Skip to main content
Answered

Does Sonos now stream lossless from Apple Music?

I did not think this was supported before, due to Apple.  For example, I once asked a BluOS dealer why they force you to AirPlay if you want to listen to Apple Music and they said it was because Apple does not support lossless streaming to non-Apple devices, only 256kbps AAC.

I have an Era 300 and it's logged into my Apple Music account, like before.  But now on the new app when I see what the speaker is playing it now says “Lossless”.  I don’t remember ever seeing that before.  So…. am I now getting lossless music to my Era 300?

 

27 replies

R
Userlevel 7
Badge +15

Yes, Lossless from Apple Music on Sonos has been supported for about a month now. 

R
Badge

Do we know if this is Lossless or Hi-Res Lossless if Available. I have Tried some Tracks from The Doors that on Apple Music in Hi-Res Lossless but only Show 

Lossless in Sonos App ?

Your twisting my melon man
R
Badge

Have tried a few tracks and on my set up Stereo pair one,one SL with Sub Mini it’s definitely better on Hi-res Losses Tracks. Anyone else had an improvement in the experience listening?

Your twisting my melon man
jgatie

Sonos can support streaming up to 24-bit, 48 kHz.  The Apple Music “Hi-Res” is probably 96 kHz or above (there is no real standard for “Hi-Res”, hence the quotes).  But don’t worry, the only thing any sample rate greater than 40 kHz does is capture the frequencies only dogs can hear, so 48 kHz is all you are ever going to need.  

Here’s some light reading on the subject from the makers of the FLAC codec (who know a thing or two about sampling audio): https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

B
Userlevel 2
Badge +1

While a higher sample rate will enable the capturing of higher frequencies signals, saying that a higher sample rate does nothing to improve the sound of audible frequencies is just plain wrong.  The more you sample a signal the more accurate a representation you get of it.

R
Badge

When I did Electronics 40 years ago Frequencies and  sample rate were completely different in my understanding the a higher sample rate will allow for more accurate separation of the frequencies we can hear. 

Your twisting my melon man
jgatie

When I did Electronics 40 years ago Frequencies and  sample rate were completely different in my understanding the a higher sample rate will allow for more accurate separation of the frequencies we can hear. 

 

Total myth.  The stair step representation of a sample is 100% wrong (Sony even got dinged for it, they were made to stop using it in their Hi-Res audio ads). 

 

Summarized from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

Intuitively we expect that when one reduces a continuous function to a discrete sequence and interpolates back to a continuous function, the fidelity of the result depends on the density (or sample rate) of the original samples. Nyquist-Shannon introduces the concept of a sample rate that is sufficient for perfect fidelity for the class of functions that are band-limited to a given bandwidth, such that no actual information is lost in the sampling process. 

 

A sufficient sample-rate is therefore anything larger than 2𝐵{\displaystyle 2B} samples per second. Equivalently, for a given sample rate 𝑓𝑠{\displaystyle f_{s}}, perfect reconstruction is guaranteed possible for a bandlimit 𝐵<𝑓𝑠/2{\displaystyle B<f_{s}/2}.

 

In other words, a sample rate of 48 kHz captures the entire signal under the 24 kHz frequency with no actual information lost.  Whatever goes in as analog from 0-24 kHz, comes out as analog from 0-24 kHz, with nothing missing.  The signal is exactly the same.   The only thing a higher sampling frequency gives you is the ability to capture higher frequencies outside the limits of human hearing.  In short, a higher sampling rate than 40 kHz being “better” is pure snake oil.  

jgatie

While a higher sample rate will enable the capturing of higher frequencies signals, saying that a higher sample rate does nothing to improve the sound of audible frequencies is just plain wrong.  The more you sample a signal the more accurate a representation you get of it.

 

Nope, not even close to being true.  See links above.  You can’t get any higher than perfect reproduction, and a sample rate of 2X the bandwidth desired is all it takes for perfect reproduction within the bandwidth desired.  Since anything above 20 kHz is inaudible, anything higher than 40 kHz is a waste (44.1 was chosen because it matched the rate for Sony’s Betamax tapes). 

B
Userlevel 2
Badge +1

Next you’re going to tell me all DACs sound the same.  Nyquist-Shannon is correct.  But that requires circuitry that is perfect and without error.  That doesn’t exist in the real world.

jgatie

Next you’re going to tell me all DACs sound the same.  Nyquist-Shannon is correct.  But that requires circuitry that is perfect and without error.  That doesn’t exist in the real world.

 

Which is all covered in the link I gave above (those pesky folks at Xiph sure know what they are talking about).  It’s why they make the masters at higher sample rates, so they can force any artifacts into the inaudible realm and throw them away.  

As Monty from Xiph says above:

That's only half the story. Because digital filters have few of the practical limitations of an analog filter, we can complete the anti-aliasing process with greater efficiency and precision digitally. The very high rate raw digital signal passes through a digital anti-aliasing filter, which has no trouble fitting a transition band into a tight space. After this further digital anti-aliasing, the extra padding samples are simply thrown away. Oversampled playback approximately works in reverse.

This means we can use low rate 44.1kHz or 48kHz audio with all the fidelity benefits of 192kHz or higher sampling (smooth frequency response, low aliasing) and none of the drawbacks (ultrasonics that cause intermodulation distortion, wasted space).

R
Userlevel 7
Badge +15

All I know is that the difference between streaming Spotify and Apple on Sonos is night and day to me. The deep warmth generated by the sub, the purity of the hi-hat from the Arc, the fullness of the music, and the clarity of separation in the room when streaming Lossless Apple tracks is so much more emotionally rewarding than anything streamed from Spotify on Sonos. 

Edit: To be clear, this isn’t to dispute any of the more complex discussion around me. It’s just a comment on Lossless vs not. 

B
Userlevel 2
Badge +1

I guess my ears lied to me when, many years ago, I upgraded from a Yamaha CD player to an Arcam CD-23.  The difference was staggering, and that was Red Book CD, the only difference being the quality of the DACs.

jgatie

I guess my ears lied to me when, many years ago, I upgraded from a Yamaha CD player to an Arcam CD-23.  The difference was staggering, and that was Red Book CD, the only difference being the quality of the DACs.

 

I didn’t say anything about the quality of DACs, it doesn’t enter the equation.  And many years ago, the quality of  CD mastering was garbage, due to recording engineers trying to apply analog techniques to digital mastering (also covered in the Xiph link above).  Better CD players handled the garbage mastering better than others.  That doesn’t apply to streaming files.

B
Userlevel 2
Badge +1

Sorry I misunderstood you!

jgatie

All I know is that the difference between streaming Spotify and Apple on Sonos is night and day to me. The deep warmth generated by the sub, the purity of the hi-hat from the Arc, the fullness of the music, and the clarity of separation in the room when streaming Lossless Apple tracks is so much more emotionally rewarding than anything streamed from Spotify on Sonos. 

 

Lossless is definitely an advantage over lossy.  However, with a lossless sample, there is a point where a higher sampling rate gives no advantage, and even can make the sample sound worse due to intermodulation distortion in the playback electronics.  That threshold is the Nyquist-Shannon rate, defined as 2x the highest frequency required for playback. 

R
Userlevel 7
Badge +15

All I know is that the difference between streaming Spotify and Apple on Sonos is night and day to me. The deep warmth generated by the sub, the purity of the hi-hat from the Arc, the fullness of the music, and the clarity of separation in the room when streaming Lossless Apple tracks is so much more emotionally rewarding than anything streamed from Spotify on Sonos. 

 

Lossless is definitely an advantage over lossy.  However, with a lossless sample, there is a point where a higher sampling rate gives no advantage, and even can make the sample sound worse due to intermodulation distortion in the playback electronics.  That threshold is the Nyquist-Shannon rate, defined as 2x the highest frequency required for playback. 

I added an ‘edit’ to my post, potentially just before you started writing this, I think! It was to say I’m not disputing any of the technical elements, as I bow to people’s knowledge - I was just making a comment on Lossless vs not. I agree that there comes a point beyond which any more data or bits or kHz don’t make a discernible difference to humans!

I opened that link you sent earlier for further (after work) reading. 👍🏻

jgatie

I added an ‘edit’ to my post, potentially just before you started writing this, I think! It was to say I’m not disputing any of the technical elements, as I bow to people’s knowledge - I was just making a comment on Lossless vs not. I agree that there comes a point beyond which any more data or bits or kHz don’t make a discernible difference to humans!

I opened that link you sent earlier for further (after work) reading. 👍🏻

 

Monty (the author) is a pretty cool guy.  His videos on audio sampling are great for the layman.  There’s one where he actually generates a sine wave on an oscilloscope, samples it to digital at varying sample frequencies, then converts from digital back to analog and sends it to another oscilloscope for analysis.  He proves that even down to the level of analysis on the scope, the analog output is exactly equal to the input as long as the sample frequency is 2x the bandwidth of the input signal.   It’s pretty eye opening.  

T

Forgive me if I am beating this horse to death.  Two questions related to this:

  1. Does using apple music and listening to a “lossless” song through the Sonos app on my Sonos One Gen 2 speakers, play lossless/better than CD quality music out of the speakers?
  2. If yes, can I replace those speakers with my own speakers and amplifier connected to a Sonos Port, playing the same apple music and “lossless” song through the Sonos app and have lossless/better than CD quality music play out of the speakers?

Thank you.

C
Userlevel 6
Badge +12

Technically, yes to both. I was guided to this link in another thread on similar subject:

https://support.sonos.com/en-gb/services/apple-music

I am listening to 24bit/48kHz Apple Music using new Sonos App with Apple Music service.

 

 

 

Y

I’m a little bit surprised with introducing the lossless for Apple Music in Sonos app (waiting so long). Thanks for that Sonos team!
 

I’m just wondering if via AirPlay from Apple Music we also are getting the lossless quality now (I have a lossless badge as in the attached screen)?

Y

 

Y

Hi-res is also showing for me in Apple Music app via AirPlay (on this album I’ve got all options - lossless, hi-res and no badge at all on different tracks??)

 

S
Userlevel 3
Badge +4

Do we know if this is Lossless or Hi-Res Lossless if Available. I have Tried some Tracks from The Doors that on Apple Music in Hi-Res Lossless but only Show 

Lossless in Sonos App ?

Why do you want Hi Res on a Sonos System? I can’t even hear the difference between lossless and high res on my £3000 headphone and £7000 Dac. How on earth are you going to hear the difference?

C
Userlevel 6
Badge +12

Why do you want Hi Res on a Sonos System?

Networks and hardware are getting faster: Content providers have to think of new innovative ways to use that increased bandwidth, so the network operators can sell more bandwidth, and the hardware manufacturers can sell more hardware, so the content providers can use more bandwidth…..

 

T

Is Apple Music Lossless limited to speaker age?  For example I have 2 Five’s in my office.  They play Lossless perfectly.  If I add in my stereo paired Play 1’s on the deck I lose lossless in both rooms.  Curious if the Play 1’s I have are just too old to run it.

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings