Is there really such a market for such a thing? It's sounds more like marketing than anything.
A niche market for sure. It's the one main sticking point for audiophiles against most streaming services. It's a matter of time before they all offer a lossless tier.
Then when you start adding in the various sound quality factors from pre-digital recordings vs digital recordings etc + the types of hardware people are using, it's largely a wash for most of the people who sign up for it.
What does pre-digital VS digital have to do with quality or things?
Many pre-digital Analog recordings sound way better than digital recordings made in 2019.
It's like with film, many old films shot on analog film look great on Blu Ray and look better than many things shot last week.
Many analog music masters that are decades old have a higher resolution than most digital music formats today.
I agree though that the average person does not have the equipment or ears to take advantage of something like hi-bitrate lossless music. It's a niche service, but it's a great thing for those people that can actually appreciate it.
Will most people notice a difference in sound or does it depend on the hardware used to listen?
I can hear the difference with the higher bitrate services on my MacBook Pro when listening on B&W headphones or on my Sonos Beam and One. On my iPhone when on the move? Less so.
I wish Apple would support higher definition music files. There is a remarkable difference when playing these files on a component stereo system as opposed to on an iOS device. There is much more clarity and depth to the music, kind of like looking through a clean window at the view as opposed to one that is dirty.
I also wish iTunes would support HD music files. While iTunes supports the import of standard CD file formats (16-bit audio with a sample rate of 44.1kHz) if you try and import anything higher than this you are out of luck. Given that Apple has been a leader in music devices, they are missing a big opportunity. Just like many younger generation folks are discovering LPs and the improved audio quality, I think they may eventually want and demand higher quality digital music.
Alexa-enabled Echo devices from the second generation and onward, Fire TVs, and Fire Tablets support HD quality audio.
I have a feeling “support” and “sounds good” are not the same thing. My friend has some weird Echo dot in her kitchen, plugged into a socket like the old style Airport Express. That thing sounds terrible when she plays music through it. I find it hard to believe it would sound much better playing HD quality audio.
Yes and unless a software update from Amazon will magically transform the echo dot in into an ultra hi-fi speaker worth thousands of $$$$, I don't think 192/24 audio files will ever matter.
Will most people notice a difference in sound or does it depend on the hardware used to listen?
No. There have been many discussions over the years about lossless and/or high-definition music and the overall consensus is Joe Consumer listening to whatever contemporary music (rock, pop, hip-hop, rap, country, whatever) on his/her smartphone's earbuds or in their car can't tell the difference. 256kbps 16-bit AAC is perfectly adequate. Hell, contemporary music for the past 20-30 years has mostly been authored and mastered to play back adequately in a compressed range.
Lossless and/or high-def audio makes more sense when certain conditions come together. First of all are the listening conditions/hardware: you need very good speakers in a room with decent acoustics. Then you need the appropriate music that would benefit from an expanded dynamic range: classical, baroque, opera, some jazz. Then you need someone with a good set of ears who is really paying attention.
I've acquired high-def audio tracks which I've ripped to 256kbps AAC and yes, I can hear the difference if I am concentrating and listening to it on my big speakers, particularly in the pianissimo sections or in pieces with an extremely wide dynamic range (some symphonies, some operas). If I have the stereo blasting while I am in the kitchen, again it doesn't matter; I can't tell the difference.
Streaming lossless/high-def audio to a portable device is basically a big waste of bandwidth unless it's plugged into a $500 headphone amp and $1000 headphones.
Simple test if you have a CD drive on your Mac. RIP a CD at 256k, and again, with a different name, as Apple Lossless. Put the two together in a Playlist and play on Shuffle. Do some tracks sound better to you than others? If they all sound similar save your money and stick with a standard service.
I have commented here and elsewhere that Apple should offer iTunes tracks in ALAC, which is a lossless format, and an upgrade path for previous purchases like they did with iTunes + years ago. Add in iTunes Match.
I would gladly pay for it. Not interested in a streaming service.
And I'm quite sure that Apple has internal stats from their clientele that says your demographic is very tiny.
I have commented here and elsewhere that Apple should offer iTunes tracks in ALAC, which is a lossless format, and an upgrade path for previous purchases like they did with iTunes + years ago. Add in iTunes Match.
I would gladly pay for it. Not interested in a streaming service.
And I'm quite sure that Apple has internal stats from their clientele that says your demographic is very tiny.
I'm extremely sure of that...Apple knows more about their clientele than everyone here combined.
Is there really such a market for such a thing? It's sounds more like marketing than anything.
Apple used to have a lossless option, did they not? I have Apple Music and I cannot think why you'd want better quality. An audiophile would obviously disagree, but that must be a small market. (?). Oh, and I am not about to enter the Amazon world.
I’ve been loyal to Apple Music since launch but the pricing on Amazon Music Unlimited HD will probably make it irresistible. I’ve had both Tidal and Deezer on trial this year and have been impressed by the audio quality compared to Apple Music but the price in the UK for those services is an extortionate $25/month. If Amazon performs as advertised I’m in.
I get Apple Music for free through Verizon. I pay for Amazon Music and do so gladly. It is a far superior service to Apple Music in every way.
In what way, is Amazon Music superior to Apple Music “in every way?”
apple ][ said: What does pre-digital VS digital have to do with quality or things?
Analogue recordings are susceptible to condition issues in storage, which means the quality of the source used to create the digital version isn't uniform when you're talking about multi-millions of tracks from thousands of different artists of varying importance.
And then you can have things like this happen too...
apple ][ said: What does pre-digital VS digital have to do with quality or things?
Analogue recordings are susceptible to condition issues in storage, which means the quality of the source used to create the digital version isn't uniform when you're talking about multi-millions of tracks from thousands of different artists of varying importance.
True, storage conditions vary and some old masters don't even exist anymore. They might have been destroyed or lost in a fire etc.
But, there are good quality masters for most big acts.
There is of course a far greater chance that the condition of masters from a multi-million selling artist from decades ago will be better preserved than the master from some no-name band that never sold anything that was on an indie label, and that master might very well have been thrown in the trash a long time ago.
Like I wrote earlier, the same thing exists within the film world. There are pristine Analog - Bluray Transfers, and then there are some that are not that great quality wise. It all depends.
The point is that there does exist great hi quality versions of many older tracks, and it's good to have the option to listen to them at the highest possible current quality, which is 24 Bit, 192kHz.
BxBorn said: Curious about the scale of users who would actually use this service.
IMO, it's mainly a sly way of getting a % of their customers to pay more for the same thing. Most people can't consistently tell the difference between 256 kbps and 16-bit/44.1 kHz in the first place. Then when you start adding in the various sound quality factors from pre-digital recordings vs digital recordings etc + the types of hardware people are using, it's largely a wash for most of the people who sign up for it.
People can't differentiate the sound quality mainly due to two factors; low quality headphones/earbuds and DAC.
BxBorn said: Curious about the scale of users who would actually use this service.
IMO, it's mainly a sly way of getting a % of their customers to pay more for the same thing. Most people can't consistently tell the difference between 256 kbps and 16-bit/44.1 kHz in the first place. Then when you start adding in the various sound quality factors from pre-digital recordings vs digital recordings etc + the types of hardware people are using, it's largely a wash for most of the people who sign up for it.
Like those thousand dollar gullible Audiophile ethernet cables!
It's 0s and 1s! Just get a CAT6 cable and be done with it! (pet peeve)
Comments
A niche market for sure. It's the one main sticking point for audiophiles against most streaming services. It's a matter of time before they all offer a lossless tier.
Many pre-digital Analog recordings sound way better than digital recordings made in 2019.
It's like with film, many old films shot on analog film look great on Blu Ray and look better than many things shot last week.
Many analog music masters that are decades old have a higher resolution than most digital music formats today.
I agree though that the average person does not have the equipment or ears to take advantage of something like hi-bitrate lossless music. It's a niche service, but it's a great thing for those people that can actually appreciate it.
I also wish iTunes would support HD music files. While iTunes supports the import of standard CD file formats (16-bit audio with a sample rate of 44.1kHz) if you try and import anything higher than this you are out of luck. Given that Apple has been a leader in music devices, they are missing a big opportunity. Just like many younger generation folks are discovering LPs and the improved audio quality, I think they may eventually want and demand higher quality digital music.
Yes and unless a software update from Amazon will magically transform the echo dot in into an ultra hi-fi speaker worth thousands of $$$$, I don't think 192/24 audio files will ever matter.
Simple test if you have a CD drive on your Mac. RIP a CD at 256k, and again, with a different name, as Apple Lossless. Put the two together in a Playlist and play on Shuffle. Do some tracks sound better to you than others? If they all sound similar save your money and stick with a standard service.
And I'm quite sure that Apple has internal stats from their clientele that says your demographic is very tiny.
Even Neil Young likes Amazon HD...
And then you can have things like this happen too...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/11/us/master-recordings-universal-fire.html
But, there are good quality masters for most big acts.
There is of course a far greater chance that the condition of masters from a multi-million selling artist from decades ago will be better preserved than the master from some no-name band that never sold anything that was on an indie label, and that master might very well have been thrown in the trash a long time ago.
Like I wrote earlier, the same thing exists within the film world. There are pristine Analog - Bluray Transfers, and then there are some that are not that great quality wise. It all depends.
The point is that there does exist great hi quality versions of many older tracks, and it's good to have the option to listen to them at the highest possible current quality, which is 24 Bit, 192kHz.
It's 0s and 1s! Just get a CAT6 cable and be done with it! (pet peeve)