Jump to content
  • The Computer Audiophile
    The Computer Audiophile

    Apple Music's Lossless and Hi-Res Mess

     


    This morning I've been testing Apple Music's new lossless and Hi-Res offerings on both my iPhone 12 Pro running iOS 14.6 and my Mac Mini (M1) running macOS 11.4. In my tests, I'm only concerned with playing the music bit perfectly, in other words without making any changes to the audio. If Apple Music says it's streaming lossless audio, then I want to stream that audio losslessly, rather than accidentally converting it to lossy AAC or MP3 etc... Whether or not people can hear the difference is a topic for another discussion. I'm just making sure I can play the music in its original form and that Apple is sending true lossless and Hi-Res to my audio devices. 

     


    Let's Dig in


    What is bit perfect and why should I care? In the simplest terms, bit perfect means that the audio hasn't been changed. The music sent, in this case from Apple Music, into the playback device hasn't been altered. The source is what has been delivered to Apple by the record labels. Apple is just the delivery company.

     

    If you care about high quality, getting the lossless streaming you're paying for from Apple Music, Qobuz, Tidal, Amazon Music, etc... then you should care about bit perfect because without it you have no idea what's happening to your audio. If this isn't a concern for you, no worries. 

     


    Testing Methodology 

     

    Device 1
    My Apple iPhone 12 Pro running iOS 14.6 and the Apple Music app. I connected the newest version of the Apple Camera Connection Kit to the iPhone, so I could attach a USB Audi interface, and feed power to the phone and interface. 

     

    Device 2
    Apple Mac Mini (M1) running macOS 11.4, and Apple Pro Display XDR, and USB audio interface connected to the ports on the back of the display. 

     
    I use the following testing methodology to test Apple Music. 

     

    The USB audio interface is a Berkeley Audio Design Alpha USB that accepts USB input and outputs audio over AES/EBU or S/PDIF (BNC). 
     
    I use a Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC Reference Series 3 that identifies and decodes HDCD on all sample rates from 44.1 up through 192 kHz. When an unaltered HDCD music track is played, the HDCD indicator on the DAC is illuminated. The HDCD flag is on the 16th bit for lossless CD files and the 24th bit for high resolution files. Any alteration, DSP, volume leveling, etc... changes this least significant bit and won't enable the HDCD indicator to illuminate on my DAC. Apple Music's lossless audio that I tested was 16 bit / 44.1 kHa and the Hi-Res audio was both 24 bit / 176.4 kHz and 24 bit / 192 kHz. That's the hardware piece. 
     
    With respect to source files, here's what I do. 
     
    I have a list of roughly ten known HDCD albums (although I could use more if needed). Many of these albums were only released as HDCD encoded CDs/files. There is no alternate lossless version. For example, Reference Recordings only releases CDs that are HDCD encoded. Pearl Jam's Live On Two Legs was only released as an HDCD master for its lossless CD version. 
     
    I set a baseline by playing my own local copy of the albums and make sure the HDCD indicator illuminates. I played some Reference Recordings albums through Apple Music on macOS and made sure the app could handle bit perfect playback. All was good there. On iOS, I used used other apps such as Qobuz, to play the identical music through the identical hardware. All was good through the Qobuz app. Again, there are no alternative versions of these lossless albums. It's the same music on all the services that offer lossless streaming.
     
    Absolutely there are possible holes in my methodology, but I believe I've minimized them as much as possible. If anyone can identify a hole, please let me know and I will retest. 
     

     

    Test Results
     
    On macOS, I found no way to play bit perfect lossless or Hi-Res audio from Apple Music. In addition to a couple other nonsensical issues that I'll get into later, Apple is doing something to the music it streams. 

     

    Test 1, streaming Pearl Jam's Live On Two Legs release I was able to illuminate the HDCD indicator for the first couple seconds of playback. After this, the light went out for good, even if I skipped to the next track. When I clicked the play button to start the entire album over again, the HDCD indicator illuminated again for a few seconds. If I had to guess, I'd say this is because of watermarking mandated by the major record labels. Apple has a perfect copy of the album on its servers, the perfect copy starts, but then something changes in the stream that causes the music to not be bit perfect. I'm open to all input on what this could possibly be, but watermarking is my best educated guess for now. 

     

    Test 2, streaming the Reference Recording's album Exactly Like This from Doug MacLeod, displays different behavior and bolsters my aforementioned watermarking theory. This album, from a very small independent record label that I don't believe watermarks it's music, alters between bit perfect and not bit perfect. Upon playback, the HDCD indicator is on sometimes then off for a period of time, then back on etc... I really don't have a good guess for why this happens. I originally thought maybe an adaptive bit rate issue caused it, but even after downloading the tracks to my device offline and playing them, the problem remained. 

     

    Test 3, streaming the Reference Recording's album Break The Chain from Doug MacLeod produced the identical behavior. The only difference here was that the album was Apple's Hi-Res offering at 24 bit 176.4 kHz. Again, no solid bit perfect playback. Something is happening to the music. 

     

    A note about Apple's Hi-Res offerings that makes this a real mess. On Macs running macOS / OS X, the Apple Music app looks at the sample rate in Audio Midi upon the app's launch. Whatever same rate is set there, is the sample rate that Apple Music will use for playback as long as the app is open. OK, fine you say, Apple Music lossless is probably 16 bit / 44.1 kHz and that can be set in Audio Midi. Sure, now for the mess. Apple Music Hi-Res is be definition not 16 bit / 44.1 kHz. It go up through 24 bit / 192 kHz. OK, you can run through the whole dance closing Apple Music, manually setting the sampan rate in Audio Midi, then reopening Apple Music and off you go. Oh no you can't. Apple Music doesn't tell you what the sample rate of its Hi-Res music albums. Thus, you have no idea at what sample rate to set Audio Midi. 
     

    UPDATE: To find the sample rate of the album and play it correctly you have to play a track, click the info button to reveal the sample rate, change Audio MIDI to correct sample rate, restart Apple Music, play the track again. 

     

    How did I find the same rate? Fortunately, the Apple Music app on iOS has auto sample rate switching, which enabled me to get the rate, then sixth back to my Mac to run the tests. This was good because I could see the bit perfect audio stream for the first few seconds once I had the correct sample rate set. 


    Note: the Qobuz app plays this music bit perfect on my Mac.

     

     

    On iOS, as I just mentioned, we have the high benefit of automatic sample rate switching when playing music in Apple Music. The results for Test 1, 2, and 3 were identical on iOS as they were on macOS. Bit perfect for the first few seconds of major label albums. Bit perfect on and off for Reference recordings' albums. Apple Music on iOS switched between outputting 44.1 to outputting 176.4 without an issue. If only the audio would remain bit perfect during playback, it would be a great solution. 

     

    I will note that the Qobuz iOS app played everything bit perfect, but there needs to be an asterisk. For some reason Qobuz resamples the 176.4 Doug MacLeod album Break The Chain at 192 kHz on iOS rather than 176.4. I checked Neil Young's greatest hits to make sure I cold stream 192 material bit perfectly from Qobuz and succeeded. iOS and iPhones are fully capable of bit perfect audio at 176.4 kHz, so I'm not sure why Qobuz is resampling the RR releases. 

     


    What About mQa?

     

    There is interesting news on this front. Some labels have snuck mQa material into Apple Music just like they have on other services. Users of Apple Music can search for mQa and they'll see some albums such as the Radka Toneff Fairytales album. The albums playback as mQa on a DAC in my system that is a full mQa decoder. 

     

    I checked a number of other albums that have appeared on Tidal as mQa only and didn't find mQa for these releases on Apple Music. 

     

    As readers of Audiophile Style know, I'm no fan of mQa and am very pleased it hasn't made its way into more releases or officially into Apple Music. Those who may be reading this as fans of Apple Music, rather than typical audiophile offerings, and aren't familiar with mQa, can get the gist of it and the company from the following videos.


    Part 1 - https://youtu.be/pRjsu9-Vznc
    Part 2 - https://youtu.be/NHkqWZ9jzA0

     


    Wrap Up

     

    As it stands now, Apple Music's lossless and Hi-Res offerings are a bit of a soup sandwich. You can't really stream the audio without some type of DSP going on that makes the music different from the lossless version on CD and on other lossless services. My guess is digital watermarking. In addition, it's not possible to get a consistent lossless or Hi-Res stream for other music that I tested, such as that from Reference Recordings. When I ran into similar issues with Amazon Music HD, using its apps just like I used the Apple Music apps, I was happy to find the Amazon Music HD streams lossless and Hi-Res through third party devices from Bluesound. Given that Apple doesn't integrate with Bluesound, I can't test this. Apple does integrate with Sonos, but as I found previously (link), the new Sonos Port can't stream bit perfect either, so a test on that platform would be useless. 

     

    I will happily update this article if there are holes in my tests or something else changes. As it stands now, I don't know of any holes and I stand by these conclusions. 

     

     

     




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    With the demise of iTunes, Apple Music is the successor, in name only perhaps. Historically,  iTunes didn't auto sample rate IIRC, so why should we expect the successor to be any different? With the advent of audirvana +, it changed the sample rate in audio midi to suit the track, big leap forward leaving iTunes in the dust.

     

    So what's really changed...

    Hires is ALAC, where is DSD, FLAC or multi channel for real?

    Atmos 🤣

    No auto sample rate 

    mQa, thank the stars

    content of iTunes online library = Apple Music library

    Similar offerings of Qobuz, at least Qobuz integrates with 3rd party apps and hardware

    If AAC or lossy music is your choice, there are many to choose from with identical libraries, Spotify, Deezer et al.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    So it’s a almost 6 year old interview. Still I think it has a lot of useful information. Spend at least the first 15 to 20 minutes and educate yourself. Maybe we’re shooing the wrong way ? It’s not Apple, it’s the recording industry. 
     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, R1200CL said:

    So it’s a almost 6 year old interview. Still I think it has a lot of useful information. Spend at least the first 15 to 20 minutes and educate yourself. Maybe we’re shooing the wrong way ? It’s not Apple, it’s the recording industry. 
     

     

    An hour? oh, I need to re-arrange the sock drawer....

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    10 hours ago, R1200CL said:

     

    Summary:

     

    First link: anything over 16/44.1 is Hi-Res (matches Qobuz definition)

     

    Second link: Hi-Res must be 24-bit and must be 48kHz or higher

     

    Third link: my interpretation is that the author prefers 24/96 for Hi-Res, and dismisses 24/48 as not Hi-Res (matches Apple definition)

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, Marco Klobas said:

     

    Thanks.

     

    I posted the link on another forum where someone replied to my concerns about forced mixing with "No one’s forcing anything on recordings.".

     

    I'm not completely convinced about Dolby Atmos. It can be done for new productions – only if the artist agrees of course and, anyway, it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

     

    For past productions I'd be very cautious.

     

    I'm worried that it could be widely adopted for three reasons:

     

    1. Apple is believing in it and pushing it
    2. Sonic differences are noticeable by anybody. It's not like hi-res which only audiophiles with golden ears say they perceive the improvement
    3. It's easily reachable with headphones. Most people listen today with headphones. It's already there: available for everyone

     

    The third point means that even if audiophiles are interested in Dolby Atmos, then they can't enjoy it on their current 2 channel systems. They would have to update their system to how many speakers? 4, 5, 7?

     

    If a new 2 channel Hi-Fi system costs from ~ 2 grands up, how much would it cost a multichannel system (I'm not talking of cheap home theater)?

     

    Not to mention the proper space to host 3x or more speakers. Sure, not all enthusiasts have cramped rooms. Still, I don't think the majority would upgrade to multichannel.

     

    Luckily, the stereo isn't going away. Dolby Atmos and stereo currently coexist.

    I wouldn't worry about Dolby 'insert codec lettering here' making inroads. Historically, there's B, C for cassettes which made a splash, the cursed A in studios, and so many other codecs, none have stood the test of time. I didn't like Dolby on cassette, took out too many highs and preferred the dbx system for noise reduction, sideline there.

     

    Much like MQA, Dolby is a closed shop, who wants/needs that. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi there, 

     

    I have a question regarding the methodology. If I understand the description correctly your assessment of bit perfect playback is based on HDCD encoded files, which are basically 20 bit files encoded into 16 bit files for dynamic range adjustment and some other additions at the CD sampling rate. In the context of audiophile audio, HDCD is a lossy compression format that needs to be decoded to get the better-than-CD 'original', with some artefacts the lossy part of the encoding entails (in case loss of some LSBs). 

    From an engineering point of view, a sensible thing for Apple to do with HDCD files it may have as masters provided by a record label on their servers would be to get the best possible software renderer to 'decompress' the HDCD files into 24 bit ALAC files at the original sampling rate for streaming. This makes the files independent of the DAC hardware a customer may have, while providing the best possible audio quality that can be derived from the source material. 

    You can of course argue that such a stream is not 'the bit perfect original', but this is bordering on semantics at that point, given that if Apple streamed the original HDCD file then the customers DAC has to do the same decompression of the file, it just happens on the other side of the transmission chain. 

    For an audiophile user of a streaming service the question of what exactly the service provider does with record label side lossy compressed files in HDCD or MQA formats is somewhat beside the point, given the record label has already adulterated the files with lossy compression. The real question for audiophile users is if they can get access to the uncompressed version of files in 24b/96kHz+ where the record labels made them available, which hopefully will be increasingly the case. 

    The reason I am writing all this is that your article gets linked on audiophile forums by users effectively paraphrasing your article as 'Apple lossless streams are not really lossless' which is really a bit of a distortion, given that all you looked at was how Apple handles files provided by the label in a particular lossy compressed format. Not sure if the intention of the article was to cast this aspersion, but if it wasn't then it might be worth noting somewhere in your article that your methodology does not suggest in any way that music files provided by the record label to Apple in a lossless high-res format would arrive at a customer's DAC in an altered form. 

     

    Let me know what you think. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Seems like this whole Apple project was rushed. Is anyone else also having issues of gapless albums having gaps in them? It seems like an intermittent bug.

    Over on Reddit the Sonos subreddit is going off about how much better lossless sounds. That is, even though it’s likely that AirPlay (the only way they can listen atm) is probably playing 256AAC instead. I think Apple has, if anything, added a little more volume to the lossless tracks. That is what many are perceiving as better quality. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 hours ago, Electroecstatic said:

    Hi there, 

     

    I have a question regarding the methodology. If I understand the description correctly your assessment of bit perfect playback is based on HDCD encoded files, which are basically 20 bit files encoded into 16 bit files for dynamic range adjustment and some other additions at the CD sampling rate. In the context of audiophile audio, HDCD is a lossy compression format that needs to be decoded to get the better-than-CD 'original', with some artefacts the lossy part of the encoding entails (in case loss of some LSBs). 

    From an engineering point of view, a sensible thing for Apple to do with HDCD files it may have as masters provided by a record label on their servers would be to get the best possible software renderer to 'decompress' the HDCD files into 24 bit ALAC files at the original sampling rate for streaming. This makes the files independent of the DAC hardware a customer may have, while providing the best possible audio quality that can be derived from the source material. 

    You can of course argue that such a stream is not 'the bit perfect original', but this is bordering on semantics at that point, given that if Apple streamed the original HDCD file then the customers DAC has to do the same decompression of the file, it just happens on the other side of the transmission chain. 

    For an audiophile user of a streaming service the question of what exactly the service provider does with record label side lossy compressed files in HDCD or MQA formats is somewhat beside the point, given the record label has already adulterated the files with lossy compression. The real question for audiophile users is if they can get access to the uncompressed version of files in 24b/96kHz+ where the record labels made them available, which hopefully will be increasingly the case. 

    The reason I am writing all this is that your article gets linked on audiophile forums by users effectively paraphrasing your article as 'Apple lossless streams are not really lossless' which is really a bit of a distortion, given that all you looked at was how Apple handles files provided by the label in a particular lossy compressed format. Not sure if the intention of the article was to cast this aspersion, but if it wasn't then it might be worth noting somewhere in your article that your methodology does not suggest in any way that music files provided by the record label to Apple in a lossless high-res format would arrive at a customer's DAC in an altered form. 

     

    Let me know what you think. 


    I disagree with almost everything in your comment. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, Electroecstatic said:

    Hi there, 

     

    I have a question regarding the methodology. If I understand the description correctly your assessment of bit perfect playback is based on HDCD encoded files, which are basically 20 bit files encoded into 16 bit files for dynamic range adjustment and some other additions at the CD sampling rate. In the context of audiophile audio, HDCD is a lossy compression format that needs to be decoded to get the better-than-CD 'original', with some artefacts the lossy part of the encoding entails (in case loss of some LSBs). 

    From an engineering point of view, a sensible thing for Apple to do with HDCD files it may have as masters provided by a record label on their servers would be to get the best possible software renderer to 'decompress' the HDCD files into 24 bit ALAC files at the original sampling rate for streaming. This makes the files independent of the DAC hardware a customer may have, while providing the best possible audio quality that can be derived from the source material. 

    You can of course argue that such a stream is not 'the bit perfect original', but this is bordering on semantics at that point, given that if Apple streamed the original HDCD file then the customers DAC has to do the same decompression of the file, it just happens on the other side of the transmission chain. 

    For an audiophile user of a streaming service the question of what exactly the service provider does with record label side lossy compressed files in HDCD or MQA formats is somewhat beside the point, given the record label has already adulterated the files with lossy compression. The real question for audiophile users is if they can get access to the uncompressed version of files in 24b/96kHz+ where the record labels made them available, which hopefully will be increasingly the case. 

    The reason I am writing all this is that your article gets linked on audiophile forums by users effectively paraphrasing your article as 'Apple lossless streams are not really lossless' which is really a bit of a distortion, given that all you looked at was how Apple handles files provided by the label in a particular lossy compressed format. Not sure if the intention of the article was to cast this aspersion, but if it wasn't then it might be worth noting somewhere in your article that your methodology does not suggest in any way that music files provided by the record label to Apple in a lossless high-res format would arrive at a customer's DAC in an altered form. 

     

    Let me know what you think. 

    I will add that Apple can’t be doing anything to the HDCD files because they work off and on throughout the tracks. If any decoding was done, the LSB is destroyed and they wouldn’t work at all. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:


    I disagree with almost everything in your comment. 


    Chris

     

    In this case, I think a better feedback and explanation is required. It seems to me @Electroecstatic has some technical points here that I think should be confirmed if it’s wrong or not. 
     

    I also hope that those that has been comparing MQA in other posts, can do the same with Apple lossless. 
     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    10 minutes ago, R1200CL said:


    Chris

     

    In this case, I think a better feedback and explanation is required. It seems to me @Electroecstatic has some technical points here that I think should be confirmed if it’s wrong or not. 
     

    I also hope that those that has been comparing MQA in other posts, can do the same with Apple lossless. 
     

     

    See my second response. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    In order to enjoy hi res music, you must know if the studio did use proper gear in the first place. Which you probably can’t. 
     

    Further your equipment must meet the same requirements, where applicable.
    Does your amp, has amplification performance of 40 kHz and above ? 

     

    image.png.47c0b1694a87503507a1ef99e68edc13.png

     

    The hi-res Audio logo is an HW requirement. It has nothing to do with the music. Qobuz and others is misusing the logo. 
     

    Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) introduces the following guidelines for certification. Hardware made for hi-res audio must meet certain requirements before it can be branded with the distinguished logo. Some of these requirements include:

    • A microphone response performance of 40 kHz and above
    • Able to record, decode and play 96 kHz / 24 bit formats
    • Amplification performance of 40 kHz and above

    image.png.d298c3bb1673014d5b5ea04680c5d28e.png
     

    Now this is the hi res music logo. (No one is using ?)
    image.png.803d9489e535e2e7df2617e6f97b2774.png

     

    The Hi-Res MUSIC logo, announced in June and developed by 2B Communications at the request of Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group, was designed to help music fans identify those high resolution recordings that are available from digital music retailers in the U.S., Canada, and Europe for commercial downloads or streaming. High Resolution Music is officially defined as “lossless audio capable of reproducing the full spectrum of sound from recordings which have been mastered from better than CD quality (48kHz/20-bit or higher) music sources that represent what the artists, producers and engineers originally intended.”
     

    https://www.riaa.com/hi-res-music-logo-widely-adopted-as-official-measure-of-highest-quality-digital-recordings/


    https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=4789

     

    10 hours ago, wklie said:

    Second link: Hi-Res must be 24-bit and must be 48kHz or higher

    According to RIIA this is the requirement. (Ops actually 20 bit. Was that made to include HDCD ?). 
    Of cause confusing that it’s not equal to the HW requirement. 
     

    The video above I posted mentioned all of this during the first 15 minutes. It’s well worth spending those minutes to learn something. It’s very clear what’s being said. 


    The video also says that almost nothing of music today is hi res (by official definition). At 2 million albums available and claimed to be hi res in 2015, less than 1% actually is. 
     

    In may 2019 the status was:

    According to new data compiled by the RIAA from its member labels, more than 33,500 albums representing nearly 400,000 tracks are currently available in Studio Quality formats to stream or download in the U.S.

     

    So I’m thinking we’re screwed anyway, so it won’t matter what Apple is doing. 

     

    That said, a technically correct comparison between a file on Qobuz vs Apple is of cause interesting. 
     

    I suggest use any of these albums. 
    https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=top_tallies&ttt=T1A#search_section

    Based on what’s been stated here:

    https://www.riaa.com/record-labels-crank-up-hi-res-music/

     

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

     

    So I’m thinking we’re screwed anyway, so it won’t matter what Apple is doing

    I just like services to deliver the content without changing it. Apple currently doesn’t offer a way to play lossless or Hi-Res music without bits being changed. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    To continue:

    Here are the facts you should know:

    1. All download and streaming services get the same masters from the labels and make them available to subscribers at varying quality levels according to their own business model. Once they all arrive at CD-Audio spec, we’re getting everything “the artist intended.”
    2. Virtually all of the masters offered by these companies are not bona fide hi-res audio productions. They are “hi-res transfers” of older non hi-res masters. Does anyone think a 192 kHz/24-bit transfer of a recording made in 1932 is hi-res? What about an analog tape track from the 60s?
    3. CD-quality is not the same thing as Red Book standard – CD-Audio specification audio. Anything less than 1411.2 kbps is NOT CD-Audio and will require a codec — lossy or lossless — to deliver it. Most CD-quality audio is encoded at 320 kbps.
    4. Qobuz, TIDAL, Deezer, Amazon Music HD, Apple Music, and now Spotify Hi-Fi are delivering standard-resolution audio NOT HD! And it’s OK because no one can tell the difference anyway — remember the HD-Audio Challenge II. Just because they label it HD doesn’t make it so. Amazon Music HD shifted all CD-spec audio to their HD category. Why? Because they want us to think it’s better.
    5. The fidelity of any audio reproduction is established at the time of the original recording and the master is delivered to the label NOT by the platform that ultimately delivers it to you. They can only make it worse. Sure, TIDAL, Apple and the others want us to believe we’re at the dawn of a new listening experience a high-resolution experience, but it’s all marketing nonsense. A well made recording at Red Book specification can sound astounding and is sufficient to meet even the most discerning audiophile. Just think of all of the bandwidth and storage we’re saving.
    6. Avoid MQA, DXD, DSD and stick with good old PCM. It’s been the standard in the industry since the 70s and will continue to outclass all of the newcomers.

    https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=7241
     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    6 hours ago, R1200CL said:

    .......and now Spotify Hi-Fi

     

    Is it now released?

     

    Matt

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 6/12/2021 at 3:21 AM, Heckyman said:


    Yes, I followed the instructions here:

     

    For those who are interested, I was able to make it work, with loopback and also with black hole (that is a free driver). To use black hole, you have to configure it as the default input and the default output device in Audio Midi.

     

    I was not able to get DSD output from HQPlayer.. But PCM worked very well. It was not needed to manually adjust the sample rate on the HQPlayer dropdown menu (that is shown in the instructions). 44.1khz worked with all apple music files.

     

    Thanks again for pointing me to these instructions.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    This article motivated me to get a free trial of Apple Music. My company-managed MacBook Pro can't be upgraded to Big Sur yet, required to play lossless and Dolby Atmos from Apple Music, so I checked things out with my iPad mini. 

     

    In the past my testing has determined that I personally can not distinguish between 320Kbps Lossy, FLAC lossless, WAV/AIFF rip from a CD or "hi-res". And Archimago's experiment years ago showed many audiophiles actually preferred the sound of a 320Kbps track. So listening to "lossless" tracks in Apple Music wasn't very interesting to me.

     

    What was interesting though was Dolby Atmos, and in a very surprising and positive way. I listed to a lot of Atmos tracks on my Sennheiser 650's, again just using the audio jack of my iPad. As many articles have stated, the quality of the Dolby tracks is all over the map. But the few that are done well, are really amazing. I doubt Atmos will pick up a large following in the audiophile community, but for the general public it's going to be significant, especially those totally into the Apple ecosystem of devices and earphones.

     

    I ordered an Apple CCK that will be arriving today. The next step is to get a digital output of the Apple Music stream on my iPad and send it to my Schitt Modi/Magni headphone combo and listen using both my Sennheiser and Oppo PM-3 headphones. I also listened to a bunch of Atmos tracks on my Sonos Arc sounder (with Sonos Sub-woofer), driven by an Apple TV 4K. It was a lot of fun. Dolby Atmos is not MQA!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Testing with the android beta just released in my Sony Xperia 1 II. Dolby Atmos is unusable (the phone supports it), but the good news is that with the Zorloo Ztella USB DAC appears to be playing bit perfect for the lossless and hires tracks.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, Juan Triana said:

    the Zorloo Ztella USB DAC appears to be playing bit perfect for the lossless and hires tracks.

    How would you test this?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    How would you test this?

    Because the colour LED in the Ztella lights according to the frequency it receives. As far with the tracks played is behaving accordingly to the stated in the Apple Music app. Tomorrow I will try with a Topping E30.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 minutes ago, Juan Triana said:

    Because the colour LED in the Ztella lights according to the frequency it receives. As far with the tracks played is behaving accordingly to the stated in the Apple Music app. Tomorrow I will try with a Topping E30.

    Frequency doesn’t mean bit perfect. If you convert a WAV file to MP3 it still plays at the same frequency, but without a ton of bits. 
     

    If you reduce the digital volume you reduce bits prior to the DAC, but the frequency remains the same. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    In the second point, you mention log messages.

     

    Can you elaborate how do you get AirPlay logs?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now




×
×
  • Create New...