Article: Apple Music's Lossless and Hi-Res Mess

[One and a half]

I read all this and wonder why vinyl made a comeback the way it has.

Half full is true, modestly put, half assed a better description. Will give it some time, there's ios15 or 19 to look forward too.

[One and a half]

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.

[One and a half]

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....

[One and a half]

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.