As far as I know AirPlay already uses ALAC 44/16 which is lossless relative to CD quality. So in principle if you stream a lossless track at 44/16 to any AirPlay enabled B&O speaker you should experience "better" quality compared to the current 256 AAC. Better is however relative, most people cannot hear the difference, you can do an ABX test for yourself here: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/itunes.html

Regarding hi-res, with 44kHz sample rate you can represent signals up to 22kHz without any loss. Higher sample rates do not make sense for consumption because no-one hears higher tones. It does make sense for production however, because it gives you more editing headroom. It also makes sense for animals but only if your speakers can reproduce tones over 22kHz which is again uncommon. For bit depth it's a little bit more complicated, but again, most studies will show that there is no perceptual difference by increasing the bit depth over 16bit.

Headphones will not support lossless over Bluetooth. For the H95 I am not sure if it can decode ALAC wired.

Spatial audio converts multichannel audio to stereo in such a way that your ears will be tricked to experience motion and depth by introducing latency between left and right. From what I read so far, Apple will do this on the player side (Mac or iPhone) meaning that any headphone should be able to reproduce the effect.

BeoJosh wrote:

Apple today announced Apple Lossless for Apple Music, with Hi-Res up to 24/192, coming in June to 20m songs, with the rest of the 75m song catalog by the end of the year. Doubt it'll work over AP but reports say it will play on Apple TV. Details/specifics are still sparse, but I'm very curious to see how this might work--and sound--on our B&O equipment....

I have been listening my lossless music through Airplay 2. My music files are in AIFF 16/44.1. So, I believe I could answer your question regarding sound quality.

So far, it sounds amazing. It sounds lively and music feels like it has a soul. However, I believe you will still get a better sound quality through a CD Plater or a turntable. Nevertheless, don't worry about the sound quality. 

As noted in the replies above, Airplay 2 supports streaming of FLAC & ALAC files at 16/44.1.  I believe resolution up to 24/48 is supported.  So any B&O speaker that supports AP2 should be able to playback 'Apple Music Lossless.'

However, I'm pretty sure that AP2 doesn't support any higher resolutions, so 'Apple Music Hi-Res Lossless' streaming is a non-starter for our non-wired B&O products.

This situation is problematic for Apple's own products. much less 3PP, leading me to believe that there's an 'Airplay 3' up ahead somewhere.  The WWDC is first week of June.

If AP2 is rev'ed, it will be interesting to see which B&O products will in turn be rev'ed to support it.  A developing story.

I cannot believe for a minute that 20 million songs have a recorded provenance beyond Redbook CD specifications.

Sure the songs may be delivered in a hi-res container. But the “candy” inside is still far less than the packaging suggests

Barry Santini wrote:

I cannot believe for a minute that 20 million songs have a recorded provenance beyond Redbook CD specifications.

Sure the songs may be delivered in a hi-res container. But the “candy” inside is still far less than the packaging suggests

 

Years ago, Apple started recommending that masters submitted to them for iTunes release should be at 96/24. They also recommended that studios not simply upsample to do this.

This was the document they released back then, in case you're interested. Check the section on "Best Practices"

Geoff Martin wrote:

(remember that the CD Redbook format is about to turn 40)

I'd feel much better if we could all just pretend it's turning 20!

🙁

Geoff Martin wrote:

And just to head things off at the pass... I'm not going to enter a debate about whether "High Resolution" means "Better".
This is a VERY complicated discussion that is rife with religious beliefs. However, "I can't hear above xx kHz" is not a reason to dismiss higher sampling rates and "I live in a noisy house" is not a reason to dismiss wider bit depths - just in case anyone was loading up their argument ammunition...

Hi Geoff,

I am sorry because you said you will not enter the debate about hi-res. However, I am very interested to hear your perspective on some elements.

First of all some background I am sure are very well aware of, but just for reference to put things in context:

- The sample rate determines the maximum frequency you can represent. A digital signal is a discrete (made up of samples) representation of a continues signal (waves). To reconstruct a sinus wave you need exactly two samples. This means that the maximum frequency you can reconstruct equals half the sample rate. This reconstruction is exact and not an approximation (for that specific frequency). In other words, with a sample rate of 44.1 we can accuratly reconstruct signals up to 22kHz (well above the limit of human hearring).

- The dynamic range determines the number of different volume levels you can represent. With 16bit you can represent a dynamic range of approximatly 90dB. Nevertheless, this is not an exact approximation, there are quantization artefacts in play.

In conclusion, there are arguments why there could be a perceptual difference with an increased dynamic range. For production it also makes sense to work with an increased sample rate to give addtional headroom to compensate for editing artefacts, transcoding etc. However, for playback I don't see the added value to increase the sample rate. I know that some speakers can reproduce higher frequencies (I think 90s and 50s can go over 40kHz?) but our brains will not pick up these signals anyway.

In short, I am just very interested to hear your perspective on this matter from a scientific (signal processing) point of view.

laseralex wrote:

I'd feel much better if we could all just pretend it's turning 20!

One thing is sure in audiophile territory: the more you have money available to spend on high end speakers, the less your ears are able to hear the difference, just because you are getting older...😎

In posting this announcement, I didn't mean to start a discussion as to whether Hi-Res is better or not, but simply to see how we might utilize this new format from Apple on our B&O systems for those who wish to.

I'm using Deezer Hi-Fi (FLAC) on my systems and have been quite happy with it (and, to my ears, it sounds better than Apple Music via AP, which is why I use it), but have been intrigued by the idea of Tidal Masters/QoBuz/Roon, etc. I haven't gone down that road because I want to keep my system as simple as possible, and I haven't been convinced it'd be worth the expense/hassle.

But with a pair of 50s on order that are capable of 24/192 and for my 28s on order, as well as my current 18s, all of which are capable of 24/96, I thought this development might make it easier to play Hi-Res should I choose to, since all the speakers will be connected to a BV with an Apple TV as a source.

The release says Apple TV can play Hi-Res natively, but there's no info about how the Apple TV outputs that to another system--ie whether it outputs via HDMI or whether some sort of DAC would be required. What's also unclear to me (and perhaps others here know) is whether the BV can output or pass along 24/192 to the 50s from the Apple TV, or whether I'd have to get another Apple TV and hook it up directly to the 50s to play Hi-Res Lossless.

I guess we'll have to wait and see!