Apple Music to reportedly stream at 256kbps, below Beats Music and industry rivals
Apple is putting a 256kbps cap on Apple Music streaming, a report said Tuesday, a bitrate lower than competing top-tier offerings from Spotify and the service's own Beats Music forebear.
According to Slashgear, Apple Music will stream 256kbps files, in line with Apple's current iTunes Match product. The report does not mention whether the bitrate is to be reserved for "high quality" streaming, or made standard across both Apple Music and Beats 1 radio.
Apple's existing Beats Music currently streams MP3 files to desktops and mobile devices at 320kbps on the high end. Mobile users also have the option to conserve data and stream at a standard quality of 64kbps using the HE-AAC codec.
By comparison, market giant Spotify fields three bitrates using the Ogg Vorbis format. Normal mobile quality is set to 96kbps, desktop and high quality mobile is pegged at 160kbps and Premium subscribers get access to 320kbps streams on any platform.
Tidal, the upstart streaming service backed by Jay Z, provides its top-tier subscribers with lossless quality tracks, while regular subscription streams are limited to a maximum 320kbps.
Looking beyond numbers on a page, there has been much debate as to whether human ears can effectively discern differences in quality at higher bitrates. The issue is made more confusing when considering a gaggle of codec options, deviations in onboard audio converters and output hardware, the latter being a major drawback for iOS device owners using Apple's included EarPods.
It can be argued that 256kbps is a sweet spot that balances perceived gains in audio fidelity with acceptable bandwidth overheads.
According to Slashgear, Apple Music will stream 256kbps files, in line with Apple's current iTunes Match product. The report does not mention whether the bitrate is to be reserved for "high quality" streaming, or made standard across both Apple Music and Beats 1 radio.
Apple's existing Beats Music currently streams MP3 files to desktops and mobile devices at 320kbps on the high end. Mobile users also have the option to conserve data and stream at a standard quality of 64kbps using the HE-AAC codec.
By comparison, market giant Spotify fields three bitrates using the Ogg Vorbis format. Normal mobile quality is set to 96kbps, desktop and high quality mobile is pegged at 160kbps and Premium subscribers get access to 320kbps streams on any platform.
Tidal, the upstart streaming service backed by Jay Z, provides its top-tier subscribers with lossless quality tracks, while regular subscription streams are limited to a maximum 320kbps.
Looking beyond numbers on a page, there has been much debate as to whether human ears can effectively discern differences in quality at higher bitrates. The issue is made more confusing when considering a gaggle of codec options, deviations in onboard audio converters and output hardware, the latter being a major drawback for iOS device owners using Apple's included EarPods.
It can be argued that 256kbps is a sweet spot that balances perceived gains in audio fidelity with acceptable bandwidth overheads.
Comments
So it's the exact same quality as iTunes Plus songs that I already enjoy? Sounds good to me.
I was just going to post that I'm disappointed in hearing this but I totally forgot about iTunes Plus. iTunes Plus sounds really good to me, even better than 320kpbs mp3's I have. Now the only downfall, most of the music I have from iTunes aren't Plus songs.
Apple should just claim its 1024 bits, because no one can tell the difference anyway.
256kb is fine for my iTunes Match today. It runs great whether in an LTE area or an HSPA+ area, and doesn't eat too much data if you have a larger data plan. Smaller capped plans at less than 3gb will be pinched with Apple Music on the go, which is why the offline mode will help.
Apple should just claim its 1024 bits, because no one can tell the difference anyway.
Absolute rubbish!
Would love to hear from the sensationalists spreading this garbage how they came up with the idea that 320 Kbps mp3 is "better" than 256 AAC.
It is not.
Has there been any research done to see if the average user can tell the difference between 128, 256, 320? I'm talking about your average music listener, not audiophiles.
I was just going to post that I'm disappointed in hearing this but I totally forgot about iTunes Plus. iTunes Plus sounds really good to me, even better than 320kpbs mp3's I have. Now the only downfall, most of the music I have from iTunes aren't Plus songs.
This article doesn't do justice. It doesn't indicate which CODEC Apple will be using. Likely 256kbps HE-AAC is better than 320kbps MP3s that Beats has been using, so the new Apple Music streams *will* actually beat this "competitor".
As for the songs you have from iTunes, just purchase iTunes Match and all of your songs will be upgraded to 256kbps automatically. That's one of Match's perks.
Everyone knows that 256K AAC is at least as good or better than 320K MP3 and I highly doubt that Apple is using MP3.
This article needs to be updated, or completely removed because its premise is flawed.
Exactly.
I read the headline and immediately knew what I would encounter in the comments.
I thought the 256kbps AAC vs 320kbps MP3 debate was settled long ago...