An audible difference is far more likely to be a different mastering as opposed to any change in the encoder IMHO.
I’ve been thinking about the reports Apple Music is sending AAC to the Airplay system where it’s upsampled. I suspect this is just part of the code that hasn’t been redone but has anyone done similar research to confirm this doesn’t happen to other streaming services on iOS? I think it’s inevitable plenty of Atmos mixes will be thrown together for a quick buck but that’s not to say they’ll be terrible, I’ve heard the algorithmic up-mixers in Marantz systems can do a pretty good job for example. If bad masterings/recordings are going to be a deterrent to the format then we may as well give up on listening to recorded music! Listening to Abbey Road via Apple TV / AVR now (‘only’ 5.1), lovely and spacious.
The “normal” (i.e pre lossless) Apple Music streamed or downloaded at 256K AAC, and the AirPlay protocol uses ALAC at 44.1K / 16 bit, so this will have been happening. In fact, if you use Apple Music to stream to a HomePod, I think it will actually stream the Apple Music file from the internet rather than what is on the phone. So, even if you have a lossless file on your phone, Apple Music may play a lossy file from the internet. I don’t believe, from what I read about the iOS audio stack, that a lossless file played from Qobuz via AirPlay would go through an intermediate AAC stage, though if the file is anything other than 44.1 / 16, it will get resampled as audio via AirPlay is 44.1 / 16 ALAC.
Two titles I’m really enjoying in Dolby Atmos on Apple Music are St. Vincent’s “Daddy’s Home”, and - to my surprise, due to its vintage! - Leonard Bernstein’s 1984 recording of the complete “West Side Story” with José Carreras and Kiri te Kanawa. The first appears to be produced in Dolby Atmos, while the second appears to have actually been recorded in some surround sound technique of the period, and has been more than decently prepared for Dolby Atmos. Already heard some real stinkers, too. “Abbey Road” by The Beatles sounds like the stereo mix has been dragged through the most generic spatial sound algorithm imaginable, meaning it just sounds weird and echoey, and the same goes for Ives’ complete symphonies conducted by Gustavo Dudamel, yet these last two albums are presented as if they are the real Dolby Atmos deal, which makes wading through the budding Dolby Atmos catalogue a decidedly hit-and-miss affair. Additionally, gapless playback doesn’t always work smoothly with tracks in this format.
So I tried out the new lossless Apple Music the other day. I can only use it on my iPhone, as my 2009 Mac Mini (that does all the audio and video heavy lifting), my 2012 iMac (that I run my photo business on) and older AppleTV won't do lossless. And yes, I am annoyed at all this. From my phone, CD quality streamed through an original Airport Express into a Marantz receiver and Epos speakers, the sound was great. It has that similar sense of "ease" as I get playing my CD rips. In contrast, streaming from Spotify (on they higher tier) always sounded crunchy to me. I could never get through an album without stopping. A pity, as I get it as part of my phone plan and would love to use it all the time. Apple Music, of old, was more palatable to me than Spotify. I could listen longer than I could with Spotify, and even paid for the service for a few months. But it always felt the something was missing and I couldn't enjoy listening as much as I did to my CD rips. I suspect that in a couple of years, when everything settles down, Apple Music introducing lossless will seem like a pivot point in audiophile sound for the masses.
Here's a thought about Apple Music and older devices: what if lossless was available through a web interface. You can use Apple Music through a browser. But it's pretty low res. If it was reconfigured to allow high res music then lossless could be used with nearly any computer interface.
I also have an original Airport Express 1 (the plug) going into a Cambridge Audio DAC Magic Plus, which in turn is going into an Arcam amp. I thought AirPlay both 1 and 2 are limited to 16 bit/44.kHz? How are Apple claiming lossless to the HomePod or is it that it will top out at 16bit/44.1kHz? All these DAC streamers claiming 32bit/192khz is that through USB only i.e. it is not possible over AirPlay?
Ok, so my question is can higher bit rate lossless be streamed over AirPlay to a streaming DAC or is the issue here the limitations of AirPlay?
No, some generations of Apple TV resample audio received via AirPlay to 16/48 for the optical output, but the basic protocol is 16/44.1. Edit: AirPlay 2 may be capable of 48K/24 bit.
can anyone suggest an ATMOS receiver? under $1k. my old Yamaha doesn’t decode ATMOS so it’s time to upgrade.
Spotify won't have to. Spotify Connect is supported by everything - even my Echo devices can do Spotify Connect. The Spotify streaming experience with Amazon hardware is better than the Amazon streaming experience with Amazon hardware. Go figure that one out. (Amazon can't do software.) Spotify Connect is the company's secret weapon. It just works. If they can get it to support lossless right away they'll essentially be at parity with Apple, only without the hodgepodge of supported devices and formats.
That's debatable, at best. If you're streaming from a Windows machine, you'd be better served right now by Amazon HD, Tidal or one of the other services that bothers to support the most popular hardware platform in the world. Likewise, many receivers and other devices support high-res natively from Tidal and other services. Apple potentially sounds best if you've got a newish Apple TV hooked up to your receiver. Or if you've got a DAC and external headphones you can connect to your iPhone or something. That's actually a pretty limited slice of the potential market - a small subset of Apple's walled garden. The launch of this is the most inept thing I've seen Apple do in years. This would have been so easy to knock out of the park. It's inexplicable - even more half-arsed than Amazon's HD launch and - as I've repeatedly noted - Amazon can't do software. Actually, I think Spotify has a larger library than Apple, but all three - Spotify, Apple and Amazon - have 70 million+ tracks. Even Tidal has 70 million tracks. There are occasional differences between services in what's available, but overall the coverage is virtually identical. It's really driven more by the labels and their contracts with the artists.
Yeah, if Spotify just offered lossless I'd probably drop Amazon HD. Although I get it fairly cheap because I'm a Prime customer, so maybe not. Of course I get Spotify in a bundle fairly cheap with Hulu. I get Apple Music thru Verizon I think for cheap or for nothing. I wonder if anybody is going to be paying for basic music streaming in a year or two, or if it'll just be bundled? Which might explain why Apple rushed lossless/"spatial" to market in such a bungled fashion - they're trying to launch a premium product people will sign up for now before their standard product essentially becomes free. Anyhow, Apple Music doesn't seem any easier to use than Amazon HD, both of which lack the control Spotify Connect allows.
Anyhow, Apple Music doesn't seem any easier to use than Amazon HD, both of which lack the control Spotify Connect allows.[/QUOTE] At least on Apple Music you don’t need to navigate for hours through a jungle of useless boot to find an album. I find it very frustrating. On Apple Music albums are in chronological order without all that crap of zero relevance (for me)
Spotify is garbage sound and worst payouts. No idea what’s on there. Nor do I care. I DO believe you, as I’ve heard their algorithms for analysis are better, to….bah go the sheeple. I’m streaming from a 5 year old iPhone and about 3.5 year old base iPad….to the Oppo I bought a decade ago or something. sure there ARE titles where MQA dsp sounds better….and Amazon has more ACTUAL HD than either Tidal or Apple….but, if HD makes up 2% of a catalog, MFIT makes up 40% of the last decade(plus similar anything remastered in that era) ….and while most of the Boomer Cannon is ALSO MFiT….it’s 90% of HD. so, for ME….who doesn’t care about a CD I own AT ALL….Apple sounds best as broad strokes. Just like EVERYTHING like this, you need a bunch AND the time to compare if you want to hear the best of everything. Olivia Rodirogio’s new UUGE hit benefits from MQA (Tidal) more than the difference in MFiT…Sara Bareilles’s new Live is best in Amazon at 96khz…the last Grace Potter, I just tested and the 96khz MFiT sounds “like the vinyl but better”…. but, who you gonna pay? I can BUY the Bareilles in HD. I DID buy the Grace in HD and the Apple sounds better. I’m not really to purchase point with Olivia’s….but, in theory, I can’t buy it unless there’s a good vinyl press. The flat HD at Amazon (and anyone else serving flat 24bit) sounds inferior to the MFiT AND the MQA. so, I guess there was something I left unsaid in that—I have no interest in using streaming “instead of buying”….but we are now entering an era of exclusives. Right now it’s exclusive sonics. Soon it will be more absolute content. So if I’m paying for a service they better give me something I can’t just buy.
