Double blind testing has shown that even audio professionals listening on super high-end equipment cannot differentiate lossless from a 256k mp3. But the placebo effect is strong and people want to believe that they have superpowers.
And yet hundreds of millions of scientific articles, data sheets, engineering specs and reviews say otherwise. All this information and understanding of the human race supports a HUNDRED BILLION dollar industry with hundreds of millions of people who have actual experience with such things - that would say you are incorrect.
The entire collective of the worlds knowledge with hundreds of millions of people who verify they can hear a difference: ∞ Your sad statement: 0
Uh no. Claims are one thing, but if double blind tests show otherwise, then all the audiophile claims in the world are worth little.
Supplements are a multi-billion dollar industry too yet aren't even evaluated by the FDA and are largely all bunk -- just because people are willing to pay for something doesn't mean it works. Like those "magic copper" knee braces, magnetic bracelets, healing crystals, homeopathy, etc etc.
Of course because it's not coming from Apple it's ridiculed here.
No, because it doesn't offer much value it's ridiculed.
Its amazing that someone who spends so much time on Apple sites seemingly understands so little about how Apple works.
As a company who prides themselves on providing the highest quality experience across their product line and going so far as to hire a couple of record producers to provide guidance and leadership to Apple Music, this should be a no-brainer for Apple. With that said, it would seem to me that it is you who seemingly understands little in what Apple SHOULD be focused on as it pertains to the competitive edge Apple Music should be able to tout in the face of this announcement from Spotify.
Of course because it's not coming from Apple it's ridiculed here.
No, because it doesn't offer much value it's ridiculed.
Its amazing that someone who spends so much time on Apple sites seemingly understands so little about how Apple works.
As a company who prides themselves on providing the highest quality experience across their product line and going so far as to hire a couple of record producers to provide guidance and leadership to Apple Music, this should be a no-brainer for Apple. With that said, it would seem to me that it is you who seemingly understands little in what Apple SHOULD be focused on as it pertains to the competitive edge Apple Music should be able to tout in the face of this announcement from Spotify.
Apple didn't hire Iovine to think of streaming lossless audio. Apple Music's strategy goes much deeper than bitrates, which should be obvious.
I think the "hi-fi" streaming concept has been dead for while... but good luck to them. I do like the Spotify experience, both iOS and Mac apps look and work great and I love that the iOS app includes dynamic equalizer. Not sure why Apple hasn't done that all these years.
So Spotify is pushing ads to subscribers for a product that can't be purchased? Isn't there something illegal about that? This doesn't sound like a case of "Oops, we're sorry you got that ad, you can't buy the thing where you live". But a case of "nobody can buy the thing we're advertising anywhere; we're just checking to see how many people will click the button to decide if we want to offer the product and at what price point". That sounds like Best Buy advertising a HDTVs for $5 in one market and $10 in another market but when you show up to buy one they don't have them - and never did.
On the topic of lossless vs lossy: I suspect most people listen on equipment and in environments where the difference between 256kbps AAC vs CD would be imperceptible. But for those who have an investment in high-quality gear, listen in a controlled environment, and have the ears for it, they can tell the difference. And even if they can't, who cares? They perceive value in the extra bits & $$$ they spend on fancy equipment. Some people buy a Porsche or Mercedes when a Kia would function just as well. People pay more for "premium" products that are indistinguishable or inferior to lower priced products all the time.
Personally, I have a pretty decent rig at home, in a pretty good room. But these days I _listen_ to music there very rarely. Most of my listening is done with Apple earbuds in my office at work via Spotify free; with some help from the Boom2 equalizer, they sound plenty good, IMHO.
I love that the iOS app includes dynamic equalizer. Not sure why Apple hasn't done that all these years.
I'm very disappointed Apple doesn't have EQ built in to MacOS and iOS. I use Boom2 and have been very happy with it. I have EQ profiles for my Apple earbuds, over ear headphones, and some other earbuds. A bit of EQing can help a lot.
On the topic of lossless vs lossy: I suspect most people listen on equipment and in environments where the difference between 256kbps AAC vs CD would be imperceptible. But for those who have an investment in high-quality gear, listen in a controlled environment, and have the ears for it, they can tell the difference. And even if they can't, who cares? They perceive value in the extra bits & $$$ they spend on fancy equipment. Some people buy a Porsche or Mercedes when a Kia would function just as well. People pay more for "premium" products that are indistinguishable or inferior to lower priced products all the time.
Personally, I have a pretty decent rig at home, in a pretty good room. But these days I _listen_ to music there very rarely. Most of my listening is done with Apple earbuds in my office at work via Spotify free; with some help from the Boom2 equalizer, they sound plenty good, IMHO.
I think you hit the nail right on the head with the "perceived value" part. I personally find value in buying a CD of an album that doesn't cost any more than the "lossy" version on iTunes or Amazon. Buying the "lossy" version is like buying a big bag of chips, and finding it's half air. Only then do you realize the net weight wasn't what you expected given the size of the bag. To me, "lossy" music at CD prices is the same thing. The new Depeche Mode album (just as an example), is $10.79 on Amazon for the CD (basic version), and $10.99 on Amazon for the same basic version in MP3. Scientifically speaking, the CD didn't have bits removed from the 16bit/44.1k version, but the MP3 (or AAC) version did. I don't care if anyone thinks I can hear the difference or not, it's the principal of the thing. Now if the "lossy" version was only $5 or $7, that'd be another story.
On the headphone note, I, too, do a fair amount of listening on my Apple EarPods, but my Audio Technica ATH-M50 headphones make them sound broken. The Sennheiser HD-650 headphones sound better yet.
I think you hit the nail right on the head with the "perceived value" part. I personally find value in buying a CD of an album that doesn't cost any more than the "lossy" version on iTunes or Amazon. ...
Absolutely agree.
On the headphone note, I, too, do a fair amount of listening on my Apple EarPods, but my Audio Technica ATH-M50 headphones make them sound broken. The Sennheiser HD-650 headphones sound better yet.
I have a pair of HD-500s. To my ears they are a bit lacking in the high end when driven by my Mac, they sound a bit muffled. I bump up the highs a touch with EQ. The EarPods get a big boost to the lows and a little roll back in the highs. The EarPods certainly don't have the "oomph" of the Sennheisers, but they sound much better than when run flat.
TVs & monitors have color, brightness, and a whole bunch of other settings to tweak the picture. But people rarely bother to think of similar adjustments for sound sources. (And most people probably leave their TVs in "store demo" mode with blown out whites & hyper-contrast. )
Of course because it's not coming from Apple it's ridiculed here.
No, because it doesn't offer much value it's ridiculed.
Its amazing that someone who spends so much time on Apple sites seemingly understands so little about how Apple works.
Oh I understand how Apple works now. Doesn't mean Apple is always right. Of course the majority of people here will argue in favor of whatever Apple times because I guess to them Apple always knows best and can never be wrong.
Of course because it's not coming from Apple it's ridiculed here.
No, because it doesn't offer much value it's ridiculed.
Its amazing that someone who spends so much time on Apple sites seemingly understands so little about how Apple works.
As a company who prides themselves on providing the highest quality experience across their product line and going so far as to hire a couple of record producers to provide guidance and leadership to Apple Music, this should be a no-brainer for Apple. With that said, it would seem to me that it is you who seemingly understands little in what Apple SHOULD be focused on as it pertains to the competitive edge Apple Music should be able to tout in the face of this announcement from Spotify.
Apple didn't hire Iovine to think of streaming lossless audio. Apple Music's strategy goes much deeper than bitrates, which should be obvious.
No it seems they hired him to give us stupid things like Carpool Karoke and a Shark Tank spin off. That should concern you. Apple Music should be the best streaming music service with the highest quality audio available, the best curation and social integration and the best user interface. It's pretty much none of those things right now. They have 20 million subscribers mostly because of the power of defaults. I wonder what that figure would be if Apple Music was a separate app you downloaded from the App Store as opposed to the Music app which is pre-installed on every iOS device, if other music apps had access to the Siri API and you could sync playlists from those apps to your Apple Watch. If Apple Music really was superior than people would be leaving Spotify in droves. They're not.
I'd love for Apple to offer lossless PURCHASES. I don't care when it comes to streaming (the stuff on my iPhone is at 256 Kbps - wish I could opt for 320 though), but my iTunes library is my archive - I'm a musician and studio guy and do assemble compilations and playbacks for shows and such - and I like it to be archival quality, regardless of future formats.
If they offered lossless, I'd finally start buying stuff on iTunes. After like fifteen years.
Comments
Uh no. Claims are one thing, but if double blind tests show otherwise, then all the audiophile claims in the world are worth little.
Supplements are a multi-billion dollar industry too yet aren't even evaluated by the FDA and are largely all bunk -- just because people are willing to pay for something doesn't mean it works. Like those "magic copper" knee braces, magnetic bracelets, healing crystals, homeopathy, etc etc.
So Spotify is pushing ads to subscribers for a product that can't be purchased? Isn't there something illegal about that?
This doesn't sound like a case of "Oops, we're sorry you got that ad, you can't buy the thing where you live". But a case of "nobody can buy the thing we're advertising anywhere; we're just checking to see how many people will click the button to decide if we want to offer the product and at what price point". That sounds like Best Buy advertising a HDTVs for $5 in one market and $10 in another market but when you show up to buy one they don't have them - and never did.
On the topic of lossless vs lossy:
I suspect most people listen on equipment and in environments where the difference between 256kbps AAC vs CD would be imperceptible. But for those who have an investment in high-quality gear, listen in a controlled environment, and have the ears for it, they can tell the difference. And even if they can't, who cares? They perceive value in the extra bits & $$$ they spend on fancy equipment. Some people buy a Porsche or Mercedes when a Kia would function just as well. People pay more for "premium" products that are indistinguishable or inferior to lower priced products all the time.
Personally, I have a pretty decent rig at home, in a pretty good room. But these days I _listen_ to music there very rarely. Most of my listening is done with Apple earbuds in my office at work via Spotify free; with some help from the Boom2 equalizer, they sound plenty good, IMHO.
On the headphone note, I, too, do a fair amount of listening on my Apple EarPods, but my Audio Technica ATH-M50 headphones make them sound broken. The Sennheiser HD-650 headphones sound better yet.
TVs & monitors have color, brightness, and a whole bunch of other settings to tweak the picture. But people rarely bother to think of similar adjustments for sound sources. (And most people probably leave their TVs in "store demo" mode with blown out whites & hyper-contrast.
If they offered lossless, I'd finally start buying stuff on iTunes. After like fifteen years.