Latest Thread Images

Skrmavbild2015-07-11kl.18.42.13.png
Skrmavbild2015-07-05kl.10.35.03.png
Skrmavbild2015-07-02kl.10.57.21.png
image.jpg
image.jpg
underwater-580x318.png
See full thread gallery...
Apple Music... Seriously?
Jun 13, 2015 at 7:31 AM Post #76 of 360
Interesting that in this discussion no one mentions that Apple Music is a re-branding of beats, which was itself a re-branding of Mog.  Mog was fantastic and (back then) the best available among streaming services.  Odd that they've dropped what they used to deliver from 320 to 256.
 
I believe the thinking is that for portable use 256 is sufficient, given the likely listening environments.  And as to the poster a few pages ago who said that people don't care about DJs, you're incorrect.  The larger market wants to discover new music and having curators who can cover way more ground than you could yourself is not just important, it's the most important thing if the surveyors are to be believed.
 
I want both.  Active listening where I can pick from a comprehensive library and passive if I'm working. I'd given up on streaming during the Beats transition, and honestly didn't know about Tidal.  I think the impact of lossless is overstated when you think about how and where people listen to music.  You think people can hear the difference in their car or an office? I'm not saying that there's not a difference, only that 90% of the time, 90% of the people aren't where they'd be able to distinguish the difference.
 
It's not perfect, but I'll take the additional competition.
 
Jeff
 
Jun 13, 2015 at 9:47 AM Post #77 of 360
If Apple is using 256 MP4 (AAC), it would be better than 320 MP3, generally speaking. Both can be audibly transparent in most cases, but the MP3 codec can have trouble with some transients due to the smallest block size being 192 vs 120 for MP4.

There are a few convincing ABX tests between a well-encoded MP3 and lossless that show the listener is able to hear a difference, but almost nothing can be found showing the same with a well-encoded AAC 256 kbps file. I realize there are plenty of doubters, but they never make a convincing case when asked to provide proof.
 
Jun 15, 2015 at 11:33 PM Post #78 of 360
Apple is free to do as they wish, and so am I. Since most of their newer (in the past 5 years or so) products are very average, I have not used anything from them, not even their codecs.
 
Looks like Apple likes adding to things I will not take notice of.
 
I still admire Apple as a marketing company though. If I can sell outdated products with magnesium alloy case to mask all the shoddy workmanship at a premium price, I'd behave just like them.
 
Jun 15, 2015 at 11:44 PM Post #80 of 360
joe said:
  Back on topic, guys.
Click to expand...


Apologies, Joe. Will do. And apologies to everyone else as well for my part in the unpleasantness. Two morons going at each other is never a fun read, ha ha.
 
Back on topic, has anyone seen this article from CNN Money?
 
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/11/technology/apple-music-low-quality/
 
Jun 16, 2015 at 1:27 AM Post #84 of 360
I actually think both Steve Eddy and Earbones are right in their own way.

As Steve has pointed out, there is no sound technical reason to stream lossless over 256k. There is insufficient objective evidence to support the idea that it's actually any better. You can list all the testimonials you want, but you can also find testimonials promising the effectiveness of all kinds of snake oil. Do you know doctors actively rejected the notion that they should wash their hands between patients, and scoffed at the data on this for decades? But they're the experts! Oops.

However, as Earbones has correctly pointed out, lots of people believe it's better, and would thus be willing to pay additional money for it. Apple could easily have a two-tiered service, where from one group of subscribers they'd collect extra money. (And if they were really cynical, they'd just stream the same 256k AAC to both, and laugh all the way to the bank reading reviewers gush about how much better the premium service sounds. I don't think Tim Cook would do that, however. Not so sure about Jobs on that one.)

I don't think Apple will go to a two-tier model, however, because:

* While some people care, not enough people do. I mean, really, most people have no idea that some fraction of their collection is 128k mp3 and sounds like a**. Listen to the way most current pop music is mastered and you know sound quality is not high on the list of drivers in digital music. (Regular readers of Head-Fi do not represent the general audio-buying public very well. Just thinking about the likely sales numbers for Bose and Beats headphones should tell you all you need to know about this.)

* There is a real cost (beyond bandwidth and server space, which is also real), which is complexity. One thing Apple (usually) understands is people hate complexity and even a simple decision like "what level of service should I get?" turns enough people off that it matters. Furthermore, and likely even more importantly, there's logistical complexity on Apple's end, having to support two different kinds of accounts and services, and of course dealing with lossless streaming service support issues created by people who don't have connections that actually support the bandwidth required for lossless service. (Support costs for Apple in this regard are much more than for niche services like Tidal—Apple ultimately wants a on the order of a billion subscribers for this thing. Totally different scale than Tidal.)

I bet somebody at Apple has done the math, and they've come to the conclusion that the costs to them of offering a two-tiered service aren't worth the benefits, even if some people (like Earbones) would buy it.
 
Jun 16, 2015 at 5:04 AM Post #86 of 360
Jun 16, 2015 at 12:46 PM Post #87 of 360
sunbyrne said:
I actually think both @Steve Eddy and @Earbones are right in their own way.

As Steve has pointed out, there is no sound technical reason to stream lossless over 256k. There is insufficient objective evidence to support the idea that it's actually any better. You can list all the testimonials you want, but you can also find testimonials promising the effectiveness of all kinds of snake oil. Do you know doctors actively rejected the notion that they should wash their hands between patients, and scoffed at the data on this for decades? But they're the experts! Oops.

However, as Earbones has correctly pointed out, lots of people believe it's better, and would thus be willing to pay additional money for it. Apple could easily have a two-tiered service, where from one group of subscribers they'd collect extra money. (And if they were really cynical, they'd just stream the same 256k AAC to both, and laugh all the way to the bank reading reviewers gush about how much better the premium service sounds. I don't think Tim Cook would do that, however. Not so sure about Jobs on that one.)

I don't think Apple will go to a two-tier model, however, because:

* While some people care, not enough people do. I mean, really, most people have no idea that some fraction of their collection is 128k mp3 and sounds like a**. Listen to the way most current pop music is mastered and you know sound quality is not high on the list of drivers in digital music. (Regular readers of Head-Fi do not represent the general audio-buying public very well. Just thinking about the likely sales numbers for Bose and Beats headphones should tell you all you need to know about this.)

* There is a real cost (beyond bandwidth and server space, which is also real), which is complexity. One thing Apple (usually) understands is people hate complexity and even a simple decision like "what level of service should I get?" turns enough people off that it matters. Furthermore, and likely even more importantly, there's logistical complexity on Apple's end, having to support two different kinds of accounts and services, and of course dealing with lossless streaming service support issues created by people who don't have connections that actually support the bandwidth required for lossless service. (Support costs for Apple in this regard are much more than for niche services like Tidal—Apple ultimately wants a on the order of a billion subscribers for this thing. Totally different scale than Tidal.)

I bet somebody at Apple has done the math, and they've come to the conclusion that the costs to them of offering a two-tiered service aren't worth the benefits, even if some people (like Earbones) would buy it.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what you can really hear or not, some people just appreciate specs.  And just to know what they are getting is somehow better or more is all that matters, call it mental comfort of knowing you are getting the best they got.  That represents 95% of the audiophile crowd in my opinion and in any case that is also a valid thing to desire when you have the rest why not have the best. How it actually sounds is irrelevant.
 
Jun 16, 2015 at 3:13 PM Post #88 of 360
groovyd said:
Doesn't matter what you can really hear or not, some people just appreciate specs.  And just to know what they are getting is somehow better or more is all that matters, call it mental comfort of knowing you are getting the best they got.  That represents 95% of the audiophile crowd in my opinion and in any case that is also a valid thing to desire when you have the rest why not have the best. How it actually sounds is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree at all. There's always a market for "premium" even when there's little evidence that it's actually better. I just think Apple has made a rational decision that catering to that market isn't worth it for them, at least not right now.
 
Jun 16, 2015 at 5:11 PM Post #89 of 360
sunbyrne said:
I don't disagree at all. There's always a market for "premium" even when there's little evidence that it's actually better. I just think Apple has made a rational decision that catering to that market isn't worth it for them, at least not right now.
Click to expand...


That sounds about right. When they released iTunes Plus in 2007 they wrote: "... Apple® today launched iTunes® Plus—DRM-free music tracks featuring high quality 256 kbps AAC encoding for audio quality virtually indistinguishable from the original recordings ...". That is what they believe, no if's and's or but's (hurt feelings or otherwise). 
 
So, I guess we'll have a debate about what virtually means now. 
 
This Tidal crap, is it really true? http://www.head-fi.org/t/743658/tidal-lossless-listening-test-whats-going-on-here/15#post_11077298
For those that don't want to jump thread; Tidal eq's the lossy files to sound audibly worse than the lossless ... 
 
Jun 16, 2015 at 5:36 PM Post #90 of 360
sparkofinsanity said:
This Tidal crap, is it really true? [COLOR=3B5998]http://www.head-fi.org/t/743658/tidal-lossless-listening-test-whats-going-on-here/15#post_11077298[/COLOR]
For those that don't want to jump thread; Tidal eq's the lossy files to sound audibly worse than the lossless ... 
Click to expand...


Not surprised. Harman International resorted to outright fraud in their Distortion of Sound video.

They lead you to believe they are talking about lossy digital compression (like MP3), but they continually conflate this with dynamic range compression (see "the loudness wars").

The most fraudulent part of the video starts at 11:45. Here they compare uncompressed audio with compressed audio.

The first thing to note is that the "compression" shown in the waveform is NOT digital compression. MP3 does not compress dynamics. What they're showing is severe dynamic range compression. But they didn't stop there. If they had, the music would have sounded louder, and we humans tend to perceive louder as higher quality. So instead of leaving the track just severely dynamically compressed, they significantly reduced the level, so that you can hear a difference even on the built in speaker of an iPad.

This is the kind of lies and propaganda consumers are up against. It should be criminal.


[VIDEO]http://youtu.be/mDZcz-V29_M[/VIDEO]


se
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top