Apple Music web app leak all but confirms 'lossless' features

AppleInsider

The web app to play Apple Music tracks in the browser has seemingly confirmed Apple's teased announcement is for high-fidelity audio, with code references for "lossless" appearing ahead of its launch.

On Sunday, Apple updated the Apple Music app to tease an upcoming addition that will "change forever" how people listen to music. While rumors and leaks point to a possible lossless audio addition, Apple's own code seems to all but confirm the feature is on the way.

Source code for the Apple Music web app uncovered by 9to5Mac includes numerous references to "Lossless" and "Hi Res Lossless." The references seem to match elements found in the beta Apple Music app for Android, and could indicate the feature will arrive very soon.

Code in the web app also mentions "Dolby Atmos" and "Dolby Audio," references that could relate to 3D audio. Another item rumored to arrive alongside a hi-fi audio feature, this could serve customers with audio tracks treated in such a way as to work with Spatial Audio features in devices like AirPods Pro and AirPods Max.

Lossless audio provides music streams at far higher bitrates than typically offered. While Apple Music usually operates at 256kbps at most, a lossless feed could push the bitrate to in excess of 1,000kbps. Music downloads will also be much bigger, with the Android leak indicating that files could take up three times the space of standard-quality versions.

Rumors have pointed to Apple launching its lossless audio streaming tier on May 18, potentially alongside revamed entry-level AirPods. It has also been speculated that the service could cost an extra $9.99 per user, on top of their existing Apple Music subscription.


Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.

sdw2001

I’m a musician who doesn’t even subscribe to Apple Music to begin with. I listen to podcasts mostly . Also, unless you are using really fantastic equipment and have a great ear, you’re not going to hear the difference between a 256 stream it 1000 “lossless” stream. 

polymnia

sdw2001 said:

I’m a musician who doesn’t even subscribe to Apple Music to begin with. I listen to podcasts mostly . Also, unless you are using really fantastic equipment and have a great ear, you’re not going to hear the difference between a 256 stream it 1000 “lossless” stream. 

So, just here to yuck someone’s yum?

There are a non-trivial number of Apple users who have nice audio gear and decent ears. Apple was smart to go wide first with lossy streaming at competitive rates. The streaming battlefield is littered with fallen audiophile-specific services. With a solid conventional streaming business established, now is the time to stretch out to the well-heeled audio enthusiast market. We might be silly to care about the things we do, but we have money and are happy to pay a little extra to indulge ourselves. 

cpsro

Here’s hoping Apple’s recent revamp of Bluetooth will support higher quality.

gregoriusm

polymnia said:

sdw2001 said:

I’m a musician who doesn’t even subscribe to Apple Music to begin with. I listen to podcasts mostly . Also, unless you are using really fantastic equipment and have a great ear, you’re not going to hear the difference between a 256 stream it 1000 “lossless” stream. 

So, just here to yuck someone’s yum?

There are a non-trivial number of Apple users who have nice audio gear and decent ears. Apple was smart to go wide first with lossy streaming at competitive rates. The streaming battlefield is littered with fallen audiophile-specific services. With a solid conventional streaming business established, now is the time to stretch out to the well-heeled audio enthusiast market. We might be silly to care about the things we do, but we have money and are happy to pay a little extra to indulge ourselves. 

Not silly. 

Xed

polymnia said:

sdw2001 said:

I’m a musician who doesn’t even subscribe to Apple Music to begin with. I listen to podcasts mostly . Also, unless you are using really fantastic equipment and have a great ear, you’re not going to hear the difference between a 256 stream it 1000 “lossless” stream. 

So, just here to yuck someone’s yum?

There are a non-trivial number of Apple users who have nice audio gear and decent ears. Apple was smart to go wide first with lossy streaming at competitive rates. The streaming battlefield is littered with fallen audiophile-specific services. With a solid conventional streaming business established, now is the time to stretch out to the well-heeled audio enthusiast market. We might be silly to care about the things we do, but we have money and are happy to pay a little extra to indulge ourselves. 

Adding to your post, this move to Hi-Fi also references spatial audio with Dolby solutions which we're seeing Apple do very well in with in their AirPods Pros and Max. I expect this to become even more common place in their HW, which will push even more manufactures to follow suit which will help push this new HiFI option.

winstoner71

polymnia said:

sdw2001 said:

I’m a musician who doesn’t even subscribe to Apple Music to begin with. I listen to podcasts mostly . Also, unless you are using really fantastic equipment and have a great ear, you’re not going to hear the difference between a 256 stream it 1000 “lossless” stream. 

So, just here to yuck someone’s yum?

There are a non-trivial number of Apple users who have nice audio gear and decent ears. Apple was smart to go wide first with lossy streaming at competitive rates. The streaming battlefield is littered with fallen audiophile-specific services. With a solid conventional streaming business established, now is the time to stretch out to the well-heeled audio enthusiast market. We might be silly to care about the things we do, but we have money and are happy to pay a little extra to indulge ourselves. 

Well said. I use a Dragonfly Red DAC with Sony XM3 headphones and listen to music via the Qobuz app mostly. Why? Because I can hear the difference between 256kbps and hi-res audio. For me and many others, it’s like the difference between 480p and 4K. 

skipdeedy

The headline feature here seems to be spatial audio. Easy to see a parallel announcement that some new pop albums have been mastered to be compatible, and exclusive, to Apple Music – and also possibly then exclusive to Apple Headphones. No doubt 3D audio will be touted as the future of music. Which it may be. 

I expect the new AirPods to feature special audio as their headline upgrade feature too so then all Apple headphone have the capability. 

sdw2001

winstoner71 said:

polymnia said:

sdw2001 said:

I’m a musician who doesn’t even subscribe to Apple Music to begin with. I listen to podcasts mostly . Also, unless you are using really fantastic equipment and have a great ear, you’re not going to hear the difference between a 256 stream it 1000 “lossless” stream. 

So, just here to yuck someone’s yum?

There are a non-trivial number of Apple users who have nice audio gear and decent ears. Apple was smart to go wide first with lossy streaming at competitive rates. The streaming battlefield is littered with fallen audiophile-specific services. With a solid conventional streaming business established, now is the time to stretch out to the well-heeled audio enthusiast market. We might be silly to care about the things we do, but we have money and are happy to pay a little extra to indulge ourselves. 

Well said. I use a Dragonfly Red DAC with Sony XM3 headphones and listen to music via the Qobuz app mostly. Why? Because I can hear the difference between 256kbps and hi-res audio. For me and many others, it’s like the difference between 480p and 4K. 

Well, this is actually an old topic here (discerning quality of digital music).  You claim to hear the difference, and I'm sure you believe that.  The question is....are you sure? How would you describe the difference? Were there any other variables?  There has been research on this topic, done with double blind studies.  I'm not sure if I've seen one on bit rate, but I've seen them on bit depth.  The bottom line conclusion was people could not discern between DVD-Audio/SA-CD and CD quality audio.  

Not trying to antagonize, I'm just asking.  

sdw2001

polymnia said:

sdw2001 said:

I’m a musician who doesn’t even subscribe to Apple Music to begin with. I listen to podcasts mostly . Also, unless you are using really fantastic equipment and have a great ear, you’re not going to hear the difference between a 256 stream it 1000 “lossless” stream. 

So, just here to yuck someone’s yum?

There are a non-trivial number of Apple users who have nice audio gear and decent ears. Apple was smart to go wide first with lossy streaming at competitive rates. The streaming battlefield is littered with fallen audiophile-specific services. With a solid conventional streaming business established, now is the time to stretch out to the well-heeled audio enthusiast market. We might be silly to care about the things we do, but we have money and are happy to pay a little extra to indulge ourselves. 

I was just making an observation based on my experience and trained ear.  I don't disagree with your point about Apple's decision.  But I do have my doubts that you're going to hear much of a difference (if any) between 256kbps and 1000kbps, assuming all other variables are equal.  My point was just that you'd need a great ear (which you may have) and really good gear.  Based on my experience, I would also think that any difference would depend on genre.  You might hear it with orchestral music but not rock, for example.  

When it comes to Hi-Fi, keep in mind that audiophiles often complain that uncompressed, CD-quality recording is insufficient.  The debate has raged for years about analog vs. digital, distortion, bit depth and even sample rate.  Here's a related article that does a decent job explaining my point:  https://www.soundguys.com/high-bitrate-audio-is-overkill-cd-quality-is-still-great-16518/ ;

matthewk

Unless Apple includes some type of digital output so I can connect directly to my DAC this lossless streaming is of very little value. Apple needs to bring back the digital output on the AppleTV and not limit the sample rate and bit depth.

mike1

sdw2001 said:

polymnia said:

sdw2001 said:

I’m a musician who doesn’t even subscribe to Apple Music to begin with. I listen to podcasts mostly . Also, unless you are using really fantastic equipment and have a great ear, you’re not going to hear the difference between a 256 stream it 1000 “lossless” stream. 

So, just here to yuck someone’s yum?

There are a non-trivial number of Apple users who have nice audio gear and decent ears. Apple was smart to go wide first with lossy streaming at competitive rates. The streaming battlefield is littered with fallen audiophile-specific services. With a solid conventional streaming business established, now is the time to stretch out to the well-heeled audio enthusiast market. We might be silly to care about the things we do, but we have money and are happy to pay a little extra to indulge ourselves. 

I was just making an observation based on my experience and trained ear.  I don't disagree with your point about Apple's decision.  But I do have my doubts that you're going to hear much of a difference (if any) between 256kbps and 1000kbps, assuming all other variables are equal.  My point was just that you'd need a great ear (which you may have) and really good gear.  Based on my experience, I would also think that any difference would depend on genre.  You might hear it with orchestral music but not rock, for example.  

When it comes to Hi-Fi, keep in mind that audiophiles often complain that uncompressed, CD-quality recording is insufficient.  The debate has raged for years about analog vs. digital, distortion, bit depth and even sample rate.  Here's a related article that does a decent job explaining my point:  https://www.soundguys.com/high-bitrate-audio-is-overkill-cd-quality-is-still-great-16518/ ;

My experience working with both high-end audio gear and with research into sound quality has shown that in many cases, musicians are worse at discerning sound quality, regardless of their level of proficiency or music genre preference. This was generally thought to be due to two things.

1. Hearing loss due to constant unsafe volume levels while performing. Heck, that affects us audience members too.

2. More importantly, due to their musical experience and training, they often interpolated things that may not have been fully captured by the recording or playback system. Their brains seemed to add the missing nuance and subtle details that they knew should be there, but weren't really audible. They were often just as satisfied with good but not great equipment.

I'm sure there are exceptions and other experiences that would contradict mine, but that was what I noticed.

polymnia

sdw2001 said:

polymnia said:

sdw2001 said:

I’m a musician who doesn’t even subscribe to Apple Music to begin with. I listen to podcasts mostly . Also, unless you are using really fantastic equipment and have a great ear, you’re not going to hear the difference between a 256 stream it 1000 “lossless” stream. 

So, just here to yuck someone’s yum?

There are a non-trivial number of Apple users who have nice audio gear and decent ears. Apple was smart to go wide first with lossy streaming at competitive rates. The streaming battlefield is littered with fallen audiophile-specific services. With a solid conventional streaming business established, now is the time to stretch out to the well-heeled audio enthusiast market. We might be silly to care about the things we do, but we have money and are happy to pay a little extra to indulge ourselves. 

I was just making an observation based on my experience and trained ear.  I don't disagree with your point about Apple's decision.  But I do have my doubts that you're going to hear much of a difference (if any) between 256kbps and 1000kbps, assuming all other variables are equal.  My point was just that you'd need a great ear (which you may have) and really good gear.  Based on my experience, I would also think that any difference would depend on genre.  You might hear it with orchestral music but not rock, for example.  

When it comes to Hi-Fi, keep in mind that audiophiles often complain that uncompressed, CD-quality recording is insufficient.  The debate has raged for years about analog vs. digital, distortion, bit depth and even sample rate.  Here's a related article that does a decent job explaining my point:  https://www.soundguys.com/high-bitrate-audio-is-overkill-cd-quality-is-still-great-16518/ ;

With all due respect, I'm not terribly interested in what you think I will or won't perceive. I have nice audio gear, a love of music and (happily not necessary due to this being a free upgrade) some headroom in my discretionary entertainment budget. I'd like to feed my equipment and, subsequently my ears, with the highest quality material Apple can deliver to me. Like I said before, maybe it's silly. But it's what I want to do and it's not hurting anyone else.

Rayz2016

polymnia said:

With all due respect

One of my favourite phrases: by the time it lands, all pretence of respect has already left the conversation.  

byronl

didn’t age well

sdw2001

mike1 said:

sdw2001 said:

polymnia said:

sdw2001 said:

I’m a musician who doesn’t even subscribe to Apple Music to begin with. I listen to podcasts mostly . Also, unless you are using really fantastic equipment and have a great ear, you’re not going to hear the difference between a 256 stream it 1000 “lossless” stream. 

So, just here to yuck someone’s yum?

There are a non-trivial number of Apple users who have nice audio gear and decent ears. Apple was smart to go wide first with lossy streaming at competitive rates. The streaming battlefield is littered with fallen audiophile-specific services. With a solid conventional streaming business established, now is the time to stretch out to the well-heeled audio enthusiast market. We might be silly to care about the things we do, but we have money and are happy to pay a little extra to indulge ourselves. 

I was just making an observation based on my experience and trained ear.  I don't disagree with your point about Apple's decision.  But I do have my doubts that you're going to hear much of a difference (if any) between 256kbps and 1000kbps, assuming all other variables are equal.  My point was just that you'd need a great ear (which you may have) and really good gear.  Based on my experience, I would also think that any difference would depend on genre.  You might hear it with orchestral music but not rock, for example.  

When it comes to Hi-Fi, keep in mind that audiophiles often complain that uncompressed, CD-quality recording is insufficient.  The debate has raged for years about analog vs. digital, distortion, bit depth and even sample rate.  Here's a related article that does a decent job explaining my point:  https://www.soundguys.com/high-bitrate-audio-is-overkill-cd-quality-is-still-great-16518/ ;

My experience working with both high-end audio gear and with research into sound quality has shown that in many cases, musicians are worse at discerning sound quality, regardless of their level of proficiency or music genre preference. This was generally thought to be due to two things.

1. Hearing loss due to constant unsafe volume levels while performing. Heck, that affects us audience members too.

2. More importantly, due to their musical experience and training, they often interpolated things that may not have been fully captured by the recording or playback system. Their brains seemed to add the missing nuance and subtle details that they knew should be there, but weren't really audible. They were often just as satisfied with good but not great equipment.

I'm sure there are exceptions and other experiences that would contradict mine, but that was what I noticed.

I'm sure you have found that.  I think #1 is more common with performers, particularly those who use amplification (rock, pop, hip hop, even country).  I'm an educator and I don't perform in those environments typically.   

I don't know about #2.  That has not been my experience.  I have a pretty sensitive ear.  For example, I can't stand the sound of satellite radio...even on mediocre car audio equipment.  If anything, I feel like I'm more sensitive to quality.  My point is that I don't think I can tell the difference between higher bitrates, sampling rates or bit depth beyond 16 bits on even decent equipment (as in not HiFi, but not garbage).  

sdw2001

polymnia said:

sdw2001 said:

polymnia said:

sdw2001 said:

I’m a musician who doesn’t even subscribe to Apple Music to begin with. I listen to podcasts mostly . Also, unless you are using really fantastic equipment and have a great ear, you’re not going to hear the difference between a 256 stream it 1000 “lossless” stream. 

So, just here to yuck someone’s yum?

There are a non-trivial number of Apple users who have nice audio gear and decent ears. Apple was smart to go wide first with lossy streaming at competitive rates. The streaming battlefield is littered with fallen audiophile-specific services. With a solid conventional streaming business established, now is the time to stretch out to the well-heeled audio enthusiast market. We might be silly to care about the things we do, but we have money and are happy to pay a little extra to indulge ourselves. 

I was just making an observation based on my experience and trained ear.  I don't disagree with your point about Apple's decision.  But I do have my doubts that you're going to hear much of a difference (if any) between 256kbps and 1000kbps, assuming all other variables are equal.  My point was just that you'd need a great ear (which you may have) and really good gear.  Based on my experience, I would also think that any difference would depend on genre.  You might hear it with orchestral music but not rock, for example.  

When it comes to Hi-Fi, keep in mind that audiophiles often complain that uncompressed, CD-quality recording is insufficient.  The debate has raged for years about analog vs. digital, distortion, bit depth and even sample rate.  Here's a related article that does a decent job explaining my point:  https://www.soundguys.com/high-bitrate-audio-is-overkill-cd-quality-is-still-great-16518/ ;

With all due respect, I'm not terribly interested in what you think I will or won't perceive. I have nice audio gear, a love of music and (happily not necessary due to this being a free upgrade) some headroom in my discretionary entertainment budget. I'd like to feed my equipment and, subsequently my ears, with the highest quality material Apple can deliver to me. Like I said before, maybe it's silly. But it's what I want to do and it's not hurting anyone else.

I'm not exactly sure why you seem to be reacting defensively.  I have no issue with anyone pursuing the best quality.  If it's worth it to you, go for it.  My comment was honestly more about me.  

polymnia

sdw2001 said:

polymnia said:

sdw2001 said:

polymnia said:

sdw2001 said:

I’m a musician who doesn’t even subscribe to Apple Music to begin with. I listen to podcasts mostly . Also, unless you are using really fantastic equipment and have a great ear, you’re not going to hear the difference between a 256 stream it 1000 “lossless” stream. 

So, just here to yuck someone’s yum?

There are a non-trivial number of Apple users who have nice audio gear and decent ears. Apple was smart to go wide first with lossy streaming at competitive rates. The streaming battlefield is littered with fallen audiophile-specific services. With a solid conventional streaming business established, now is the time to stretch out to the well-heeled audio enthusiast market. We might be silly to care about the things we do, but we have money and are happy to pay a little extra to indulge ourselves. 

I was just making an observation based on my experience and trained ear.  I don't disagree with your point about Apple's decision.  But I do have my doubts that you're going to hear much of a difference (if any) between 256kbps and 1000kbps, assuming all other variables are equal.  My point was just that you'd need a great ear (which you may have) and really good gear.  Based on my experience, I would also think that any difference would depend on genre.  You might hear it with orchestral music but not rock, for example.  

When it comes to Hi-Fi, keep in mind that audiophiles often complain that uncompressed, CD-quality recording is insufficient.  The debate has raged for years about analog vs. digital, distortion, bit depth and even sample rate.  Here's a related article that does a decent job explaining my point:  https://www.soundguys.com/high-bitrate-audio-is-overkill-cd-quality-is-still-great-16518/ ;

With all due respect, I'm not terribly interested in what you think I will or won't perceive. I have nice audio gear, a love of music and (happily not necessary due to this being a free upgrade) some headroom in my discretionary entertainment budget. I'd like to feed my equipment and, subsequently my ears, with the highest quality material Apple can deliver to me. Like I said before, maybe it's silly. But it's what I want to do and it's not hurting anyone else.

I'm not exactly sure why you seem to be reacting defensively.  I have no issue with anyone pursuing the best quality.  If it's worth it to you, go for it.  My comment was honestly more about me.  

Your words (emphasis mine):

Also, unless you are using really fantastic equipment and have a great ear, you’re not going to hear the difference between a 256 stream it 1000 “lossless” stream. 

Those words seem pretty clearly aimed externally. If you meant to say “I” perhaps you should have.

polymnia

sdw2001 said:

winstoner71 said:

polymnia said:

sdw2001 said:

I’m a musician who doesn’t even subscribe to Apple Music to begin with. I listen to podcasts mostly . Also, unless you are using really fantastic equipment and have a great ear, you’re not going to hear the difference between a 256 stream it 1000 “lossless” stream. 

So, just here to yuck someone’s yum?

There are a non-trivial number of Apple users who have nice audio gear and decent ears. Apple was smart to go wide first with lossy streaming at competitive rates. The streaming battlefield is littered with fallen audiophile-specific services. With a solid conventional streaming business established, now is the time to stretch out to the well-heeled audio enthusiast market. We might be silly to care about the things we do, but we have money and are happy to pay a little extra to indulge ourselves. 

Well said. I use a Dragonfly Red DAC with Sony XM3 headphones and listen to music via the Qobuz app mostly. Why? Because I can hear the difference between 256kbps and hi-res audio. For me and many others, it’s like the difference between 480p and 4K. 

Well, this is actually an old topic here (discerning quality of digital music).  You claim to hear the difference, and I'm sure you believe that.  The question is....are you sure? How would you describe the difference? Were there any other variables?  There has been research on this topic, done with double blind studies.  I'm not sure if I've seen one on bit rate, but I've seen them on bit depth.  The bottom line conclusion was people could not discern between DVD-Audio/SA-CD and CD quality audio.  

Not trying to antagonize, I'm just asking.  

Is this also “more about you”?

Seems to be aimed at invalidating someone else’s preference from where I sit.

polymnia

Rayz2016 said:

polymnia said:

With all due respect

One of my favourite phrases: by the time it lands, all pretence of respect has already left the conversation.  

And by omitting even the pretense of respect in your contentless comment, you prove what, exactly?

sdw2001

polymnia said:

sdw2001 said:

winstoner71 said:

polymnia said:

sdw2001 said:

I’m a musician who doesn’t even subscribe to Apple Music to begin with. I listen to podcasts mostly . Also, unless you are using really fantastic equipment and have a great ear, you’re not going to hear the difference between a 256 stream it 1000 “lossless” stream. 

So, just here to yuck someone’s yum?

There are a non-trivial number of Apple users who have nice audio gear and decent ears. Apple was smart to go wide first with lossy streaming at competitive rates. The streaming battlefield is littered with fallen audiophile-specific services. With a solid conventional streaming business established, now is the time to stretch out to the well-heeled audio enthusiast market. We might be silly to care about the things we do, but we have money and are happy to pay a little extra to indulge ourselves. 

Well said. I use a Dragonfly Red DAC with Sony XM3 headphones and listen to music via the Qobuz app mostly. Why? Because I can hear the difference between 256kbps and hi-res audio. For me and many others, it’s like the difference between 480p and 4K. 

Well, this is actually an old topic here (discerning quality of digital music).  You claim to hear the difference, and I'm sure you believe that.  The question is....are you sure? How would you describe the difference? Were there any other variables?  There has been research on this topic, done with double blind studies.  I'm not sure if I've seen one on bit rate, but I've seen them on bit depth.  The bottom line conclusion was people could not discern between DVD-Audio/SA-CD and CD quality audio.  

Not trying to antagonize, I'm just asking.  

Is this also “more about you”?

Seems to be aimed at invalidating someone else’s preference from where I sit.

It's obvious you can't or don't want to have a discussion about this.  I'll state it more clearly:  I can't hear the difference, and I know I have an ear for these things.  According to what AI published, not many people can.