JD1973 Posted May 21, 2021 Posted May 21, 2021 1 hour ago, davewantsmoore said: I don't understand why people keep saying that. https://developer.apple.com/musickit/ https://developer.apple.com/documentation/applemusicapi I think if you asked Apple, they would say there already is. The AppleTV / iPhone. You can play content on your iPhone (or any other device) and have it play out the AppleTV. You can plat content on the AppleTV and remotely control that playback is from another device. .... or as above. Any other (3rd party) device/app, can integrate Apple Music. Developers may not find the "apple way" palatable. Apple are renowned for closed/inflexibility in what ways are supported to achieve things. .... but to say they don't exist is incorrect. David that's great info! I am surprised... because why then do the streamer boxes not integrate like for Tidal/Spotify/Qobuz etc? It does look like it's all there? The thing about iPhone is I can start music off, but if I leave the WiFi my Apple Music stops, whereas my TidalConnect / Spotify Connect keep going. I can't use my AppleTV without turning my projector on. The whole thing about music is there isn't a visual part to it. Its.... audio. I don't mind using my phone as a remote control but not as the hub. I want my dedicated streamer to be the thing receiving the stream... I am wondering why the API isn't being used.
John0001 Posted May 21, 2021 Posted May 21, 2021 (edited) Just a thought but maybe because Apple only offered lossy streaming and weren't considered an "Audiophile" option? Now that high-rez is on the table perhaps it will be taken more seriously? Edited May 21, 2021 by John0001 typo 2
davewantsmoore Posted May 21, 2021 Posted May 21, 2021 5 hours ago, JD1973 said: David that's great info! I am surprised... because why then do the streamer boxes not integrate like for Tidal/Spotify/Qobuz etc? It does look like it's all there? Likely because the Apple APIs are not available for their language / infrastructure of choice. 5 hours ago, JD1973 said: I can't use my AppleTV without turning my projector on. If you airplay audio to the ATV you don't need the screen on. Alternatively if you play content from the ATV (which might need the screen on to begin) you can remotely control it with the screen off.
davewantsmoore Posted May 21, 2021 Posted May 21, 2021 6 hours ago, stereo coffee said: Depressing more like it, as it is heavily proprietary based. The four essential freedoms are, 1. the freedom to use the program as you wish, 2. the freedom to copy and redistribute as you wish. 3.The freedom to modify the code to make the program do what you want to do. 4. the freedom to publish changes to the program I don't see what is stopping you writing an app the follows these principles and uses the Apple MusicKit APIs to access content from Apple Music. 1
Hi-Fi Whipped Posted May 21, 2021 Posted May 21, 2021 Am I right in saying that you can use the Sonos app to play Apple Music? This may be one mainstream way to stream music using the Sonos streaming engine to play it and the Sonos app to control it, plus access hi-res via Apple Music when it comes available.
LHC Posted May 21, 2021 Posted May 21, 2021 6 hours ago, John0001 said: Just a thought but maybe because Apple only offered lossy streaming and weren't considered an "Audiophile" option? Now that high-rez is on the table perhaps it will be taken more seriously? Well I am still waiting for someone to explain this. If Apple only offered lossy streaming to this point, how are they able to switch to offering 'high-rez' streaming from their existing catalogue? You need the music content to be recorded as high-rez to begin with in order to offer them (in good faith) in that streaming format. Where exactly are Apple sourcing the music content for lossless and audiophile hi-rez?
John0001 Posted May 21, 2021 Posted May 21, 2021 I believe they've been collecting the original format from artists for years, they just haven't published it. I think we'll see 100% of the catalogue at 16/44 cd quality (lossless) and then maybe 5-10% true high res. But that's a guess.
TheBlackDisc Posted May 21, 2021 Posted May 21, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, LHC said: Well I am still waiting for someone to explain this. If Apple only offered lossy streaming to this point, how are they able to switch to offering 'high-rez' streaming from their existing catalogue? You need the music content to be recorded as high-rez to begin with in order to offer them (in good faith) in that streaming format. Where exactly are Apple sourcing the music content for lossless and audiophile hi-rez? Apple rarely make the dumbarse mistakes - and we’re talking about one of (if not the) most cashed up corporates in the world… $197B*… who has been in the music biz for 20ish years. For all we know, they’ve been sitting on the highest res digital versions of everything for 2 decades. *https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/01/27/apple-q1-cash-hoard-heres-how-much-apple-has-on-hand.html Edited May 21, 2021 by TheBlackDisc 1
John0001 Posted May 21, 2021 Posted May 21, 2021 1 minute ago, TheBlackDisc said: Apple rarely make the dumbarse mistakes - and we’re talking about one of (if not the) most cashed up corporates in the world… who has been in the music biz for 20ish years. For all we know, they’ve been sitting on the highest res digital versions of everything for 2 decades. Thats correct. They have been.
amandhillon Posted May 21, 2021 Posted May 21, 2021 What are the negative comments about Tidal? Is it pricing for its highest MQA tier or other reasons? Just interested to know why. I’m a very happy Tidal user but wouldn’t mind a lower price overall. 1
Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted May 21, 2021 Author Volunteer Posted May 21, 2021 19 minutes ago, amandhillon said: What are the negative comments about Tidal? Is it pricing for its highest MQA tier or other reasons? Just interested to know why. I’m a very happy Tidal user but wouldn’t mind a lower price overall. Mainly because Tidal is in bed with MQA and MQA is on the nose see here:
LHC Posted May 22, 2021 Posted May 22, 2021 12 hours ago, TheBlackDisc said: For all we know, they’ve been sitting on the highest res digital versions of everything for 2 decades. You could be right (and personally I wish you are right), but it is still only a speculation. As noted in earlier post this Apple 'play' at lossless and hi-rez seems reactionary to the recent change in the market. 1
John0001 Posted May 22, 2021 Posted May 22, 2021 This is Apples specifications for upload of audio files:- https://help.apple.com/itc/videoaudioassetguide/#/itc5a739206b 3
blybo Posted May 22, 2021 Posted May 22, 2021 On 21/05/2021 at 10:20 AM, stereo coffee said: The four essential freedoms are, 1. the freedom to use the program as you wish, 2. the freedom to copy and redistribute as you wish. 3.The freedom to modify the code to make the program do what you want to do. 4. the freedom to publish changes to the program To be defined as freeware perhaps... but why would any business allow what you describe if the software is critical to a revenue source??? Developers may not like Apples tight grip on things, but it tends to give the end user a better and more stable experience. 1
ThirdDrawerDown Posted May 22, 2021 Posted May 22, 2021 19 minutes ago, blybo said: Developers may not like Apples tight grip on things US courts are discussing that now and European courts are about to start doing the same. US State regulators are crafting legislation. "May not like" when it's at US District Court level can only be seen as an understatement. Today, you win the internet! A useful link
davewantsmoore Posted May 22, 2021 Posted May 22, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, LHC said: You could be right (and personally I wish you are right), but it is still only a speculation. No it isn't. It's been nearly a decade (or longer? I'm not sure) since Apple has been requesting artists provide their content to them in the highest sample rate and bit depth (lossless format) available, so apple can encode it into AAC themselves. This lets them ensure that no poor quality sample rate conversion has been done to damage the audio ..... and that the full dynamic range is preserved. So aside from where the artists has failed to do this for some reason, it's safe to assume they have it. Quote As noted in earlier post this Apple 'play' at lossless and hi-rez seems reactionary to the recent change in the market. For sure. Apple have always maintained that "lossy" AAC is completely transparent.... Have they changed their mind? I'd bet no, but they'll bend to the wind. Edited May 22, 2021 by davewantsmoore 1
davewantsmoore Posted May 22, 2021 Posted May 22, 2021 9 minutes ago, ThirdDrawerDown said: US courts are discussing that now and European courts are about to start doing the same. US State regulators are crafting legislation. "May not like" when it's at US District Court level can only be seen as an understatement. Today, you win the internet! This kinda implies that Apple are tightly controlling apple music... which is why nobody integrates it. But that isn't true. Apples "tight control" on stuff (which they certainly do, do) doesn't apply here. Anyone can make any app, which integrates/leverages apple music.
LHC Posted May 22, 2021 Posted May 22, 2021 11 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said: No it isn't. It's been nearly a decade (or longer? I'm not sure) since Apple has been requesting artists provide their content to them in the highest sample rate and bit depth PCM available, so apple can encode it into AAC themselves. This lets them ensure that no poor quality sample rate conversion has been done to damage the audio ..... and that the full dynamic range is preserved. So aside from where the artists has failed to do this for some reason, it's safe to assume they have it. Agree this is the case and verified by @John0001 post above. What this shows is that there is a 'floor' to Apple's catalogue, i.e. the music contents are at least lossless 16/44.1 as the minimum. What remains unknown is what percentage of Apple's catalogue exists in higher resolution. So if a piece of music only exists in Apple as 16/44.1, would they still offer it streamed as hi-rez? Another question, if someone have previously purchased lossy music from Apple, could they now download for free the lossless version on offer? 1
JD1973 Posted May 22, 2021 Posted May 22, 2021 4 minutes ago, LHC said: Another question, if someone have previously purchased lossy music from Apple, could they now download for free the lossless version on offer? the movies I bought on standard AppleTV are now 4K on my new one Doesn’t mean much but might point to their model 1
John0001 Posted May 22, 2021 Posted May 22, 2021 I think that hi-rez (beyond 16/44.1) will depend entirely on what was given to Apple. I'd expect quite a bit at 24/48 as a lot of producers work at that in their DAW, but very little at higher sample rates unless the record label has a particular interest in supplying them. So I'll stick with 16/44 - 100%, 24/48, 96 - 10%, >24/96 - <1%. 1
davewantsmoore Posted May 22, 2021 Posted May 22, 2021 30 minutes ago, LHC said: Another question, if someone have previously purchased lossy music from Apple, could they now download for free the lossless version on offer? Quote The company won’t offer music purchases in lossless quality, nor will there be any way to upgrade owned tracks to lossless with the paid iTunes Match service. No... but elsewhere it implies you can add music to your local library from apple music (in lossless) .... my guess would be then if you stop your subscription, you lose access to the local file (but what would stop you copying the file while still subscribed, I don't know). Will know soon.
John0001 Posted May 22, 2021 Posted May 22, 2021 The one thing I wish Apple would do is allow the Music app to play Flac files. It's weird because the Apple Finder will play them and they allow music to be supplied as Flac, but you can't import or play them in Music. Also, Music is fussy with how files are encoded. I have WAV files that play fine in Roon, Audirvana and even in the Finder that won't import or play in Music. It's a shame as it could be a cheap way to get a player app and streaming content all in one for $10/month. 2
amandhillon Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 On 22/05/2021 at 9:47 AM, sir sanders zingmore said: Mainly because Tidal is in bed with MQA and MQA is on the nose see here: Yes I've seen some of the recent commentary dismissing MQA. I don't buy into it. I like the audio quality. My only gripe is that only about 2 - 3% of the music genres I'm into have MQA releases. I'm hoping that will change. 1
John0001 Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 MQA was a reasonable idea when bandwidth was limited and expensive but is pointless in 2021. Its the mp3 of hi-rez. 1
Esoterica Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 36 minutes ago, John0001 said: MQA was a reasonable idea when bandwidth was limited and expensive but is pointless in 2021. Its the mp3 of hi-rez. You don't live in the country obviously. Bandwidth is still limited and expensive out here. I had satellite NBN which was average speed, on around $60/m for only 60gb peak or thereabouts. Now we're on Telstra 4G, with a couple of phone plans included, the bandwidth is still limited, but at about what we want to use in a month (360gb) and it's around $80-90 which has it's crappy connection/speed moments too, and at best is only around 30mbps, so MQA, whether it's BS or whatever, in my experience, I'll happily listen to Tidal over Qobuz, since I didn't hear much, if any difference in SQ, but there is a huge difference in the stream quality. I've had far more trouble with Qobuz's hires variants, several times not being able to listen at all, because of the state of my internet connection. I'm sure there are many others in the same boat, seeing as the nature of our geographical state.
Recommended Posts