Apple Music

[Dave2002]

OK..can anyone please tell me how to fix this problem with Apple Music? Adding the Colin Davis set to my iTunes library, the tracks get listed in alphabetical order and not in proper track sequence. There is no track number that one normally gets when you import CDs and so you can't sort on that. So how do folks get over this?

And why are some tracks greyed out in some items of music?

I don't quite see what you are trying to do.
I am using Apple Music at present - simply using iTunes as the means of accessing it.

Are you trying to use iTunes to do other things as well, such as storing your own CDs in the cloud? That's something I've resisted, as (1) I don't trust "the cloud" very much, and secondly if I rip a CD in a lossless format I don't want some "clever" system overwriting that version with a lossy one. In fairness I don't know if that does happen - the sensible thing would be to keep the original ripped version in a lossless format, or in some cases in a user chosen lossless format, on the original machine. However, the "in the cloud" copies could be done by a matching process, and streamed or downloaded in more or less convenient lossy format. I just don't know what Apple do for that kind of situation - sometimes they do things well, and sometimes not.

Returning to your original question, is the track sequence in Apple Music not treated in quite the same way as a CD ripped into iTunes? Your note re the track number does indicate some differences.

I may investigate later. Right now listening to Idomeneo on AM prior to hearing a live performance later this week, and figuring if I can get back home without running the risk of the last train.

[Anastasius]

Once you have found what you are looking for - (by no means a consistent event - search Mahler 8 Davis and nothing comes up but search Davis Mahler 8 and it does) - if you click on the horizontal line of three dots to the right of the album title then you have three options. The first is Add to My Music. When I added the Davis cycle, the works were arranged in alphabetical order within each work which is useless. However there is an inconsistency as I Add'ed a discrete album of Mahler 8 and it lists them perfectly OK. Very strange.

Other options are to Add to a pre-existing playlist. I tried selecting the three movements of a Piano Concerto to see what would happen but rather than Add these three, it added everything again...most strange.

I also notice that the bitrate is shown as 256kbps whereas Qobuz is 320kbps. Given that Qobuz is less than half the price of Apple Music I won't be continuing after the trial.

[Dave2002]

I also notice that the bitrate is shown as 256kbps whereas Qobuz is 320kbps. Given that Qobuz is less than half the price of Apple Music I won't be continuing after the trial.

What codec does Qobuz use? I assume you are referring to the cheapest option, so lossy codecs. I think that it's possible that Apple's 256kbps does sound better than Qobuz at 320kbps, or at least comparable due to its more effective codec.

At least the iTunes streaming doesn't seem to make my MacBook Pro overheat, which now seems to happen quite frequently using Spotify.

[Beef Oven!]

Given that Qobuz is less than half the price of Apple Music I won't be continuing after the trial.

We knew that from your first posts!!

(and it's not twice the price)

[Dave2002]

(and it's not twice the price)

It is, approximately, if one compares the lowest level of Qobuz service with the standard Apple Music service, and ignores any possible benefits of the latter which might arise from allowing multiple users/multiple machines.

It seems that several of the Qobuz users round here are happy to pay for the more expensive Qobuz services which include lossless streams and downloads, in which case the cost of Qobuz will be more than Apple Music.

[Beef Oven!]

It is, approximately, if one compares the lowest level of Qobuz service with the standard Apple Music service, and ignores..........

.....and if my auntie had balls, she'd be me uncle.

It seems that several of the Qobuz users round here are happy to pay for the more expensive Qobuz services which include lossless streams and downloads, in which case the cost of Qobuz will be more than Apple Music.

It seems that several of the 'Qobuz users round' here are thrashing around in cognitive dissonance!

[Dave2002]

beefy

What malt are you on this morning?

[Anastasius]

We knew that from your first posts!!

(and it's not twice the price)

Depends on your Qobuz subscription. Mine costs me 4.99 euros. Apple Music is, I believe, £9.99 My calculator says double the price.

[Anastasius]

What codec does Qobuz use? I assume you are referring to the cheapest option, so lossy codecs. I think that it's possible that Apple's 256kbps does sound better than Qobuz at 320kbps, or at least comparable due to its more effective codec.

At least the iTunes streaming doesn't seem to make my MacBook Pro overheat, which now seems to happen quite frequently using Spotify.

Interesting point re codecs. I'll have a listen between the two services to see if my cloth ears can tell the difference. Mind you, my listening environment may well not be good enough to tell. In which case, at least for me, codecs become academic !

[Beef Oven!]

Depends on your Qobuz subscription. Mine costs me 4.99 euros. Apple Music is, I believe, £9.99 My calculator says double the price.

It's also five times more expensive than the small freezer bags that my auntie buys in Poundland.

And the Qobuz that I was thinking about is £20 a pop, which my calculator tells me is twice as expensive as Apple. Do you think it depends on the calculator, or is it something else that causes these discrepancies?

[Stunsworth]

And the Qobuz that I was thinking about is £20 a pop, which my calculator tells me is twice as expensive as Apple. Do you think it depends on the calculator, or is it something else that causes these discrepancies?

That's for the lossless subscription. The subscription that more closely corresponds to what Apple are offering - 320k MP3 - is £9.99 a month. If you don't need access on mobile devices, that subscription drops to under a fiver a month.

[Beef Oven!]

That's for the lossless subscription. The subscription that more closely corresponds to what Apple are offering - 320k MP3 - is £9.99 a month. If you don't need access on mobile devices, that subscription drops to under a fiver a month.

Indeed. That's what I meant in post #111.

And it's not the calculator that causes the confusion.

[Dave2002]

Interesting point re codecs. I'll have a listen between the two services to see if my cloth ears can tell the difference. Mind you, my listening environment may well not be good enough to tell. In which case, at least for me, codecs become academic !

I assumed that you are/were on the cheapest Qobuz service (around £4-£5 per month - perhaps paid in Euros), and not so concerned about audio quality - perhaps to try out recordings/performances before buying either a higher quality download, or a CD or other distribution format. Others round here are prepared to pay more to get either classical only or "everything" in what I assume is significantly higher audio quality - at least CD quality - sometimes more.

That's more or less the view I have about Napster and Spotify. I personaly don't think they provide as good an audio quality as a good CD, but as a quick easily accessible way to check out a performance or piece they do suffice often enough. The same goes for YouTube renditions which for the end user are usually free - though whether they are "genuine" and legal is sometimes an "interesting" question.

Re the 256 kbps aac codecs which I think are Apple's - I doubt that they will sound worse than 320 kbps mp3 - possiby better. You'll have to decide for yourself. For myself above about 224 kbps (one of the standard MP3 rates) most codecs sound pretty similar.

However, looking at this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3 - there are some interesting quotes and observations:

Besides the bit rate of an encoded piece of audio, the quality of MP3 files also depends on the quality of the encoder itself, and the difficulty of the signal being encoded. As the MP3 standard allows quite a bit of freedom with encoding algorithms, different encoders may feature quite different quality, even with identical bit rates. As an example, in a public listening test featuring two different MP3 encoders at about 128 kbit/s,[44] one scored 3.66 on a 1–5 scale, while the other scored only 2.22.

I have some CDs where there is a tingle factor which might extend for only a few seconds from a disc which lasts over an hour. That TF might get lost on some lesser quality equipment - it really does. Most lossy codecs are likely to lose that TF, but if one tries to measure the loss numerically it might be as little as (say) 6/3600 - six seconds divided by the number of seconds in an hour - which is 1/600 or about 0.16%. Put another way 99.84% of the time the lossy encodings sound good enough - yet surely those who go to concerts know that there are times when "something happens" at specific moments in a performance which are emotionally very significant. Those are the points at which we want our recordings and equipment to do full justice to the experience. There are also other issues about live versus recorded sound, which I hope to address in another thread in the near future. There can be a whole world of difference.

A test given to new students by Stanford University Music Professor Jonathan Berger showed that student preference for MP3-quality music has risen each year. Berger said the students seem to prefer the 'sizzle' sounds that MP3s bring to music.

Indeed it does seem that some listeners to pop music have got used to the distortion, and now claim to like it. This enthusiasm for distorted sound does seem to have been a feature of some pop/rock music and instruments played over the last 30 or so years.

Quality is dependent on the choice of encoder and encoding parameters.

Sometimes the firms doing the encoding basically screw up and use a poor set of parameters for the music to be encoded.

These points are to some extent general, and will apply to other codec systems, not just mp3. However, I'm not sure whether the Stanford (or indeed students from other institutions) students specifically prefer mp3 generated distortion to say aac or ogg vorbis, or even Sony MiniDisc type distortion! Perhaps a subject for yet another budding music professor to write a Master's thesis on. Match the preferred codec distortion to the alma mater of each student, perhaps!

[Anastasius]

It's also five times more expensive than the small freezer bags that my auntie buys in Poundland.

And the Qobuz that I was thinking about is £20 a pop, which my calculator tells me is twice as expensive as Apple. Do you think it depends on the calculator, or is it something else that causes these discrepancies?

Well it could be simply you being back to your usual, abrasive, arrogant and patronising self. Do you enjoy trolling?

[Anastasius]

Hi Dave2002 and thanks for your constructive and civilised reply.

You are, of course, spot on with your observations. I did a quick comparison between the two systems (Qobuz and Apple Music) and TBH I'm not sure that I can tell any difference. That's not to say that others couldn't with their ears and/or hi-fi systems. But these ears can't! I do recall the AES doing some research into codecs and did have a link to their conclusions but have mislaid same.

As a caveat I am listening via the headphone socket on the MacBook and so maybe any differences between the two systems is masked by any inherent deficiencies in using this socket. I do have a reasonable USB > DAC somewhere or other...I'll try and find it and give it a whirl. When all's said and done, it's only background music for me and so Qobuz works just fine.