Apple “has been developing Hi-Res Audio streaming up to 96kHz/24bit in 2016,” Mac Otakara reports, citing “several insiders familiar with Apple.”
“The Lightning terminal with iOS 9 is compatible up to 192kHz/24Bit,” Mac Otakara reports, “but we do not have information on the sampling frequency of Apple Music download music.”
Mac Otakara reports, “Also, many high-end audio manufacturers plan to add audio cables for Lightning to their lineups in 2016, and they apparently are preparing themselves for Apple Music’s Hi-Res Audio.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Higher quality sound is, of course, always welcome!
With so many Hi-Res audio players out there, you’d think Apple would have released some Hi-Res iPods by now. Come on Apple, how ’bout a redesigned iPod Classic with solid state memory, larger screen, thinner design, and Hi-Res Audio?
You’re an idiot: iPods are dead.
wow an echoey statement from the future. Clearly hi def didn’t catch on after all.
boo – don’t call someone an idiot thats not cool!
you probably should have included a /s with that.
I’m sure the iPod Touch will include the Hi-Res output at some point.
You only need hi def audio if the content deserves it.
More importantly, you only need hi-res audio streaming if there is anyone willing to pay for it. And that is the one single reason why it isn’t going to happen.
And yet it IS happening.
I shop from 5 different HiRes sites, listen to Tidal HiFi, and enjoy reading about new gear (again).
As the price of storage and streaming goes down while with the quality of affordable equipment goes up, HiFi is enjoying a mini-boom.
Maybe not enough to justify Apple getting it the game, but still I haven’t seen this much interest since the mid-80s.
Here is a nice low price starter system.
Onkyo Integrated
ELAC Speakers
You can easily go half this price and still get decent sound.
Double it and hear serious stuff!
Just stick a Mac in it and go….
Compared to what I have now, can I hear the difference with hi def audio?
Statistically, no. Numerous ABX studies have been replicated showing that these super high-resolution audio files are nothing but snake oil. Read here:
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Wrong, but you probably aren’t the type to notice a difference anyhow.
First off, how do you know what he has currently? AAC? MP3?
Of course he won’t notice a difference….in a car or with cheap buds. But that’s fine, they are designed for that.
BUT, if you have a hallway decent system and LISTEN to music rather than play it for background or melody, you WILL notice a difference, as long as the files were kept from ever being low-quality, just as in photography.
Wrong, but your reading comprehension skills are crap anyhow.
“First off, how do you know what he has currently? AAC? MP3?”
That’s why I said, “statistically no.”
Of course if he has crap files there’s going to be a difference, but in the context here, on an Apple forum, talking about Apple offering higher resolution files, there’s an implication that we’re talking about 256kbps AAC files, or again as I said, statistically what people are using here within this context.
BUT, if you have a hallway decent system and LISTEN to music rather than play it for background or melody, you WILL notice a difference, as long as the files were kept from ever being low-quality
What’s funny is you declare “wrong” in regards to assuming what the person has, but then go on to make the same assumption. How do you know he doesn’t have high resolution ALAC, FLAC, WAV, or AIFF files?
You’re wrong regardless. Statistically numerous studies have shown given ABX testing, no significant number of people can notice a difference in CD quality audio or even 256kbps AAC and higher resolution regardless of equipment or environment.
Try doing a better job reading the article than you do reading comments.
Maybe if you’re head wasn’t so far up your ass and you actually paid attention to sound more than other peoples opinions you would hear the difference.
Study your statistics.
I’m enjoying Shorter’s “Juju” at 24/96.
Guess which one of us will actually be learning reality?
When you use someone else’s opinion to explain away something you don’t understand, you sound pretty naive.
I tell you what ‘towertone’ it’s people like you that answer the question of why there will never be a world without war.
If you can get this upset about something as unimportant as freaking audio sound quality then what the hell are you going to do when someone threatens you for real?
Pull out your gun, that’s what.
In about 8 days from now you’ll be singing “Imagine” and in 2016 go right back to arguing the toss with total strangers online.
Get a damn life.
I would NEVER sing ‘Imagine’ anywhere near Christ’ (celebrated) birthday. Wow.
And yes, when you say something silly, come back after a reply by telling someone their reading skills are crap, best thing to do is lob a silly assertion.
I give you credit. At least you didn’t call me a racist.
Warmonger is a new one and a laugh!
(BTW, I don’t own a gun)
which technology manufactured by Apple needs a higher sound quality? Surely not iPhone, not iWatch, and not the set top box. Mac maybe or some new, undisclosed tech. on which Rose did not report.
That technology, if it’s in the works, must be compelling to justify the increase in data rate costs, but perhaps Apple is working on a super duper compression algorithm for sound or else planning to roll out its own ISP system which would be a sale leader in support of its hardware as its music initiative mostly is.
I know that the Alpine CarPlay stereo iLX-007 down samples to 22.5 k/Hz…. Very disappointed with that.
I think you’re confusing the sound frequency with the digital sampling frequency. CDs, which are 16-bit 44.1kHz, can carry a frequency range, according to the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, that exceeds human hearing (20-20kHz)
Wrong again…they carry PARTS of the entire range.
Very important distinction.
You’re an idiot looking for an argument. Where exactly did I write that a CD carries the entire range?
Really, you start out by citing statics and snake oil concerning something you can’t appreciate and say I am the one looking for an argument???
And yes, your statement above implies exactly what you said it doesn’t concerning frequency range, regardless of your intent.
Jeeze, maybe if you would step back and consider that just because you don’t want to pay a few dollars extra for something you don’t get might not be the best reason to attempt to explain it away.
I hope Neil Young’s dream comes true. I produce music and love the sound 192/24bit. My best mixes sound like crap at 44.1 and worse MP3. there is also a good chance those dissing this steal music because the data size at hi SR rates will prevent this. hahaha. Long live high fidelity!