which bounces back into the hearable human range - not because we can record detail above 22khz that can be heard.

 

[dannys1]

I beg to differ. At least when parked, Tidal sounds much better to me than Apple Music on my 2019 X5's B&W system.

In your head it might be - if you did a blind test, no chance. B&W hi-fi systems are even good enough quality to discern the difference - that horrible boxy hi-fi sound they go for wouldn't reveal any top end details. But hey I guess soon when Apple Music has lossless you'll be able to convince yourself it sounds as good as Tidal.

 

[dannys1]

I can tell the difference at loud volumes, particularly with heavy metal, but other genres as well. With lossy ... the clarity of the drums is particularly noticeable ... like cymbals. The quality doesn't break down at loud volumes with lossless and it doesn't require a fancy sound system to recognize it. For most modern music, things are recorded a LOT better now. At normal volumes I cannot tell the difference to save my life, but once I crank it up, that's when little things start to bug me. One thing I can notice the difference is with Spotify and Apple Music AAC. Some songs just sound grainy on Spotify and are much clearer on Apple Music, but I'm not sure if this has to do with sound quality, compression, or the default output settings the apps utilize. Spotify even says the music quality will break down at loud volumes and they have a setting to try and prevent this. This is an issue that you don't need to worry about with lossless. It's crystal clear at all volumes. But with the volume level I'm listening to music, I'm going to be deaf in a couple decades.

Yeah i'd be more concerned about your ears man! 😂

 

[akbarali.ch]

Just because you can’t hear the diff , don’t speak for everyone. I’m tired of seeing so many people spreading misinformation about “being able to hear the difference” .. Amazon music HD is leaps and bounds more noticeable than Spotify’s 320kbps and Apples AAC. **** and stop spreading BS because you fail to hear the difference .

Don't compare across the platform, take the highest quality music raw wav files yourself, convert it to acc, mp3 and what other format you may want to try. Do the ABX blind test yourself on the same hardware and using the same software and check if you can make out the difference. Come back here and let the world know.

There are many songs that sound different on different music platform, if you haven't come across means you haven't heard enough. Not only that, there are multiple versions of the same songs that sound different on the same platform. Often mastered in a different way that ends up in compilations or sometimes they are released as a single, sometimes they belong to different region etc. Do your RnD.

And lastly, calm down, we are discussing music.

 

[lars666]

Don't compare across the platform, take the highest quality music raw wav files yourself, convert it to acc, mp3 and what other format you may want to try. Do the ABX blind test yourself on the same hardware and using the same software and check if you can make out the difference. Come back here and let the world know.

There are many songs that sound different on different music platform, if you haven't come across means you haven't heard enough. Not only that, there are multiple versions of the same songs that sound different on the same platform. Often mastered in a different way that ends up in compilations or sometimes they are released as a single, sometimes they belong to different region etc. Do your RnD.

And lastly, calm down, we are discussing music.

This so much. Tired of arguing with people here who consider a listening comparison between different platforms with different EQs with possible different masterings of the source (when it comes to special hi-res releases) and knowing which is which source a real test.

Let's all meet for an abx blind test and everyone here claiming to sound lossless out (above random choice score) will fail. Simple as that. No, we're NOT talking about 128kbps mp3s, we're talking about 256kbps (or higher). No, we're not talking about cheap earbuds, we're talking about listening on expensive audiophile equipment. No, it's not about "but hearing is a subjective thing and Amazon/Tidal/Whatever HD sounds better to me" when we're arguing about the question if the human ear / brain still can distinguish high quality compressed music to lossless.

 

[deevey]

Airpods Pro & Max do have BT5 connectivity. But if all it takes is a firmware update for those devices to be able to playback standard lossless files then it would have made sense for Apple to mention that a firmware update is coming instead of experiencing a negative backlash.

And then the backlash and potential class actions as all the audiophiles debunk the myth, as currently NO bluetooth codec can do 24/96 lossless.

In your head it might be - if you did a blind test, no chance. B&W hi-fi systems are even good enough quality to discern the difference - that horrible boxy hi-fi sound they go for wouldn't reveal any top end details. But hey I guess soon when Apple Music has lossless you'll be able to convince yourself it sounds as good as Tidal.

Just for ***** and giggles I'll throw this here:

I took a Lossless 16/44.1 file, converted to

320kbps AAC
320kbps MP3 (CBR)
320kbps Ogg
I also got Spotify's Premium Version (at highest quality).

Afterwards the files were put together side by side in a DAW (Ableton).

The files were then Phase reversed, if both files were identical, this would cancel out the sound entirely.

However this also allows for the differences between the two versions to be heard. The differences between all the lossy versions and lossless are well within the normal limits of human hearing (even on El Cheapo earbuds).

Personally I don't put much faith in A/B testing at all, at least the online ones. Unless you know the tracks extremely well and can identify areas where can notice the differences.

It's an unfortunate fact that these days many people have only ever heard a streaming version or radio versions of most music so asking them to A/B which one is "better "is completely pointless.

Also most A/B tests I've seen online give you no more than a couple of seconds of obscure tracks that may, or may not be in area of that track that you might identify the apparent differences in the first place.

 

[KettyKrueger]

Slightly related to this topic; can anyone recommend a compact DAC for iPhone use only, so has to have a Lightning connector.

I'd rather not use the standard Apple one, as the build quality is terrible.

I've done some research on the FiiO i1, which fits the bill for me, but seems to get bad reviews, either the build quality is an issue or some people complained about the 'device unsupported' messages.

Just needs to be able to drive some IEMs, not sure which ones yet but probably some Shures.

Does anyone have any other recommendations?

Cheers,
KK

 

[deevey]

You may recall this better than I, but there was a link in the past that instead of showing what little difference there was between a lossy file and a lossless file, they showed what was actually removed. You could listen to an audio file that played you the audio that was actually removed. There was plenty

I did something similar earlier today here

 

[deevey]

Slightly related to this topic; can anyone recommend a compact DAC for iPhone use only, so has to have a Lightning connector.

I'd rather not use the standard Apple one, as the build quality is terrible.

I've done some research on the FiiO i1, which fits the bill for me, but seems to get bad reviews, either the build quality is an issue or some people complained about the 'device unsupported' messages.

Just needs to be able to drive some IEMs, not sure which ones yet but probably some Shures.

Does anyone have any other recommendations?

Cheers,
KK

I don't think it's any real improvement over the Apple one in either build or sound quality. I abuse my Apple one and it's held up for over 2 years - not bad for a $10 dongle.

 

[Ace of aces]

And then the backlash and potential class actions as all the audiophiles debunk the myth, as currently NO bluetooth codec can do 24/96 lossless.

Just for ***** and giggles I'll throw this here:

I took a Lossless 16/44.1 file, converted to

320kbps AAC
320kbps MP3 (CBR)
320kbps Ogg
I also got Spotify's Premium Version (at highest quality).

Afterwards the files were put together side by side in a DAW (Ableton).

The files were then Phase reversed, if both files were identical, this would cancel out the sound entirely.

However this also allows for the differences between the two versions to be heard. The differences between all the lossy versions and lossless are well within the normal limits of human hearing (even on El Cheapo earbuds).

Personally I don't put much faith in A/B testing at all, at least the online ones. Unless you know the tracks extremely well and can identify areas where can notice the differences.

It's an unfortunate fact that these days many people have only ever heard a streaming version or radio versions of most music so asking them to A/B which one is "better "is completely pointless.

Also most A/B tests I've seen online give you no more than a couple of seconds of obscure tracks that may, or may not be in area of that track that you might identify the apparent differences in the first place.

It is very interesting. Even though with your method there is some sound lost, with my hearing I still have a freaking hard time to hear the differences when the full songs are played. I feel that it’s way below the 2% as a difference. What do you think ?
Can you measure how much this difference represents from the lossless now that you have the spectrum ? That would be really interesting as well

 

[deevey]

It is very interesting. Even though with your method there is some sound lost, with my hearing I still have a freaking hard time to hear the differences when the full songs are played. I feel that it’s way below the 2% as a difference. What do you think ?

In the case of AAC perhaps very difficult, when any of the lossy tracks are being played in full it is genuinely almost impossible to pick out and you would really need to know the tracks extremely well to notice during "normal" listening on "normal" gear. It's just when you hear the differences solo'd you realize what's missing.

But I'm also of the opinion that the brain can pick up on those sounds that are not normally noticeable, an instinct if you will that can perceive the better audio if its given to you on the right equipment.

I've worked on many good sound systems and you can definitely hear the a difference when a DJ playing CD's on a really good system for example takes over from a DJ playing a lossy format. There's just that little "something", a sparkle, tighter, less anti-aliased "fluffy" sound.

Can you measure how much this difference represents from the lossless now that you have the spectrum ? That would be really interesting as well

I genuinely have no idea how I could give you a real number :-S

Something else that struck me, was that while there are obviously differences in the files that can be heard, perhaps some of the "differences" are also be artifacts caused by the lossy compression that would not be present in the original files. As the difference is going to be a combination of variances from both files.

Either way - I believe there is enough to draw the conclusion that there is audible differences between lossy / lossless formats if you have the ears, decent original files, good equipment and feel its worthwhile chasing the dragon.

 

[Abazigal]

I am willing to bet that AirPods are just one firmware update away from supporting lossless audio (perhaps via airplay?).

 

[thettareddast]

And then the backlash and potential class actions as all the audiophiles debunk the myth, as currently NO bluetooth codec can do 24/96 lossless.

Sony claims LDAC satisfies Hi-Res (96/24) at 990kbps.
aptX goes up to 48khz/24-bit and 576kbps.

BT5 has 2x-3x the bandwidth, by sustaining 1500-2000kbps. that pipeline is sufficient for very high fidelity compressor. (personal opinion, completely overkill)

Just for ***** and giggles I'll throw this here:

I took a Lossless 16/44.1 file, converted to

320kbps AAC
320kbps MP3 (CBR)
320kbps Ogg
I also got Spotify's Premium Version (at highest quality).

Afterwards the files were put together side by side in a DAW (Ableton).

The files were then Phase reversed, if both files were identical, this would cancel out the sound entirely.

However this also allows for the differences between the two versions to be heard. The differences between all the lossy versions and lossless are well within the normal limits of human hearing (even on El Cheapo earbuds).

Noble attempt but it is a faulty methodology.

You are theoretically calculating the delta in the files. It will be a non-zero signal. That blip(s) CAN be heard in isolation. It is in 99.9% likelihood cannot be heard in the context of the full actual file --- what people actually listen to.

Test it yourself -- its a track you know well. Can you blindly identify the 4 full files?

The analogy is that there's a cup with 340ml of water, and another with 341ml of water (roughly 12oz). Could you tell the difference by looking at them? By feeling their weight? no.

But you could certainly tell if a cup has 1ml of water or 0ml of water.

 

[deevey]

Sony claims LDAC satisfies Hi-Res (96/24) at 990kbps.
aptX goes up to 48khz/24-bit and 576kbps.

BT5 has 2x-3x the bandwidth, by sustaining 1500-2000kbps. that pipeline is sufficient for very high fidelity compressor. (personal opinion, completely overkill)




Noble attempt but it is a faulty methodology.

You are theoretically calculating the delta in the files. It will be a non-zero signal. That blip(s) CAN be heard in isolation. It is in 99.9% likelihood cannot be heard in the context of the full actual file --- what people actually listen to.

Test it yourself -- its a track you know well. Can you blindly identify the 4 full files?

The analogy is that there's a cup with 340ml of water, and another with 341ml of water (roughly 12oz). Could you tell the difference by looking at them? By feeling their weight? no.

But you could certainly tell if a cup has 1ml of water or 0ml of water.

Completely agree and fantastic analogy by the way.

Could I tell the difference between some tracks I know well ? If it was between Spotify Ogg and a CD, yes, I could tell quite a few, but certainly not all. And I'm willing to concede that in some cases at least, that it may simply be due to bad encoding.

I genuinely don't think I could between the majority of AAC's out there in a blind test, certainly not on the cans I have on-hand, perhaps others.

As I said, in a big room scenario I do think that there is a crispness difference between CD audio and Lossy formats, subtle, but there.

Just the knowledge that you aren't getting the very best from a piece of gear thats capable can be frustrating. For example that 500bhp engine, thats "only" pulling 490, even if you've never gone past 80mph and drive like Miss Daisy. You WANT those 10 horses dammit!

In hindsight Apple probably should have not made a big deal about lossless as it's created that very same frustration to some of their highest paying audio gadget customers for something they would never have noticed in the first place. In light of Spotify and (Probably prior knowledge of) Amazons announcements I supposed they had to.

 

[ErikGrim]

I am willing to bet that AirPods are just one firmware update away from supporting lossless audio (perhaps via airplay?).

There's no wifi chip in them so no dice.

 

[Ace of aces]

Sony claims LDAC satisfies Hi-Res (96/24) at 990kbps.
aptX goes up to 48khz/24-bit and 576kbps.

BT5 has 2x-3x the bandwidth, by sustaining 1500-2000kbps. that pipeline is sufficient for very high fidelity compressor. (personal opinion, completely overkill)




Noble attempt but it is a faulty methodology.

You are theoretically calculating the delta in the files. It will be a non-zero signal. That blip(s) CAN be heard in isolation. It is in 99.9% likelihood cannot be heard in the context of the full actual file --- what people actually listen to.

Test it yourself -- its a track you know well. Can you blindly identify the 4 full files?

The analogy is that there's a cup with 340ml of water, and another with 341ml of water (roughly 12oz). Could you tell the difference by looking at them? By feeling their weight? no.

But you could certainly tell if a cup has 1ml of water or 0ml of water.

There is an interview from the Sony Sound Architects from 2016 about LDAC ans lossless. I let you watch it yourself

from around the 6mn mark a journalist asks specifics questions about lossless, you can find a transcription in this website (and don’t know this website in particular I just found it for the transcript)

Sudo Null - Latest IT News

Programming news, technology, and just useful information

sudonull.com

S + I:So if we can improve the quality of any file to high definition sound, we don’t need a high definition sound source at all?
KN: Uh. [Pause.]
S + I: Obviously, you can. It means that you can increase the quality of MP3 to high definition sound - and not hear the difference. Then we don’t need high definition sound at all.
KN: It depends on the original sound quality. Of course, if the original MP3 bit rate is too low, the quality cannot be improved. But we can improve it to some extent.
S + I:So which file can you enlarge to almost high definition? What level - 256, 320, CD quality? In which file you can not hear the difference? Your statement essentially buries the need to store high definition sound.

[Long group discussion.]

KN: Sorry. DSEE HX improves the sound, but the original bitrate should be 248 kbps. Then it can be improved to almost high definition. So, if the original sound source is lower, it cannot be upgraded to this level.
S + I: Wow! So Sony thinks that 256k can sound like high definition sound?
KN: Yes, almost like high definition sound.

KN is Koji Nageno, one of Sony’s engineers.
he says himself that you can’t hear the difference

 

[Abazigal]

There's no wifi chip in them so no dice.

Ah crap then.

 

[HDFan]

Unless you've actually listened to music mixed in Dolby Atmos, you don't know what you're missing. It's not hype. It really is revelatory.

What atmos music source/track were you using? I've tried listening to some atmos tracks on Tidal and really didn't like it. Every track was different. For some everything came from the left front and left surround, others had the artist in the front and the backup speakers (who should be in the back, right?) coming from the surrounds. And the sounds were, like, isolated, the background singers were in their own separate space with no relationship to the main singer.

I'm sill looking, but so far I prefer my receivers' virtual mode, where it takes the 2 channel source and spreads them out among the 5.2 speakers. Get some weird affects, but not as bad as Atmos. There is bleeding between the channels so the sound is integrated. It is like listening to a classical concert where you are sitting in the center of the orchestra on stage.

And you want me to believe that you now can’t appreciate music if it’s not 24 bits 192khz … seriously the state of technology with an unlimited catalog AAC 256 music playing instantaneously blows my mind and make me so happy and that what’s important.

Yes, although maybe not 24 192 kHz. I can't listen to 256 bit music, unless in the background. I find it very unpleasant.

 

[Ace of aces]

What atmos music source/track were you using? I've tried listening to some atmos tracks on Tidal and really didn't like it. Every track was different. For some everything came from the left front and left surround, others had the artist in the front and the backup speakers (who should be in the back, right?) coming from the surrounds. And the sounds were, like, isolated, the background singers were in their own separate space with no relationship to the main singer.

I'm sill looking, but so far I prefer my receivers' virtual mode, where it takes the 2 channel source and spreads them out among the 5.2 speakers. Get some weird affects, but not as bad as Atmos. There is bleeding between the channels so the sound is integrated. It is like listening to a classical concert where you are sitting in the center of the orchestra on stage.



Yes, although maybe not 24 192 kHz. I can't listen to 256 bit music, unless in the background. I find it very unpleasant.

So a < 1% difference makes 99% of the music very unpleasant for you ?
Do you apply this to other areas of life or just the music ?

If not < 1%, would you be able to quantify how much ? Because I’m genuinely interested to know the amount of difference we are talking about here. Is it like the difference between a 5$ wine bottle and a 500$ one ? or a 490$ one and a 500$ ?

Any kind of measurement beyond what’s happening in one person’s head would be helpful because as of now every single person said it’s more about perception and knowing how the brain works on perception the only thing that would make all this debate real and not imaginary is scientific measurements.

Otherwise just based on feelings and perceptions it’s influenced by so many criteria and because it stays in one person’s brain we’ll never know if it’s real. I could tell you that I hear every single frequency up to 40khz and to me 256 is absolute trash … how could you believe me if I don’t test my hearing ?

 

[anthonylambert]

Mate - people can't tell the difference between lossy and lossless on £30,000 speakers in a world class acoustically treated studio. With the best "car stereo" in the entire world, even sat stationary with no road or engine noise you wouldn't be able to hear the difference. So no, you're not - just enjoy ACC via bluetooth its more than enough for your needs (that you've been enjoying for the last 5 years anyway).

I know from experience that whole instruments go missing between different MP3 formats like 128 to 256. I was shocked on one there were instruments in the background in the other they had been compressed away. I guess yr already at the high end here.

 

[lars666]

Yes, although maybe not 24 192 kHz. I can't listen to 256 bit music, unless in the background. I find it very unpleasant.

Lol – please donate your ears to science, you must have mutant super-human ears. No other explanation.

 

[lars666]

I know from experience that whole instruments go missing between different MP3 formats like 128 to 256. I was shocked on one there were instruments in the background in the other they had been compressed away. I guess yr already at the high end here.

I once encoded Metallica's "Enter Sandman" to 128MP3 and it became John Cale's "4'33".

 

[thettareddast]

the thing about the car is , doesnt matter if its bmw mercedes lexus B&W B&O Nakimichi etc etc... even if its parked with the motor off in an empty parking lot......

you have tweeters mounted on the dash bouncing off a glass windshield, mids stuffed in a door panel thats going around the wheel well, seat, center console.... right speakers has 1 sort of open'ish path to listener. left speakers literally inches away from drivers legs and body

short of listening to music underwater in a swimming pool, the car is about the worst environment to 'critically' listen music in

 

[Blair Paulsen]

IMO, the real crux is compression vs OVER compression.

Early digital music iterations had to take into account storage costs, web infrastructure limitations, etc of the early 2000's. Creating 64/96/128 kb/s versions of popular music was needed to allow "thousands of songs" on, at the time, expensive flash storage or to listen in real time over WiFi or cellular. Once encoded, put on the server and pulling revenue - there wasn't much motivation to eat the cost of replacing those files with 256/320 kb/s versions using more evolved codecs. On top of that, piracy was so widespread that legit services had slim margins to begin with. Perhaps most critically, as many have noted, a huge percentage of listening takes place in compromised settings due to background noise, cheap transducers, etc.

As a result, over the last 10-15 years, convenience and profit motive have left quality in the dust. I am thrilled that Apple is recognizing that in 2021 lossless audio bandwidth/storage footprints are trivial for most of their intended market. No idea if they're concerned about concatenation from multiple compression steps along the way to most listeners, but I hope so.

FWIW, for most popular music, 256kb/s AAC does a good enough job to hold up in double blind tests. Some acoustic instruments, orchestras, ambient, etc are distinguishable vs a 24/96 file on a high end system if you listen carefully. That said, one could easily argue that's a corner case of minimal relevance.

Bottom line - when Apple improves their product and keeps the same price point, we should probably just say thank you.