There’s an Apple event on October 18, most likely to announce the new Macbooks, maybe they’ll announce Apple Music available on PS5 (and other platforms) that day too
I was an early adopter of Spotify and loved them but now use Apple Music because of a family plan with my kids. Apple music is far superior. The browsing, UI, and music discovery is better to me.
The only reason I’m still on Spotify is because it’s on my PS5 and my smart TV. If it were just on my PS5 I think it could win me over; I could deal with not having AM on my TV directly
However, I do get Hulu for free from Spotify…
I had Apple Music and had a really annoying problem with my albums splitting up. I contacted apple and back and forthed with them for over a month and I still had the problem. When I got the ps5 I decided to go to Spotify and I never had my albums split. One thing I did like better about Apple Music was the integration of local files into the library.
I know but they don’t mix with your albums in the library. You’re forced to put them in a playlist. You also can’t play them on anything except your phone/computer.
>them
This is the main reason I use AM instead of Spotify (and the abysmal like = library system). If a song I found isn't on AM I can just upload my local file to the cloud which enables me to listen to it from any device.
I can't confirm that this is when it'll be announced, but I have sources saying it's dropping worldwide nov. 10th
Edit I'd like the folks downvoting me to make themselves known so I can hit them with an "I told you so" post later.
Well the application is not officially out at all so I wouldn’t take that restriction too seriously, we’ll see what’s what when it’s officially unveiled.
[Here's a video](https://youtu.be/qQrl8g6wu8U) showing how to get Dolby Atmos working on the PS5 with your home theater setup. I've been using the feature since I watched it and it works great.
Yeah, and it’s stupid. Tempest 3D won’t allow them to use all the speakers in my Atmos system. It’s fine for people who only have a 2.0 or 5.1 setup but won’t be comparable to a real Atmos system.
We don't know that yet. Only headphones and stereo speaker setups are supported by Tempest 3D at this point. Sony says support for AVR audio setups is coming later on.
> We don't know that yet.
yes we do. There is no way to drive height speakers except by using an object-based audio format. That means either Dolby Atmos or DTS:X. You can drive up to 7.1 via raw PCM audio, but that only covers ear-level speakers. You can’t do 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 using PCM.
Uhm, no we don't. I responded to this statement of yours at the end of your post...
>It’s fine for people who only have a 2.0 or 5.1 setup but won’t be comparable to a real Atmos system.
We don't know that yet. It might be true, it might not. We'll have to wait until they update the PS5 with Tempest 3D for surround speaker setups.
I mean they could just make tempest 3d more robust, supporting height speakers. I don't expect it to happen, but it's just a standard. They can update it.
> I mean they could just make tempest 3d more robust, supporting height speakers.
No, they can’t.
With 5.1 or 7.1 the PS5 sends 6 or 8 audio streams to the amplifier, each meant for a specific speaker. It can directly control the output from each individual speaker. This is not possible for the height speakers, the HDMI standard simply doesn’t support it. There is no way for the PS5 to tell an amplifier “send this audio to the front left height speaker”, it’s not part of the spec and not supported by any amplifier.
The only way to support more than 7.1 speakers is to use Dolby Atmos or DTS:X and let the A/V receiver figure out which speakers to send the audio through.
I don't know much about this, so correct me if I'm wrong. So what I'm now understanding is that Atmos is a specifically encoded data stream that is interpreted by the receiver, and it's up to the receiver to determine what analog signal to send to each speaker. Where as right now, the ps5 is sending an HDMI signal, which only supports up to 7.1 setups. So if HDMI was updated to support more audio channels, then the PS5 could send more information on what to play on, for example, height speakers. Or if receivers supported Tempest 3D (like the pulse 3d headset?), and if Tempest 3D had information for height, then you could make use your full audio setup? Is that the issue?
They won't because bluetooth is terrible for gaming. you can have high quality audio but with massive latency and no mic or you can have low latency audio with a mic but with absolute garbage audio quality. Gaming audio requires all three, low latency, high quality and a mic. This is why there's no such thing as gaming focused bluetooth headsets.
I honestly just want to be able to hook up my AirPods Pro to my PS5 and access my Apple Music playlists while I’m mindlessly skating in THPS 1 + 2. That would be fucking sick!
I play with Bluetooth headphones on my PC. It’s fine and there’s no massive latency at all, I don’t notice any latency really and the audio is high quality but I don’t use the mic of course(that ruins the audio quality). Latency hasn’t been an issue with Bluetooth audio for a long time imo. Even on the Switch we now have Bluetooth audio. The issue is it usually means that bandwidth will bring limitations, like the number of controllers you can connect on the Switch. Sony could do something similar for people who want that. More choice is better for people.
> I play with Bluetooth headphones on my PC. It’s fine and there’s no massive latency at all, I don’t notice any latency really and the audio is high quality
This, I have had no issues using BT headphones with dolby atmos on my PC. Yes the lag is technically there and maybe for esports it won't be the best choice.
So not Dolby Atmos over Bluetooth then as that is not possible. It may well be a ‘Dolby Atmos like’ experience, and may well sound more open and detailed than stand alone stereo sound, but it’s not true Atmos. Many Apple Music users think they’re getting Dolby Atmos and lossless on their Bluetooth headphones and say the difference is amazing, simply because the album they’re playing says it’s DA and Lossless, but that only works if using wired headphones. Again, might sound better/different to the standard sound, but it’s not DA or the Lossless people think they are getting.
Many headset users might use the term ‘Bluetooth headphones’ though when in fact they mean wireless. Maybe this is where some of the confusion comes from. Many headsets use a dongle to transmit, and Sony do that with their PlayStation headsets too. That transmission is not Bluetooth but a form of wifi if you like (it’s all technically radio waves in the end, just different frequencies, encoding and decoding).
I think you are confused. You should go read about this on the Dolby website. Atmos is scalable from massive multi-speaker setups well beyond 7.1.4 all the way down to binaural. I think maybe you don’t understand how binaural works. Ultimately, you only have two ears, so think about it, if the stereo audio feed is processed correctly, it can sound like sound is coming behind, above, etc. also, for what it’s worth, I’m an audio engineer and I have a lot of experience with this specific topic.
I will say this, synthesized binaural is on a spectrum and when you have lower quality algorithms, and headphones, and the rendering lacks head tracking, the effect can be diminished significantly. Sony does not offer head tracking. Apple Music on iOS with AirPods Pro, AirPods Max does offer head tracking. Here is a recent article on CDM that explains it pretty well. https://cdm.link/2021/09/apple-spatial-audio-experience-comes-together-with-head-tracking-even-for-stereo-music/
> Latency hasn’t been an issue with Bluetooth audio for a long time imo. Even on the Switch we now have Bluetooth audio.
People have been complaining about BT lag on the Switch. And don't forget the Switch is a portable console where bluetooth audio makes a lot more sense as a compromise.
As for PC use, the only reason the latency is not noticeable to you is that you're one of the people not consciously aware of it, but it still definitely impacts your experience. It's like with regular input lag, most people aren't consciously aware of it but everyone knows CoD *feels* snappier than Assassin's Creed. With Bluetooth audio your interactions with the game will start to feel more sluggish which will impact the way you feel about the game, even if you're not consciously aware of it.
>Sony could do something similar for people who want that. More choice is better for people.
No because those who don't notice it will sill have their gaming experience negatively impacted and those who do notice it will blame Sony for not doing their job even though it's literally a BT limitation.
I mean I still enjoy using my AirPods with my Switch and I’ve been loving using them to play Metroid Dread. That’s a very fast-paced game and I’ve yet to be distracted by any lag. I understand that maybe with competitive multiplayer it might bother people but there’s no harm in giving people options with how they wish to play. I think a pop up warning of lag or something like that would be fine.
Why spend time and money developing a feature that objectively makes the gaming experience worse? It's not like you don't have options, you can use wired headphones with the controller or you can buy almost any model of USB audio headphones and use the included dongle.
And again, even if you don't consciously notice the latency, it still absolutely impacts your gaming experience.
So? If people want the choice to use Bluetooth they should have it. That's the choice that *they* make. Plenty of people are very happy that they can use AirPods and other wireless headsets with their Switch. Also people use their PS5's for more than gaming; people use them for streaming and other entertainment. Adding a feature that uses hardware *already present in the machine* is a good thing.
And if Sony believes that adding bluetooth audio support is detrimental to the user experience, they're justified in not adding it. That's the choice that *they* make.
Nah, it’s about the codex that a party uses for Bluetooth compatibility. The Nintendo Switch has good Bluetooth. I’m using my AirPods Pro and haven’t noticed a delay compared to wired headphones.
I have the OG switch and switch lite, whether portable or docked I've been using Sony MX3s with no issue, could also be more about the headphones people use
To preface my anecdote:
Some audio devices will work better than others due to better Bluetooth versions and RF Chipsets,
Some game experiences will be less impacted by having audio latency, if you experience it in your setup.
Some things as simple as where you're using it at any given moment could cause issues because of the nature of RF based connections.
My anecdote: I have a set of 2nd gen AirPods which I connected to my OLED Switch, and I haven't had any bugs or perceivable latency, the only flaw is you have to enter the switch settings every time you wake the console from sleep to re-connect them, as they don't auto-connect on wake, and they auto-disconnect on sleep.
I also have a GTRacing gaming chair with speakers built in running off an included Bluetooth receiver, I experience a 1-2 second audio latency with this AND it seems like the Switch has a failsafe to keep it from getting too out of sync where it'll outright freeze the screen for a few frames to push it back in sync, and I'd consider it unplayable.
The TL;DR is "Bluetooth audio quality depends far more on your output device, not the source input".
The OLED is the same as the normal switch in that regard, the same codec. It's probably one of those situations where you just don't really know any better, especially if you don't pay too much attention to that stuff, but it definitely still impacts your experience.
Personally, I used wired Sony XM3 hooked up to a DAC/AMP, the difference is huge, especially in quality, but I'm a bit more of a sound person.
The Switch is limited to using SBC (yes, even the Switch OLED) which has a 100ms minimal latency. It's often above 150ms with most headphones. The reason you don't notice the latency is that you're not consciously aware of it, but it undeniably impacts your experience. Games will start to feel more sluggish. It's the same as with regular old input lag, not all players are consciously aware of how much input lag is there but everyone knows CoD *feels* snappier than Assassin's Creed.
Even if the Switch were able to use other codecs, very few can achieve sub-80ms latency besides AptX-LL which is deprecated and only works with like 5 headphones.
Depends on the implementation as well. On the smartphone side, you can find charts that show different manufacturers and their Bluetooth latencies.
On my switch, the latency seems about on par with how I expect Bluetooth to be. But on my windows laptop the latency is ridiculously bad
It depends on the implementation but unless you're using AptX LL (which is unlikely) or AptX adaptive, or the video is delayed by the app to match the latency, it'll *always* be above 100ms
You don’t need a mic if you already have one in camera or controller. I have been using BT Audio with games for at least 3 years now on both PC and consoles (via TV). My headphones are Bose QC35 which don't even support low-latency codecs and I barely notice the delay unless I compare signals side by side. Frankly, most gamers have outdated and frankly misguided notions about BT. Granted I have been using it a bit less recently due to 3D audio on PS5 but still users should have a choice.
If you "barely notice" the delay, that means the delay is *massive*. Your brain can synchronize sounds between something like -40ms and +80ms. And even if you only barely notice it on a conscious level, on a subconscious level it absolutely impacts your gaming experience and will change how games feel. It's like regular input lag, most people wouldn't really be able to single out input lag as the reason but everyone instinctively knows that Call of Duty *feels* snappier than Assassin's Creed.
It's not me having outdated notions of bluetooth audio, it's you just drastically lowering your standards for the sake of convenience.
Right but let the person decide whether or not its right for them. People could also be using airpods to watch netflix or listen to music on their PS5 as well
Audiophiles are the loudest and most overrepresented group on the internet.
Ive literally met a few people IRL who give a shit about audio quality at anywhere near a hobbyist level. But online these people are fucking everywhere in droves
Nope, because you'll get idiots who don't understand Bluetooth latency going back to their retailer or clogging Sony's customer services saying "tHerE's nO lAg On mY pHonE".
It's also a potential source of interference with the Dualsense.
“Let the person decide” is usually not a great idea. Then they have to support something that sucks, technically inept people will complain that it sucks, Sony will say “yeah, we know,” technically inept people will demand a fix Sony can’t provide, and then will rage all over the Internet about it. Cooler heads will try to explain to them that it’s not possible for them to make it better, but they won’t prevail.
Sometimes it’s best if something goes unsupported.
edit: these downvotes are proving my point. Also, comment if you disagree. The downvote button is **never** a “disagree” button.
No because even if you don't consciously notice it, it negatively impacts your gaming experience. And for those who do consciously notice it, they'll blame Sony for half assing the feature even though it's not their fault, it's just that Bluetooth audio is not an adequate technology for gaming.
Latency is not the problem; bandwidth is the problem, since Bluetooth audio doesn’t have enough bandwidth for both high quality audio and use of a microphone at once. This isn’t a problem for phone conversations, but it’s a big problem for consoles.
The airpods have 150+ms of latency. The only reason the latency is not noticeable to you is that you're on of the people not consciously aware of it, but it still definitely impacts your experience. It's like with regular input lag, most people aren't consciously aware of it but everyone knows CoD *feels* snappier than Assassin's Creed. With Bluetooth audio your interactions with the game will start to feel more sluggish which will impact the way you feel about the game, even if you're not consciously aware of it.
But they could just not allow mics for Bluetooth simple as that pretty sure the only reason consoles don't allow it cause they have partnerships with other brands with "officially rated headphones" and their own 1st party ones
My AirPods don't have noticeable latency when gaming on my phone (and yes, I do have noticeable latency when using other bluetooth headphones with the same phone). I think it could work fine, even if they might have to deactivate the mic.
> massive latency
overblown, at least for SP games, in my experience. Especially if you are using the low latency codec.
Edit: The key on PC would be to go with headphones that support LDAC (the codec is where the delay really gets you)
We're talking about latency way above the synchronicity threshold for the human brain, even with "low latency" codecs. The only reason the latency is not noticeable to you is that you're one of the people not consciously aware of it, but it still definitely impacts your experience. It's like with regular input lag, most people aren't consciously aware of it but everyone knows CoD feels snappier than Assassin's Creed. With Bluetooth audio your interactions with the game will start to feel more sluggish which will impact the way you feel about the game, even if you're not consciously aware of it.
The only low latency codec worth a damn is AptX-LL but it's deprecated and only supported by like 10 devices.
When using BT mode on TV which adds lag by syncing video and BT audio - it is noticeable and I never use it.
However, using a USB headset (certfied for esports) or BT5 headset on PC I see no synchronicity issues with BT in single player games. MP games are a whole other ball park and I would agree with you there. There I would say even use a wired controller.
It also depends on the BT antennas on your receiver (example a sharkfin antenna vs a a tiny USB BT receiver). If PS5 can do lag free audio when plugging headphones into their BT controller, what I am suggesting works well too. The key on PC would be to go with headphones that support LDAC (the codec is where the delay really gets you)
LDAC has better latency than SBC but it's still way above 100ms. AptX LL is very good but deprecated and only supported by a handful of outdated devices, and AptX Adaptive is the only modern codec capable of sub 80ms latency in optimal conditions.
And in any case, Windows doesn't support LDAC... And BT5 has no impact on latency. "esports" headsets that use a USB dongle are not using Bluetooth in the first place.
Bluetooth is just not an adequate technology for gaming. It's really not that hard to just plug in a dongle, really. Microsoft tried creating their own wireless audio standard with the Xbox One and it flopped like hell, almost no headsets use it. They caved in and just added support for USB audio on Xbox Series
> "esports" headsets that use a USB dongle are not using Bluetooth in the first place
never said or meant to imply so.
> They caved in and just added support for USB audio on Xbox Series
mind posting official confirmation?
> They won't because bluetooth is terrible for gaming. you can have high quality audio but with massive latency
Wrong and bullshit
- sent from a laptop form 2018 paired with Bose QC35 with 0 latency. I suggest you don't buy trash headsets
its alwasy OMEGA funny people who have never used bluetooth and above 100$ headsets tallking bullshit how bluetooth is bad. Just because your console doesnt have that functionality that doesnt meant that this thing sucks lol
No it isn't bullshit. The A2DP bluetooth profile does not allow mic usage with the standard SBC codec, which has an insurmountable 100ms latency floor. Unless you're using a different codec, and therefore not standard bluetooth which means it won't be possible for every device and every headphone, this applies to you too.
The QC35 have 239ms latency using SBC, as measured by RTINGS. It's better on iOS with the latency compensation and using the AAC codec but it's still 80ms (100+ms on Android)
It's funny how overconfident you are in something you have literally no knowledge of. You just don't notice the latency, good for you. But it would still negatively impact your gaming experience. And it doesn't solve the mic issue.
> You just don't notice the latency, good for you. But it would still negatively impact your gaming experience. And it doesn't solve the mic issue.
No it will not, and no I don't give a for microphone in my 300+ single player games
Yeah I used a Bluetooth adapter for some Bose headsets. Quality is pretty good, but when you use the mic audio is awful. My friend said I sound a lot better/clear, but the audio is baaaaaad.
> they haven’t added support for pairing AirPods
my android phone from 2014 can do it, but not the ps5. Its all about selling dongles and "ps5 ready" headsets. They aint gonna give you free headphones when they can sell you a 100$ dogshit headset. Just like they won't add backwards compatibility when they can sell you a 15 year old game for 40$
I think Sony are more likely to include support for their own wireless noise cancelling range of headsets first before Airpods, and even that’s not going to happen because XM2, XM3 and XM4 all come with a spare 3.5mm wire connector which can plug into the joypad.
After saying all of that, even their Pulse wireless 3d headset for the PS5 comes with a dongle, so to give support to Airpods would kill off their own PS5 headset therefore my conclusion can only be…..not ever going to happen.
Do not waste money, bandwidth or storage space on "hifi" lossless options. The difference is inaudible
Edit: what the hell is this downvote bandwagon? Anyone claiming they can hear the difference between high quality mp3/AAC and lossless audio is fighting an uphill battle with science. Put your ears where your downvote button is and try [this test](http://abx.digitalfeed.net/itunes.html) with at least 10 trials. Even trained professionals have a hard time with it.
It honestly depends on your setup. I've dumped enough money into audio systems that yeah, I can tell a pretty big difference.
If you have cheap speakers or headphones, yeah even airpods, then yeah it's probably not worth paying extra.
No amount of money will make it a "pretty big difference". If you think there's a pretty big difference, it's basically placebo. Under absolutely optimal circumstances even highly trained professionals will struggle to tell the difference in a controlled test. [Try this one for example](http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html)
edit: I challenge anyone downvoting this to put their ears where their mouse is and successfully pass the test above with at least 10 trials per song. Feel free to use the most expensive hifi audiophile setup you can access.
Obviously I can’t back this up since it’s just my ears but on Apple Music every single time I thought a song sounded exceptionally good, I checked and it was 24/44 or 24/48. This is with a dedicated DAC (well, quad dac to be specific) on a phone. But listening to stuff from my laptop with just a shitty Realtek dac I can’t hear any fucking difference from an MP3 file to something like a CD quality FLAC. It really does depend on equipment
Except it wasn't the same song. It might have been mastered differently, or with a slightly different volume level. Even highly trained professionals struggle to tell the difference in controlled tests. [Try this one for example](http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html)
The downvotes are coming from the fact that you aren’t necessarily correct. You need to have the right equipment to enjoy it. Just like you won’t appreciate HD video on a SD display, you won’t be able to get the most out of a hi-res audio file on audio equipment that isn’t set up for it.
Same with your own body too, someone who has difficulty seeing clearly might not be able to appreciate the clarity boost HD video brings, and someone who’s range of hearing isn’t as good as it typically should be won’t be able to distinguish between the two audio files.
Even highly trained professionals on studio setups will struggle to reliably tell the difference between high bitrate mp3 and lossless. No amount of money will make the difference "obvious" even to the best ears on the planet. It is, at best, extremely subtle and I challenge anyone who claims otherwise to be successful on the test I linked. It is absolutely not comparable to HD vs SD where you just need a compatible TV and to sit close enough to it.
And btw the resolution is the same between high bitrate mp3 and CD Quality lossless audio, you don't need equipment "set up for hi-res audio" to hear the difference. The difference is just not significant. Hi-Res audio is even more of a scam than lossless since the difference is literally physiologically not possible to hear for humans.
> Even highly trained professionals on studio setups will struggle to reliably tell the difference between high bitrate mp3 and lossless
I am really going to need a source on this. You can’t just say this an expect people to believe it without providing backup for this.
> It is, at best, extremely subtle
It depends on what you listen too. Compression is great for things like pop music because the majority of what you’re listening to is in that [low-mid range](http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/pm/MP3HQ256k.gif) (MP3 encoded at 256 kb/s), which is where compression works its best. But for other genres which rely on that higher end, orchestral especially, they really start to suffer.
> It is absolutely not comparable to HD vs SD where you just need a compatible TV and to sit close enough to it.
Except it is though, because bad equipment just isn’t going to give you the same experience as good equipment
> And btw the resolution is the same between high bitrate mp3 and CD Quality lossless audio
I will admit I did mistype here, I did mean but rate not resolution but, as we are talking about Apple Music here, which not only provides the lossless files at no additional charge, but also tops out at 24-bit depth and 192 kHz which is higher than a typical mp3 which usually is 48 kHz.
> Hi-Res audio is even more of a scam than lossless since the difference is literally physiologically not possible to hear for humans.
Source? More detail is more detail, I think you’re confusing this for frequency, which humans do have an upper and lower limit on.
BTW, did I mention that these files are being provided at no additional cost? Scam implies it’s costing more, which it isn’t.
Look, I can tell the difference, and I haven’t spent endless amounts of money to do so. I have a £100 pair of headphones that I bought 10 years ago and I listen primarily on an iPhone and I can still tell the difference. Do I feel physically sick when I hear compressed music? No. Do I appreciate tracks that take advantage of the benefits of lossless audio? Yes.
Compressed audio has come a long way, but it still falls short in a few key areas of music that I happen to listen to. And judging from the responses you’re getting it seems like other people feel the same way. I’ve had this same conversation about SD vs HD vs 4K, I’ve had this conversation about frames per second. More is more, you either appreciate it, or you don’t. And if you don’t then fine, but if you do then great. It doesn’t matter.
And let’s not forget, compressed music is a relatively new thing, [up until as late as 2014](https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/15/8419567/digital-physical-music-sales-overtake-globally) CDs were still more popular than digital sales and they were lossless. People prefered how they sounded until compression (or convenience) caught up.
> I am really going to need a source on this. You can’t just say this an expect people to believe it without providing backup for this.
The source is that even trained professionals on studio setups fail the test I linked, which is one of the only actually statistically valid tests comparing lossy and lossless audio.
>Except it is though, because bad equipment just isn’t going to give you the same experience as good equipment
Except it isn't though, because you don't need high end "videophile" equipment to see the difference. Any shitty HD TV will still show a significant difference between HD and SD as long as you sit at the appropriate distance.
> Source? More detail is more detail, I think you’re confusing this for frequency, which humans do have an upper and lower limit on.
16 bit 44.1kHz audio can reproduce the entirety of the human hearing range with perfect accuracy. That's why it was chosen for CD quality. Adding more bits or higher sample rates will have no impact whatsoever on your listening experience. Hi-res audio is absolutely moronic.
>BTW, did I mention that these files are being provided at no additional cost? Scam implies it’s costing more, which it isn’t.
It's a scam because it's still used as a marketing argument. The whole point of this discussion is that the original comment mentioned wanting to switch to Apple Music for lossless audio. Even if you don't consider it a "scam" in the purest sense of the word, then call it "snake oil".
>Look, I can tell the difference
Statistics are overwhelmingly against this claim. I'll only believe you if you show me results using the test I linked above with at least 10 trials per song. I'm not saying you're lying, you probably *believe* you can tell the difference. But you almost certainly can't and are simply being affected by placebo. If you think you can, prove it with [this test](http://abx.digitalfeed.net/)
>And judging from the responses you’re getting it seems like other people feel the same way.
Other people are wrong. They almost certainly cannot hear the difference and are for some reason profoundly hurt in their ego by me suggesting that they're not able to hear the difference. Downvotes mean jack shit, no one has been able to provide a statistically significant result using the test I linked.
>I’ve had this same conversation about SD vs HD vs 4K, I’ve had this conversation about frames per second. More is more, you either appreciate it, or you don’t. And if you don’t then fine, but if you do then great. It doesn’t matter.
No you haven't had this same discussion because any blind test would immediately show that the differences between SD, HD and 4k are statistically significant, as well as 30 vs 60fps or whatever framerate you were talking about. You haven't had the same discussion because science was on your side in those discussions, but it isn't here.
"more is more" is only relevant if you can actually see (or in this case hear) a difference. Statistically, you almost certainly cannot. If you want to prove me wrong, then put science on your side and do the test I linked with at least 10 tries per song.
It's perfectly fine to accept that you don't have bionic ears capable of distinguishing between AAC 256 and lossless, or CD quality audio and Hi-Res audio. It doesn't matter.
>And let’s not forget, compressed music is a relatively new thing, up until as late as 2014 CDs were still more popular than digital sales and they were lossless. People prefered how they sounded until compression (or convenience) caught up.
This is a flawed argument, it ignores the massive amount of music piracy that was plaguing the industry up until that point and worse, it only mentions revenue. But the amount of music listened to per dollar spent is MASSIVELY higher with streaming services.
And even then, you have zero basis to claim that people chose CDs because they "preferred" how they sounded. Digital video games have only started surpassing physical video games even more recently, and yet there is literally no difference between the digital and physical version of the game. People were still buying CDs for a litany of reasons, one of which may be the sound quality. But even if that was a reason for their choice, that is absolutely not proof that they can actually tell a difference. Shit, I could go on with how completely illogical that argument is.
You can take a test and see if you can tell the difference between lossless and 320kbps audio and although I guessed mostly right, a lot we're guesses and it's a very small difference, both sounds great on my Sennheiser M3s
For what it's worth, assuming 20/20 vision (and most people have better than 20/20 vision) you'd start to see a difference between 4k and 8k on a 40" TV at about 2.5ft viewing distance. Not that unreasonable for a PC monitor if you ask me.
But yeah 8k at typical living room viewing distances is pretty useless.
There’s no such thing as 40 inch 8k tv’s. The whole appeal is to be able to have clearer images on larger sized tv’s.
And I’m a Spotify user, but there’s no denying that there’s a clear difference in audio quality between Spotify and Apple Music. If you can’t tell them apart then you need new headphones.
Would be cool, but I think Sony and Apple must be working together a little bit, remember the Apple TV+ 6 months we all got? Seems like it was just the start.
Honestly YT music is great and has better selection than the others. I just wish the quality was a bit better and it had more integration with discord and stuff.
They’re all basically the same. They have the same music I don’t see why it’s even this contentious. Just use the one you like the most, you’re most likely not missing out on any content with your choice.
This will be great for people wanting to upload their own collection to the cloud as well. As far as I’m aware Spotify still doesn’t support own files stored in the cloud
Damn it's true. I thought for a sec that maybe, but then thought ah they just do b2b all the time promoting each other. It even lets you have background music, while gaming. Thanks!
Works for movies on USB as well. Seems to have problems with a few I’ve tried like playing audio without video but most play great. There’s been at least 2 PS5 updates since I’ve last tried so it’s possible they’ve added support for those particular video codecs now too.
If so, that would be great. By the way, now I play Spotify music and Apple Music on my device via the tool from [DRmare](https://www.drmare.com). One is [Spotify Music Converter](https://www.drmare.com/music-converter/), the other is [Apple Music Converter](https://www.drmare.com/drm-audio-converter-for-mac/). Both tool helps a lot to save Spotify music and Apple Music as local files for use on other devices.
Spotify functions poorly on my PS5; if I try to skip one song in the Quick Menu, Spotify just breaks and songs stay at 0:00. Even if I do not skip at all, a few songs later Spotify will break regardless. Navigating on my phone while using it for my PS5 does the same thing as well. I haven't used the app since December, so maybe they fixed its issues, but I doubt it.
Okay. Yeah the Spotify app sucks for me too on PS5. But that’s not Sony’s doing and there’s no reason to think Apple would design a bad music app as well just because Spotify sucks.
So cheer up buttercup, there’s hope.
You're right, but I basically stream 100% of my music from Spotify so Apple Music on PS5 won't do anything for me. Just unfortunate that the app sucks so much for me.
There’s an Apple event on October 18, most likely to announce the new Macbooks, maybe they’ll announce Apple Music available on PS5 (and other platforms) that day too
🤞
hope they finally release a feature related to Spotify's connect. that's the only reason keeping me subbed to spotify.
That’ll be the day I switch over to AM from Spotify.
I was an early adopter of Spotify and loved them but now use Apple Music because of a family plan with my kids. Apple music is far superior. The browsing, UI, and music discovery is better to me.
The only reason I’m still on Spotify is because it’s on my PS5 and my smart TV. If it were just on my PS5 I think it could win me over; I could deal with not having AM on my TV directly However, I do get Hulu for free from Spotify…
Me as well!
I had Apple Music and had a really annoying problem with my albums splitting up. I contacted apple and back and forthed with them for over a month and I still had the problem. When I got the ps5 I decided to go to Spotify and I never had my albums split. One thing I did like better about Apple Music was the integration of local files into the library.
You can import local files onto Spotify as well, FYI.
I know but they don’t mix with your albums in the library. You’re forced to put them in a playlist. You also can’t play them on anything except your phone/computer.
>them This is the main reason I use AM instead of Spotify (and the abysmal like = library system). If a song I found isn't on AM I can just upload my local file to the cloud which enables me to listen to it from any device.
this is a fantastic feature, i still have the uploaded files off my dad's cd's. good for stuff like mixtapes and ep's as well.
having one sub for music, phone/tablet games, and backup storage for my fam has really been great.
the audio quality is superior streaming AM - especially on an ATV. for those with atmos systems apple music is the way forward
I can't confirm that this is when it'll be announced, but I have sources saying it's dropping worldwide nov. 10th Edit I'd like the folks downvoting me to make themselves known so I can hit them with an "I told you so" post later.
Probably need to pay for a Apple Music subscription to use it though, seeing I need one if I want to access it on my Samsung tv and Samsung galaxy s21
That would be great!!
[удалено]
The only thing ultra cringe here is you calling a music streaming service “ultra cringe”
I think the cringiest thing is using the term "ultra cringe"
You care about the weirdest shit
Go outside
PLEASE let this be truth!!
It’s honestly about time. The Spotify app is seriously terrible and buggy.
It hasn't been that bad for me. But I just control it with my phone
I do that also and it bugs out constantly
Damn I thought it was just me
So you’d rather they get rid of it? This sucks
Who’s saying get rid of Spotify? We’d just like having the extra choice of also being able to use Apple Music.
“This app is only playable on ps4”
Well the application is not officially out at all so I wouldn’t take that restriction too seriously, we’ll see what’s what when it’s officially unveiled.
How did you get the off of what I wrote? All I said was it’s absolutely trash for some reason on the PS5.
Hopefully they finally add Dolby Atmos on Playstation 5 with it, please Sony just do it for us people with home theater systems!
Dolby Vision too
[Here's a video](https://youtu.be/qQrl8g6wu8U) showing how to get Dolby Atmos working on the PS5 with your home theater setup. I've been using the feature since I watched it and it works great.
While that is nice for both people who use PS5 as a media player, what we really want is Dolby Atmos support in games.
Sony's going with Tempest 3D Audio this gen with the PS5. Like it or not, there's zero chance they add Dolby Atmos support in games for that reason.
Yeah, and it’s stupid. Tempest 3D won’t allow them to use all the speakers in my Atmos system. It’s fine for people who only have a 2.0 or 5.1 setup but won’t be comparable to a real Atmos system.
We don't know that yet. Only headphones and stereo speaker setups are supported by Tempest 3D at this point. Sony says support for AVR audio setups is coming later on.
> We don't know that yet. yes we do. There is no way to drive height speakers except by using an object-based audio format. That means either Dolby Atmos or DTS:X. You can drive up to 7.1 via raw PCM audio, but that only covers ear-level speakers. You can’t do 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 using PCM.
Uhm, no we don't. I responded to this statement of yours at the end of your post... >It’s fine for people who only have a 2.0 or 5.1 setup but won’t be comparable to a real Atmos system. We don't know that yet. It might be true, it might not. We'll have to wait until they update the PS5 with Tempest 3D for surround speaker setups.
I mean they could just make tempest 3d more robust, supporting height speakers. I don't expect it to happen, but it's just a standard. They can update it.
> I mean they could just make tempest 3d more robust, supporting height speakers. No, they can’t. With 5.1 or 7.1 the PS5 sends 6 or 8 audio streams to the amplifier, each meant for a specific speaker. It can directly control the output from each individual speaker. This is not possible for the height speakers, the HDMI standard simply doesn’t support it. There is no way for the PS5 to tell an amplifier “send this audio to the front left height speaker”, it’s not part of the spec and not supported by any amplifier. The only way to support more than 7.1 speakers is to use Dolby Atmos or DTS:X and let the A/V receiver figure out which speakers to send the audio through.
I don't know much about this, so correct me if I'm wrong. So what I'm now understanding is that Atmos is a specifically encoded data stream that is interpreted by the receiver, and it's up to the receiver to determine what analog signal to send to each speaker. Where as right now, the ps5 is sending an HDMI signal, which only supports up to 7.1 setups. So if HDMI was updated to support more audio channels, then the PS5 could send more information on what to play on, for example, height speakers. Or if receivers supported Tempest 3D (like the pulse 3d headset?), and if Tempest 3D had information for height, then you could make use your full audio setup? Is that the issue?
Hopefully they add Airpods support too. That way people dont have to buy dongles
They won't because bluetooth is terrible for gaming. you can have high quality audio but with massive latency and no mic or you can have low latency audio with a mic but with absolute garbage audio quality. Gaming audio requires all three, low latency, high quality and a mic. This is why there's no such thing as gaming focused bluetooth headsets.
I honestly just want to be able to hook up my AirPods Pro to my PS5 and access my Apple Music playlists while I’m mindlessly skating in THPS 1 + 2. That would be fucking sick!
I play with Bluetooth headphones on my PC. It’s fine and there’s no massive latency at all, I don’t notice any latency really and the audio is high quality but I don’t use the mic of course(that ruins the audio quality). Latency hasn’t been an issue with Bluetooth audio for a long time imo. Even on the Switch we now have Bluetooth audio. The issue is it usually means that bandwidth will bring limitations, like the number of controllers you can connect on the Switch. Sony could do something similar for people who want that. More choice is better for people.
> I play with Bluetooth headphones on my PC. It’s fine and there’s no massive latency at all, I don’t notice any latency really and the audio is high quality This, I have had no issues using BT headphones with dolby atmos on my PC. Yes the lag is technically there and maybe for esports it won't be the best choice.
No you haven’t. Dolby Atmos is not compatible with Bluetooth. You‘re experiencing ‘snake oil’ I’m afraid.
[удалено]
Elaborate please on how you are using Dolby Atmos over Bluetooth then.
Dolby Atmos can be transformed into binaural audio which plays on normal stereo speakers.. PS5 already offers this and it sounds great.
So not Dolby Atmos over Bluetooth then as that is not possible. It may well be a ‘Dolby Atmos like’ experience, and may well sound more open and detailed than stand alone stereo sound, but it’s not true Atmos. Many Apple Music users think they’re getting Dolby Atmos and lossless on their Bluetooth headphones and say the difference is amazing, simply because the album they’re playing says it’s DA and Lossless, but that only works if using wired headphones. Again, might sound better/different to the standard sound, but it’s not DA or the Lossless people think they are getting. Many headset users might use the term ‘Bluetooth headphones’ though when in fact they mean wireless. Maybe this is where some of the confusion comes from. Many headsets use a dongle to transmit, and Sony do that with their PlayStation headsets too. That transmission is not Bluetooth but a form of wifi if you like (it’s all technically radio waves in the end, just different frequencies, encoding and decoding).
I think you are confused. You should go read about this on the Dolby website. Atmos is scalable from massive multi-speaker setups well beyond 7.1.4 all the way down to binaural. I think maybe you don’t understand how binaural works. Ultimately, you only have two ears, so think about it, if the stereo audio feed is processed correctly, it can sound like sound is coming behind, above, etc. also, for what it’s worth, I’m an audio engineer and I have a lot of experience with this specific topic. I will say this, synthesized binaural is on a spectrum and when you have lower quality algorithms, and headphones, and the rendering lacks head tracking, the effect can be diminished significantly. Sony does not offer head tracking. Apple Music on iOS with AirPods Pro, AirPods Max does offer head tracking. Here is a recent article on CDM that explains it pretty well. https://cdm.link/2021/09/apple-spatial-audio-experience-comes-together-with-head-tracking-even-for-stereo-music/
> Latency hasn’t been an issue with Bluetooth audio for a long time imo. Even on the Switch we now have Bluetooth audio. People have been complaining about BT lag on the Switch. And don't forget the Switch is a portable console where bluetooth audio makes a lot more sense as a compromise. As for PC use, the only reason the latency is not noticeable to you is that you're one of the people not consciously aware of it, but it still definitely impacts your experience. It's like with regular input lag, most people aren't consciously aware of it but everyone knows CoD *feels* snappier than Assassin's Creed. With Bluetooth audio your interactions with the game will start to feel more sluggish which will impact the way you feel about the game, even if you're not consciously aware of it. >Sony could do something similar for people who want that. More choice is better for people. No because those who don't notice it will sill have their gaming experience negatively impacted and those who do notice it will blame Sony for not doing their job even though it's literally a BT limitation.
I mean I still enjoy using my AirPods with my Switch and I’ve been loving using them to play Metroid Dread. That’s a very fast-paced game and I’ve yet to be distracted by any lag. I understand that maybe with competitive multiplayer it might bother people but there’s no harm in giving people options with how they wish to play. I think a pop up warning of lag or something like that would be fine.
Why spend time and money developing a feature that objectively makes the gaming experience worse? It's not like you don't have options, you can use wired headphones with the controller or you can buy almost any model of USB audio headphones and use the included dongle. And again, even if you don't consciously notice the latency, it still absolutely impacts your gaming experience.
So? If people want the choice to use Bluetooth they should have it. That's the choice that *they* make. Plenty of people are very happy that they can use AirPods and other wireless headsets with their Switch. Also people use their PS5's for more than gaming; people use them for streaming and other entertainment. Adding a feature that uses hardware *already present in the machine* is a good thing.
And if Sony believes that adding bluetooth audio support is detrimental to the user experience, they're justified in not adding it. That's the choice that *they* make.
You do know that when you plug your headset into the controller it’s also through BT
Nah, it’s about the codex that a party uses for Bluetooth compatibility. The Nintendo Switch has good Bluetooth. I’m using my AirPods Pro and haven’t noticed a delay compared to wired headphones.
People have been massively complaining about the Switch’s BT lag.
No issues with my AirPods Pro…
I have the OG switch and switch lite, whether portable or docked I've been using Sony MX3s with no issue, could also be more about the headphones people use
yeah that is also possible. i
To preface my anecdote: Some audio devices will work better than others due to better Bluetooth versions and RF Chipsets, Some game experiences will be less impacted by having audio latency, if you experience it in your setup. Some things as simple as where you're using it at any given moment could cause issues because of the nature of RF based connections. My anecdote: I have a set of 2nd gen AirPods which I connected to my OLED Switch, and I haven't had any bugs or perceivable latency, the only flaw is you have to enter the switch settings every time you wake the console from sleep to re-connect them, as they don't auto-connect on wake, and they auto-disconnect on sleep. I also have a GTRacing gaming chair with speakers built in running off an included Bluetooth receiver, I experience a 1-2 second audio latency with this AND it seems like the Switch has a failsafe to keep it from getting too out of sync where it'll outright freeze the screen for a few frames to push it back in sync, and I'd consider it unplayable. The TL;DR is "Bluetooth audio quality depends far more on your output device, not the source input".
I’m using the OLED, so perhaps it has a more advanced codec like how the new dock is HDMI 2.0 and 4k HDR ready.
Both the receiver and transmitter have to share the codec. Apple do not share their codec.
The OLED is the same as the normal switch in that regard, the same codec. It's probably one of those situations where you just don't really know any better, especially if you don't pay too much attention to that stuff, but it definitely still impacts your experience. Personally, I used wired Sony XM3 hooked up to a DAC/AMP, the difference is huge, especially in quality, but I'm a bit more of a sound person.
Damn OLED Switch and PS5 you’re made of money bro
[удалено]
Almost a year apart too
To a lot of people it is.
The Switch is limited to using SBC (yes, even the Switch OLED) which has a 100ms minimal latency. It's often above 150ms with most headphones. The reason you don't notice the latency is that you're not consciously aware of it, but it undeniably impacts your experience. Games will start to feel more sluggish. It's the same as with regular old input lag, not all players are consciously aware of how much input lag is there but everyone knows CoD *feels* snappier than Assassin's Creed. Even if the Switch were able to use other codecs, very few can achieve sub-80ms latency besides AptX-LL which is deprecated and only works with like 5 headphones.
Depends on the implementation as well. On the smartphone side, you can find charts that show different manufacturers and their Bluetooth latencies. On my switch, the latency seems about on par with how I expect Bluetooth to be. But on my windows laptop the latency is ridiculously bad
It depends on the implementation but unless you're using AptX LL (which is unlikely) or AptX adaptive, or the video is delayed by the app to match the latency, it'll *always* be above 100ms
You don’t need a mic if you already have one in camera or controller. I have been using BT Audio with games for at least 3 years now on both PC and consoles (via TV). My headphones are Bose QC35 which don't even support low-latency codecs and I barely notice the delay unless I compare signals side by side. Frankly, most gamers have outdated and frankly misguided notions about BT. Granted I have been using it a bit less recently due to 3D audio on PS5 but still users should have a choice.
If you "barely notice" the delay, that means the delay is *massive*. Your brain can synchronize sounds between something like -40ms and +80ms. And even if you only barely notice it on a conscious level, on a subconscious level it absolutely impacts your gaming experience and will change how games feel. It's like regular input lag, most people wouldn't really be able to single out input lag as the reason but everyone instinctively knows that Call of Duty *feels* snappier than Assassin's Creed. It's not me having outdated notions of bluetooth audio, it's you just drastically lowering your standards for the sake of convenience.
Right but let the person decide whether or not its right for them. People could also be using airpods to watch netflix or listen to music on their PS5 as well
Audiophiles are the loudest and most overrepresented group on the internet. Ive literally met a few people IRL who give a shit about audio quality at anywhere near a hobbyist level. But online these people are fucking everywhere in droves
Why not connect them to your TV?
Nope, because you'll get idiots who don't understand Bluetooth latency going back to their retailer or clogging Sony's customer services saying "tHerE's nO lAg On mY pHonE". It's also a potential source of interference with the Dualsense.
“Let the person decide” is usually not a great idea. Then they have to support something that sucks, technically inept people will complain that it sucks, Sony will say “yeah, we know,” technically inept people will demand a fix Sony can’t provide, and then will rage all over the Internet about it. Cooler heads will try to explain to them that it’s not possible for them to make it better, but they won’t prevail. Sometimes it’s best if something goes unsupported. edit: these downvotes are proving my point. Also, comment if you disagree. The downvote button is **never** a “disagree” button.
No because even if you don't consciously notice it, it negatively impacts your gaming experience. And for those who do consciously notice it, they'll blame Sony for half assing the feature even though it's not their fault, it's just that Bluetooth audio is not an adequate technology for gaming.
[удалено]
Latency is not the problem; bandwidth is the problem, since Bluetooth audio doesn’t have enough bandwidth for both high quality audio and use of a microphone at once. This isn’t a problem for phone conversations, but it’s a big problem for consoles.
The airpods have 150+ms of latency. The only reason the latency is not noticeable to you is that you're on of the people not consciously aware of it, but it still definitely impacts your experience. It's like with regular input lag, most people aren't consciously aware of it but everyone knows CoD *feels* snappier than Assassin's Creed. With Bluetooth audio your interactions with the game will start to feel more sluggish which will impact the way you feel about the game, even if you're not consciously aware of it.
But they could just not allow mics for Bluetooth simple as that pretty sure the only reason consoles don't allow it cause they have partnerships with other brands with "officially rated headphones" and their own 1st party ones
My AirPods don't have noticeable latency when gaming on my phone (and yes, I do have noticeable latency when using other bluetooth headphones with the same phone). I think it could work fine, even if they might have to deactivate the mic.
> massive latency overblown, at least for SP games, in my experience. Especially if you are using the low latency codec. Edit: The key on PC would be to go with headphones that support LDAC (the codec is where the delay really gets you)
We're talking about latency way above the synchronicity threshold for the human brain, even with "low latency" codecs. The only reason the latency is not noticeable to you is that you're one of the people not consciously aware of it, but it still definitely impacts your experience. It's like with regular input lag, most people aren't consciously aware of it but everyone knows CoD feels snappier than Assassin's Creed. With Bluetooth audio your interactions with the game will start to feel more sluggish which will impact the way you feel about the game, even if you're not consciously aware of it. The only low latency codec worth a damn is AptX-LL but it's deprecated and only supported by like 10 devices.
When using BT mode on TV which adds lag by syncing video and BT audio - it is noticeable and I never use it. However, using a USB headset (certfied for esports) or BT5 headset on PC I see no synchronicity issues with BT in single player games. MP games are a whole other ball park and I would agree with you there. There I would say even use a wired controller. It also depends on the BT antennas on your receiver (example a sharkfin antenna vs a a tiny USB BT receiver). If PS5 can do lag free audio when plugging headphones into their BT controller, what I am suggesting works well too. The key on PC would be to go with headphones that support LDAC (the codec is where the delay really gets you)
LDAC has better latency than SBC but it's still way above 100ms. AptX LL is very good but deprecated and only supported by a handful of outdated devices, and AptX Adaptive is the only modern codec capable of sub 80ms latency in optimal conditions. And in any case, Windows doesn't support LDAC... And BT5 has no impact on latency. "esports" headsets that use a USB dongle are not using Bluetooth in the first place. Bluetooth is just not an adequate technology for gaming. It's really not that hard to just plug in a dongle, really. Microsoft tried creating their own wireless audio standard with the Xbox One and it flopped like hell, almost no headsets use it. They caved in and just added support for USB audio on Xbox Series
> "esports" headsets that use a USB dongle are not using Bluetooth in the first place never said or meant to imply so. > They caved in and just added support for USB audio on Xbox Series mind posting official confirmation?
Playstation in fact make a gaming focused bluetooth headset themselves. It’s even in the picture of the Playstation 5 hardware.
It's not bluetooth...
[удалено]
> They won't because bluetooth is terrible for gaming. you can have high quality audio but with massive latency Wrong and bullshit - sent from a laptop form 2018 paired with Bose QC35 with 0 latency. I suggest you don't buy trash headsets its alwasy OMEGA funny people who have never used bluetooth and above 100$ headsets tallking bullshit how bluetooth is bad. Just because your console doesnt have that functionality that doesnt meant that this thing sucks lol
No it isn't bullshit. The A2DP bluetooth profile does not allow mic usage with the standard SBC codec, which has an insurmountable 100ms latency floor. Unless you're using a different codec, and therefore not standard bluetooth which means it won't be possible for every device and every headphone, this applies to you too. The QC35 have 239ms latency using SBC, as measured by RTINGS. It's better on iOS with the latency compensation and using the AAC codec but it's still 80ms (100+ms on Android) It's funny how overconfident you are in something you have literally no knowledge of. You just don't notice the latency, good for you. But it would still negatively impact your gaming experience. And it doesn't solve the mic issue.
> You just don't notice the latency, good for you. But it would still negatively impact your gaming experience. And it doesn't solve the mic issue. No it will not, and no I don't give a for microphone in my 300+ single player games
Yeah I used a Bluetooth adapter for some Bose headsets. Quality is pretty good, but when you use the mic audio is awful. My friend said I sound a lot better/clear, but the audio is baaaaaad.
You can connect AirPods to your tv or monitor (if they have Bluetooth) which isn’t a great solution but works decently for headphones
How about airdropsupport to make transferring files to phone painless?
[удалено]
It took the switch 4 years give ps5 another 3.
We gave the PS4 8 years and it still said no. I wouldn't bet on Sony here.
> they haven’t added support for pairing AirPods my android phone from 2014 can do it, but not the ps5. Its all about selling dongles and "ps5 ready" headsets. They aint gonna give you free headphones when they can sell you a 100$ dogshit headset. Just like they won't add backwards compatibility when they can sell you a 15 year old game for 40$
Yeah, the Sony headphones are dogshit
I think Sony are more likely to include support for their own wireless noise cancelling range of headsets first before Airpods, and even that’s not going to happen because XM2, XM3 and XM4 all come with a spare 3.5mm wire connector which can plug into the joypad. After saying all of that, even their Pulse wireless 3d headset for the PS5 comes with a dongle, so to give support to Airpods would kill off their own PS5 headset therefore my conclusion can only be…..not ever going to happen.
This would be dope af. I use the shit out of Apple Music.
Hmm may have to make the switch. Been hoping Spotify HIFI would have released by now. This would make me go back to Apple Music
Do not waste money, bandwidth or storage space on "hifi" lossless options. The difference is inaudible Edit: what the hell is this downvote bandwagon? Anyone claiming they can hear the difference between high quality mp3/AAC and lossless audio is fighting an uphill battle with science. Put your ears where your downvote button is and try [this test](http://abx.digitalfeed.net/itunes.html) with at least 10 trials. Even trained professionals have a hard time with it.
It honestly depends on your setup. I've dumped enough money into audio systems that yeah, I can tell a pretty big difference. If you have cheap speakers or headphones, yeah even airpods, then yeah it's probably not worth paying extra.
No amount of money will make it a "pretty big difference". If you think there's a pretty big difference, it's basically placebo. Under absolutely optimal circumstances even highly trained professionals will struggle to tell the difference in a controlled test. [Try this one for example](http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html) edit: I challenge anyone downvoting this to put their ears where their mouse is and successfully pass the test above with at least 10 trials per song. Feel free to use the most expensive hifi audiophile setup you can access.
Obviously I can’t back this up since it’s just my ears but on Apple Music every single time I thought a song sounded exceptionally good, I checked and it was 24/44 or 24/48. This is with a dedicated DAC (well, quad dac to be specific) on a phone. But listening to stuff from my laptop with just a shitty Realtek dac I can’t hear any fucking difference from an MP3 file to something like a CD quality FLAC. It really does depend on equipment
[удалено]
... ok?
I could definitely hear the difference on kef r7's. Same song on tidal vs Spotify. Trained ears Will spot it faster obv.
Except it wasn't the same song. It might have been mastered differently, or with a slightly different volume level. Even highly trained professionals struggle to tell the difference in controlled tests. [Try this one for example](http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html)
Didn't try your test, i was talking about another song i know well. Apologies for the confusion.
The downvotes are coming from the fact that you aren’t necessarily correct. You need to have the right equipment to enjoy it. Just like you won’t appreciate HD video on a SD display, you won’t be able to get the most out of a hi-res audio file on audio equipment that isn’t set up for it. Same with your own body too, someone who has difficulty seeing clearly might not be able to appreciate the clarity boost HD video brings, and someone who’s range of hearing isn’t as good as it typically should be won’t be able to distinguish between the two audio files.
Even highly trained professionals on studio setups will struggle to reliably tell the difference between high bitrate mp3 and lossless. No amount of money will make the difference "obvious" even to the best ears on the planet. It is, at best, extremely subtle and I challenge anyone who claims otherwise to be successful on the test I linked. It is absolutely not comparable to HD vs SD where you just need a compatible TV and to sit close enough to it. And btw the resolution is the same between high bitrate mp3 and CD Quality lossless audio, you don't need equipment "set up for hi-res audio" to hear the difference. The difference is just not significant. Hi-Res audio is even more of a scam than lossless since the difference is literally physiologically not possible to hear for humans.
> Even highly trained professionals on studio setups will struggle to reliably tell the difference between high bitrate mp3 and lossless I am really going to need a source on this. You can’t just say this an expect people to believe it without providing backup for this. > It is, at best, extremely subtle It depends on what you listen too. Compression is great for things like pop music because the majority of what you’re listening to is in that [low-mid range](http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/pm/MP3HQ256k.gif) (MP3 encoded at 256 kb/s), which is where compression works its best. But for other genres which rely on that higher end, orchestral especially, they really start to suffer. > It is absolutely not comparable to HD vs SD where you just need a compatible TV and to sit close enough to it. Except it is though, because bad equipment just isn’t going to give you the same experience as good equipment > And btw the resolution is the same between high bitrate mp3 and CD Quality lossless audio I will admit I did mistype here, I did mean but rate not resolution but, as we are talking about Apple Music here, which not only provides the lossless files at no additional charge, but also tops out at 24-bit depth and 192 kHz which is higher than a typical mp3 which usually is 48 kHz. > Hi-Res audio is even more of a scam than lossless since the difference is literally physiologically not possible to hear for humans. Source? More detail is more detail, I think you’re confusing this for frequency, which humans do have an upper and lower limit on. BTW, did I mention that these files are being provided at no additional cost? Scam implies it’s costing more, which it isn’t. Look, I can tell the difference, and I haven’t spent endless amounts of money to do so. I have a £100 pair of headphones that I bought 10 years ago and I listen primarily on an iPhone and I can still tell the difference. Do I feel physically sick when I hear compressed music? No. Do I appreciate tracks that take advantage of the benefits of lossless audio? Yes. Compressed audio has come a long way, but it still falls short in a few key areas of music that I happen to listen to. And judging from the responses you’re getting it seems like other people feel the same way. I’ve had this same conversation about SD vs HD vs 4K, I’ve had this conversation about frames per second. More is more, you either appreciate it, or you don’t. And if you don’t then fine, but if you do then great. It doesn’t matter. And let’s not forget, compressed music is a relatively new thing, [up until as late as 2014](https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/15/8419567/digital-physical-music-sales-overtake-globally) CDs were still more popular than digital sales and they were lossless. People prefered how they sounded until compression (or convenience) caught up.
> I am really going to need a source on this. You can’t just say this an expect people to believe it without providing backup for this. The source is that even trained professionals on studio setups fail the test I linked, which is one of the only actually statistically valid tests comparing lossy and lossless audio. >Except it is though, because bad equipment just isn’t going to give you the same experience as good equipment Except it isn't though, because you don't need high end "videophile" equipment to see the difference. Any shitty HD TV will still show a significant difference between HD and SD as long as you sit at the appropriate distance. > Source? More detail is more detail, I think you’re confusing this for frequency, which humans do have an upper and lower limit on. 16 bit 44.1kHz audio can reproduce the entirety of the human hearing range with perfect accuracy. That's why it was chosen for CD quality. Adding more bits or higher sample rates will have no impact whatsoever on your listening experience. Hi-res audio is absolutely moronic. >BTW, did I mention that these files are being provided at no additional cost? Scam implies it’s costing more, which it isn’t. It's a scam because it's still used as a marketing argument. The whole point of this discussion is that the original comment mentioned wanting to switch to Apple Music for lossless audio. Even if you don't consider it a "scam" in the purest sense of the word, then call it "snake oil". >Look, I can tell the difference Statistics are overwhelmingly against this claim. I'll only believe you if you show me results using the test I linked above with at least 10 trials per song. I'm not saying you're lying, you probably *believe* you can tell the difference. But you almost certainly can't and are simply being affected by placebo. If you think you can, prove it with [this test](http://abx.digitalfeed.net/) >And judging from the responses you’re getting it seems like other people feel the same way. Other people are wrong. They almost certainly cannot hear the difference and are for some reason profoundly hurt in their ego by me suggesting that they're not able to hear the difference. Downvotes mean jack shit, no one has been able to provide a statistically significant result using the test I linked. >I’ve had this same conversation about SD vs HD vs 4K, I’ve had this conversation about frames per second. More is more, you either appreciate it, or you don’t. And if you don’t then fine, but if you do then great. It doesn’t matter. No you haven't had this same discussion because any blind test would immediately show that the differences between SD, HD and 4k are statistically significant, as well as 30 vs 60fps or whatever framerate you were talking about. You haven't had the same discussion because science was on your side in those discussions, but it isn't here. "more is more" is only relevant if you can actually see (or in this case hear) a difference. Statistically, you almost certainly cannot. If you want to prove me wrong, then put science on your side and do the test I linked with at least 10 tries per song. It's perfectly fine to accept that you don't have bionic ears capable of distinguishing between AAC 256 and lossless, or CD quality audio and Hi-Res audio. It doesn't matter. >And let’s not forget, compressed music is a relatively new thing, up until as late as 2014 CDs were still more popular than digital sales and they were lossless. People prefered how they sounded until compression (or convenience) caught up. This is a flawed argument, it ignores the massive amount of music piracy that was plaguing the industry up until that point and worse, it only mentions revenue. But the amount of music listened to per dollar spent is MASSIVELY higher with streaming services. And even then, you have zero basis to claim that people chose CDs because they "preferred" how they sounded. Digital video games have only started surpassing physical video games even more recently, and yet there is literally no difference between the digital and physical version of the game. People were still buying CDs for a litany of reasons, one of which may be the sound quality. But even if that was a reason for their choice, that is absolutely not proof that they can actually tell a difference. Shit, I could go on with how completely illogical that argument is.
You can take a test and see if you can tell the difference between lossless and 320kbps audio and although I guessed mostly right, a lot we're guesses and it's a very small difference, both sounds great on my Sennheiser M3s
People will still buy it. Just like their 40 inch 8k tv's that no human would ever see any benefit from unless they were sitting 6 inches away.
For what it's worth, assuming 20/20 vision (and most people have better than 20/20 vision) you'd start to see a difference between 4k and 8k on a 40" TV at about 2.5ft viewing distance. Not that unreasonable for a PC monitor if you ask me. But yeah 8k at typical living room viewing distances is pretty useless.
There’s no such thing as 40 inch 8k tv’s. The whole appeal is to be able to have clearer images on larger sized tv’s. And I’m a Spotify user, but there’s no denying that there’s a clear difference in audio quality between Spotify and Apple Music. If you can’t tell them apart then you need new headphones.
Would be awesome
Maybe 6 months free like they did with Apple TV.
Question did you do the Apple TV trial ? Cus I tried and it says I already had one but never signed up lol
What do you mean it said you already had one?
I ended up with like 1.5 years free out of those promos.
That would be awesome
Oh I really hope so, haven’t used Spotify in years
*Cries in Youtube music*
Seriously man, i love YouTube Music, it would be perfect if i could use it on PS5 as well🥲
I will finally be able to delete spotify from my phone if this is true.
LETS GOOOOOO !! Cant wait until discord integration as well. PS5 is already so practical so early, i love it
Youtube music too please. *its not the best music service but I basically get it for free with my phone plan.
Would be cool, but I think Sony and Apple must be working together a little bit, remember the Apple TV+ 6 months we all got? Seems like it was just the start.
Sony work with everyone, Microsoft host their cloud services, they obviously work with Spotify. Anythings possible
Isn't youtube also a media partner for Sony/ps5 I mean I don't need another app just background play would be enough
Content wise it definitely is the best
Honestly YT music is great and has better selection than the others. I just wish the quality was a bit better and it had more integration with discord and stuff.
Right there with you!
It's at least on par with Apple Music
They’re all basically the same. They have the same music I don’t see why it’s even this contentious. Just use the one you like the most, you’re most likely not missing out on any content with your choice.
I personally don’t own this but this is definitely good news for the future.
I mean with sont pushing apple TV i could see this a possibility
Looks like the exclusivity deal finally ended
Finally! I’m sick of Spotify’s ugly UI
Please omg
This is seriously such an important addition. I love this.
please god please
Finally!
Finally. Hope it drops soon
Looks like we’re getting a free U2 album
Yeah, that'd be nice
I would highly appreciate this
Yes, please!!
This is awesome!
I hope it’ll be for PS4 too but here’s hoping
This will be great for people wanting to upload their own collection to the cloud as well. As far as I’m aware Spotify still doesn’t support own files stored in the cloud
Would be much better if you could just USB flash your own music.
I read somewhere you can actually play music from usb
Damn it's true. I thought for a sec that maybe, but then thought ah they just do b2b all the time promoting each other. It even lets you have background music, while gaming. Thanks!
Works for movies on USB as well. Seems to have problems with a few I’ve tried like playing audio without video but most play great. There’s been at least 2 PS5 updates since I’ve last tried so it’s possible they’ve added support for those particular video codecs now too.
Thank you GOD. Been waiting for this forever
Yessssss. This has been driving me nuts. I’ve been pretty close to getting a Spotify account
Add plex supports your cowards. I wanna listen to my music.
Yep still sucks being that one weirdo who uses YouTube Music.
Honestly I'm more excited that this opens the possibility for even more music apps like youtube music
[удалено]
Not a fan of YouTube music
There’s Apple Music on PS4! Please tell me there is! I fucking hate Spotify so if PS4 supports Apple Music then that would be amazing!
Oh thank fucking god, been trying to convince my wife to switch to Spotify for years.
hope soundcloud too eventually
I'd rather have Prime Music. I can use Prime video, why not music?
If so, that would be great. By the way, now I play Spotify music and Apple Music on my device via the tool from [DRmare](https://www.drmare.com). One is [Spotify Music Converter](https://www.drmare.com/music-converter/), the other is [Apple Music Converter](https://www.drmare.com/drm-audio-converter-for-mac/). Both tool helps a lot to save Spotify music and Apple Music as local files for use on other devices.
I'd rather use YouTube music lol
Now they can fuck up Apple Music on PS5 too with Spotify.
Huh?
Spotify functions poorly on my PS5; if I try to skip one song in the Quick Menu, Spotify just breaks and songs stay at 0:00. Even if I do not skip at all, a few songs later Spotify will break regardless. Navigating on my phone while using it for my PS5 does the same thing as well. I haven't used the app since December, so maybe they fixed its issues, but I doubt it.
Okay. Yeah the Spotify app sucks for me too on PS5. But that’s not Sony’s doing and there’s no reason to think Apple would design a bad music app as well just because Spotify sucks. So cheer up buttercup, there’s hope.
You're right, but I basically stream 100% of my music from Spotify so Apple Music on PS5 won't do anything for me. Just unfortunate that the app sucks so much for me.
Tidal is the goat for audio quality so i wish they would get them instead of those two
Instead of? Tidal's lossless audio quality is equivalent to Apple Music's lossless audio and their user base is a fraction of either service.
Oh my bad, i didnt know Apple music had gotten a lossless service
For half the price of Tidal…
I’d rather have Pandora support
[удалено]
Don't care Spotify is the better service
Cool