APPLE

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 2439 times.

GeneS

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 51
Re: APPLE
« Reply #40 on: 10 Jun 2021, 07:05 pm »
I’m probably going to get some of this wrong, James, but I’m sure I’ll be corrected which is cool.
Apple is not making this easy. My understanding is that an iMac (with OS) will do it, but does not have an “exclusive mode”, so whatever setting you have in your MIDI setting is what will be applied to the bitrate across the board. You’ll need to go in and manually change it each time the bitrate changes.
iOS on Apple devices will do it through the Apple Music app, but Bluetooth and Airplay can’t do hi-res, so it will need to be hard wired and hi-res will need an outboard DAC (versus lossless).
The Roon community has a lengthy discussion on this, with plenty of people trying different combinations of hardware and connectivity to see what works.
Darko also did a video on what combination of things will and won’t work to provide lossless/hi-res.
That’s all I’ve got because my head is kind of spinning with all this!

Gumby

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 89
Re: APPLE
« Reply #41 on: 10 Jun 2021, 07:31 pm »
I’d also like to try Apple TV as an Apple Music player.  But I don’t have a Dac with HDMI inputs. I have coax and optical inputs.

Is there such a thing as an HDMI to coax audio and video splitter?


BCRich1

Re: APPLE
« Reply #42 on: 11 Jun 2021, 01:40 am »
Hi Gumby,
You need what’s called an HDMI Audio De-embedder. You connect the Apple TV HDMI out to it, then a second HDMI is needed to go out of the De-embedder to your TV, there will also be more than likely an optical out not coax to go to your DAC. Make sue you set the Apple TV audio to PCM.
Enjoy,
Mike

dangerdawg

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 4
Re: APPLE
« Reply #43 on: 16 Jun 2021, 07:43 am »
I'm definitely disappointed with Apple's implementation of this. Coming from someone that has used Apple hardware and software for commercial audio production for the past 25 years, they know better, but apparently don't care. The full embrace of spatial audio for 2 channel music is even more discouraging.


I’m probably going to get some of this wrong, James, but I’m sure I’ll be corrected which is cool.
Apple is not making this easy. My understanding is that an iMac (with OS) will do it, but does not have an “exclusive mode”, so whatever setting you have in your MIDI setting is what will be applied to the bitrate across the board. You’ll need to go in and manually change it each time the bitrate changes.
iOS on Apple devices will do it through the Apple Music app, but Bluetooth and Airplay can’t do hi-res, so it will need to be hard wired and hi-res will need an outboard DAC (versus lossless).
The Roon community has a lengthy discussion on this, with plenty of people trying different combinations of hardware and connectivity to see what works.
Darko also did a video on what combination of things will and won’t work to provide lossless/hi-res.
That’s all I’ve got because my head is kind of spinning with all this!

FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 15870
  • To whom more was given more will be required.
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.
Re: APPLE
« Reply #44 on: 16 Jun 2021, 08:51 am »
I'm definitely disappointed with Apple's implementation of this. Coming from someone that has used Apple hardware and software for commercial audio production for the past 25 years, they know better, but apparently don't care. The full embrace of spatial audio for 2 channel music is even more discouraging.
OB speakers emit 360° of sound field what made Spatials equal to various multi channels with only 2 speakers, but you can buy more Spatials if desired.

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 18582
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: APPLE
« Reply #45 on: 19 Jun 2021, 12:23 pm »






James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 18582
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: APPLE
« Reply #46 on: 19 Jun 2021, 12:45 pm »
Thought this was a good think piece:



It looks like three companies control 70% of the market. They offer, or will soon offer, music in lossless sound quality, at a base price of $ 9.99 per month, much less than what is charged by their competitors, Deezer, Napster, Tidal, Qobuz and Google Play Music (now YouTube Music).  “They can just lower their prices to preserve their market share!” I hear you saying.  That could only work in the short term; at their monthly rate of $9.99 per month, Amazon, Spotify, and Apple will always have more to offer than their competition.

A Tidal subscription for an individual costs $19.99 per month. Soon, Apple will offer a monthly subscription for $9.99 for its HiFi service, but for $14.99 per month you will have access to the following services: Apple Music, Apple TV +, Arcade, and 50 GB (gigabytes) of added storage on iCloud.  For nearly the same monthly price as Tidal, $20.99, Apple is giving access to the aforementioned services for every member of the family plus an additional 200 GB of storage on iCloud.
 
Another example:  Amazon sells its Prime membership for $7.99 per month.  The subscription includes: express and free shipping on millions of items, Prime Video, Prime Music, exclusive deals, and limited access to Prime Reading.  As a Prime member, for $7.99 per month, I’ll have access to Amazon Music HD.  Good thing then that Amazon Music signed an agreement on October 2 with Universal Music Group and Warner Music. Under this agreement, several thousand songs and albums in HD will be available only on the Amazon Music HD platform (https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/amazon-music-partners-with-universal-warner-to- exclusively-offer-streaming-albums-in-better-than-cd-quality-ultra-hd /)
 
For around $15 per month, Apple and Amazon offer a multitude of services and some exclusives.  Which online music services do you think consumers will choose?
If Tidal, Deezer, and Qobuz try to compete, their financial losses could prove disastrous. Not only that, but it’ll be near impossible to get fresh cash flow injections to offset those losses. Investors will want to hold on to what money they have left before the boat sinks.

Apple and Amazon, on the other hand, can sustain financial losses from their online music services, as long as these help sell iPhones, AirPods, Apple Watches, and Amazon Prime subscriptions.
Spotify, meanwhile, will have to produce exclusive content like its podcast service or buy out other businesses to complement its activities if it wants to grow, all the while keeping its monthly subscription cost as low as possible.

 Let’s return to the second chart. It shows us that the streaming industry is only in its infancy. Growth will remain constant until at least 2027 and will benefit almost exclusively three companies. Because of their market share, these companies will be able to dictate how the artists, producers, and record companies will be treated, particularly when it comes to how royalties are paid out for songs listened to. I worry for our artists and the music, especially for less popular genres like classical music, blues, and jazz.

This seismic shift in the industry will also affect developers of music management software like Audirvana and Roon that depend on services like Qobuz and Tidal.  Apple, Spotify, and Amazon have one thing in common; they offer no choice to the consumer as to what playback software they can use to listen to their music — it’s their way or the highway. Sonos remains an exception due to old contractual agreements.
Apple, Amazon and Spotify want to keep the consumer inside their respective ecosystems.  You’ll understand, then, why streamers will all come with Apple Connect software, Amazon HD Connect, and Spotify Connect. Your phone and iPad will be your remote control to connect to the world at large, but also to your music stored on the cloud. Backups to a NAS or external hard drive will be things of the past.  They’re so old school!

I’d like to end on the subject of succession. Wouldn’t it be nice if the younger generations of music listeners wanted to listen to quality recordings?

« Last Edit: 19 Jun 2021, 02:04 pm by James Tanner »

Mag

Re: APPLE
« Reply #47 on: 19 Jun 2021, 02:59 pm »
I have to object to this last line- I’d like to end on the subject of succession. Wouldn’t it be nice if the younger generations of music listeners wanted to listen to quality recordings?

IMO Amazon HD has the best sound quality that I have heard, certainly true with some albums maybe not all. This however is dependent on your connection speed and device being used.

I don't see myself jumping on the Apple bandwagon because for me Apple is a proprietor platform. :|

gbaby

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 583
Re: APPLE
« Reply #48 on: 19 Jun 2021, 07:30 pm »
Thought this was a good think piece:


It was. Thank you.

GrooveControl

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 88
Re: APPLE
« Reply #49 on: 20 Jun 2021, 03:42 am »
Apple, Spotify, and Amazon have one thing in common; they offer no choice to the consumer as to what playback software they can use to listen to their music — it’s their way or the highway.
Not sure about this statement James. Volumio has a Spotify plug-in that lets you search, select and play music from Spotify without the Spotify app.  I used it for a bit, but preferred the Spotify app, so don’t use it anymore. 

You’ll understand, then, why streamers will all come with Apple Connect software, Amazon HD Connect, and Spotify Connect. Your phone and iPad will be your remote control …?
I don’t think Apple has connect software that functions like Spotify.  For Apple, the phone or iPad app is what actually plays the music and then casts it to an airplay compatible device. Turn your phone off and the music stops playing.  I don’t like all the network hops this requires and choose Spotify specifically for this reason.  I’ll have to try that again, maybe things have changed.

Thanks for sharing. Great info. 

GrooveControl

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 88
Re: APPLE
« Reply #50 on: 20 Jun 2021, 01:58 pm »
So I checked, and Apple still has the same architecture.  Here is a simple diagram to explain. Green arrows are remote controller communications, Red are music playback... 




IMHO Spotify slaps Apple, and will soon have lossless too. 

Things that matter to me are...

- less network hops
- not wasting battery in the controller while playing music
- ability to seamlessly jump from one controller to another
- wider device support
- not locked into Apple eco system. 

Gumby

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 89
Re: APPLE
« Reply #51 on: 22 Jun 2021, 02:46 pm »
Now that my excitement of Apple Lossless has worn off, I still prefer the sound and experience of CD and LP.

Its great that lossless is finally here at incredible pricing compared to others, but Streaming lacks that certain something. 

My CD player is entry level yet it sounds better than all Streaming tests I’ve done with Tidal HiFi, Amazon, Apple Lossless & Hi Res. 

A/B…ing song to song is not so obvious.  Play a full album, then put its CD or LP and something unexplainable happens….it feels better. That’s the only way I can express it.

rayl325

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 4
Re: APPLE
« Reply #52 on: 22 Jun 2021, 06:47 pm »
So am I understanding that Apple TV 4K doesnt support lossless if outputed to a DAC via optical out of an HDMI extractor?

RDavidson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2738
Re: APPLE
« Reply #53 on: 22 Jun 2021, 06:53 pm »
Play a full album, then put its CD or LP and something unexplainable happens….it feels better. That’s the only way I can express it.

There's something to be said about the "ritual" of carefully choosing the physical album one wishes to sit and listen to versus having it all there at your finger tips. I'm the same way. When I want to do some intentional listening I still drop a CD in the player. When I want to listen while I'm doing other things, like work, I stream. Streaming is certainly much more convenient and I also like the variety of music to discover. If I really like something I heard via streaming, I'm apt to buy the CD. I feel both streaming and physical media playback will have their place for quite a long time. I don't think of streaming as a substitute, but as an additive to the overall music enjoyment ecosystem.