Check Out The Refreshed Ipad And Deezer For Mac

The European Commission today it has approved Apple's proposed acquisition of music recognition service Shazam. 'After thoroughly analyzing Shazam's user and music data, we found that their acquisition by Apple would not reduce competition in the digital music streaming market,' said Margrethe Vestager, European Commissioner for Competition. The regulatory body concluded that Apple and Shazam mainly offer 'complementary services' and 'do not compete with each other,' and that a merged Apple-Shazam entity would not adversely affect competitors in the European Union: In particular, access to Shazam's data would not materially increase Apple's ability to target music enthusiasts and any conduct aimed at making customers switch would only have a negligible impact.

As a result, competing providers of digital music streaming services would not be shut out of the market.The regulators were concerned that the merger. In particular, they were concerned that Apple might gain access to sensitive data that would allow it to directly target competitors' customers and encourage them to switch to Apple Music. While the Commission did not name any specific companies, Apple Music's biggest rival in Europe is Spotify, headquartered in Sweden. Shazam is currently integrated with multiple services, including Apple Music, Spotify, and Deezer. Apple announced its in December, describing the two companies as a 'natural fit' with 'exciting plans' ahead. In February, however, the Commission received requests from Austria, France, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Spain, and Sweden to.

Shazam is a popular service that can identify the name and lyrics of songs, music videos, TV shows, and more. It has apps across iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, iMessage, and Mac, while the service has been built into Siri since iOS 8. Sure, but how many people subscribe to multiple services in the first place? Sorry for the confusion. I was talking about song-discovery apps (Shazam and SoundHound), which are both free for the time being. So it is just a matter of using one or the other.

So I was saying that if Shazam does not allow its users to open a recognised track in Spotify, its current users might just move to another music ID app, like SoundHound. I was not saying that people will switch from one streaming service to another, even though it might encourage some.;).

Music streaming service Deezer released a on Wednesday that offers high-definition lossless audio playback in the popular FLAC format. The app not only eliminates the hassle and additional step of opening up a new browser but desktop users with Premium+ account, who download the new app before January 2018, will be able to hear all their music in high-definition audio by selecting this option under sound settings.Support for 16-bit FLAC is available to Premium+ subscribers, who currently pay $9.99 for the luxury.

However, users who want to stream in the lossless format after January 2018 will have to subscribe to Deezer HiFi, which costs twice that at $19.99. (Deezer's new pricing matches Tidal's HiFi lossless subscription tier.) The desktop Deezer app is currently still a beta, but it does include access to 43 million tracks as well as a working version of the Flow feature, which is similar to Apple Music's personalized playlists. Flow recommends songs based on previously played tracks, as well as video interviews and performances. Deezer subscribers can download the desktop app using. I had the misfortune of having to give up Tidal HiFi for Apple Music recently. Apple Music sounds crap. I would never voluntarily pay for Apple Music, I got it free for a year with my phone plan, probably because Apple wanted to get the numbers up.

Check Out The Refreshed Ipad And Deezer For Macbook

Other services are going to start offering higher than 16/44 CD quality soon if they haven’t already. Apple needs to lift their game. In a world where you can shoot 4K video on your phone and 8K televisions will soon be a thing it’s crazy that digital music retailers like Apple still haven’t matched a 30 year-old audio standard. This is just marketing crap. Nobody has ever been able to hear the difference between a 256kbps AAC audio file (like Apple Music is) and a 24bit WAV file. All the people that say they hear a difference didn't take a double blind test yet OR are so so afraid to show their test results online – I wonder why.

I've taken a double blind test several times and was never able to reliably tell the difference. By the way: I'm an audio engineer whose ears should be trained to do that. And all people who say they can are LIARS. They do biased tests by switching back and forth with them knowing which file is what. Of course your brain will tell you that WAV sounds better.

But as soon as you don't know which is which you'll fail. I believe you’re the one who is mistaken. You’re pushing tired old arguments that are increasingly being debunked with newer evidence to the contrary. In fact many of those studies you’re relying on were poorly described and relied upon listeners with no training or concern for high quality audio. The average joe where near enough is good enough.

There’s a meta analysis of many studies which shows a positive identification at a statistically significant level for listeners who were trained to recognise high-res audio and knew what they were listening for (I’m a data analyst with a science degree so I know about stats). Furthermore, the analysis highlighted some studies that had fairly high rates of positive identification and in particular some individuals who have a much better ability than others. This could be due to many factors such as genetics, experience and lack of hearing damage. I’ll try to find it and post back. So just because you can’t tell doesn’t mean everyone else are LIARS. As for Apple’s lossy AAC, I suspect it was converted from 16/44 lossless CD, which itself was created from higher resolution sources, making it sound worse than it otherwise should.

This is why Apple began marketing their “Maatered for iTunes” albums. They’re probably much better because greater care was taken during the mastering process and conversion to 256 kbps was done in one go from the master. I pity you if you can’t tell.

Maybe you have damaged hearing or you just aren’t suited to your career. Unfortunately, many young people are damaging their hearing these days because of prolonged use of poor quality headphones of which which Apple’s bundled EarPods are amongst the worst.

True their library is lacking compared with Apple’s but I still find plenty of what I like. The app itself is miles better than Apple’s Music, which pushes their own services and has an ugly, fat, white UI. I ignore the featured/pushed music on both platforms and just use search, then check out other artists that are similar to the ones I like. Apple may not push rap, but the bland pop they feature is equally bad if not worse most of the time. Remember the U2 debacle? I actually like some French rap and pop which is quite different from English music (i.e.

Better) and Tidal is good there. I’ve even seen a few albums I like that Tidal has but Apple Music lacks. Also, Tidal lets you watch full videoclips, which I don’t believe Apple Music does. In the end, I’ll take Tidal’s smaller library but higher quality and better app any day over Apple Music.

I tried Tidal for a month and felt like they really go out of their way to target a black-only audience, so I left after the free trial. This is just marketing crap. Nobody has ever been able to hear the difference between a 256kbps AAC audio file (like Apple Music is) and a 24bit WAV file.

All the people that say they hear a difference didn't take a double blind test yet OR are so so afraid to show their test results online – I wonder why. I've taken a double blind test several times and was never able to reliably tell the difference.

By the way: I'm an audio engineer whose ears should be trained to do that. And all people who say they can are LIARS. They do biased tests by switching back and forth with them knowing which file is what.

Of course your brain will tell you that WAV sounds better. But as soon as you don't know which is which you'll fail.

Check Out The Refreshed Ipad And Deezer For Mac Mac

I believe you’re the one who is mistaken. You’re pushing tired old arguments that are increasingly being debunked with newer evidence to the contrary. In fact many of those studies you’re relying on were poorly described and relied upon listeners with no training or concern for high quality audio. The average joe where near enough is good enough.

Check Out The Refreshed Ipad And Deezer For Macbook Pro

There’s a meta analysis of many studies which shows a positive identification at a statistically significant level for listeners who were trained to recognise high-res audio and knew what they were listening for (I’m a data analyst with a science degree so I know about stats). Furthermore, the analysis highlighted some studies that had fairly high rates of positive identification and in particular some individuals who have a much better ability than others. This could be due to many factors such as genetics, experience and lack of hearing damage.

I’ll try to find it and post back. So just because you can’t tell doesn’t mean everyone else are LIARS.

As for Apple’s lossy AAC, I suspect it was converted from 16/44 lossless CD, which itself was created from higher resolution sources, making it sound worse than it otherwise should. This is why Apple began marketing their “Maatered for iTunes” albums. They’re probably much better because greater care was taken during the mastering process and conversion to 256 kbps was done in one go from the master. I pity you if you can’t tell.

Maybe you have damaged hearing or you just aren’t suited to your career. Unfortunately, many young people are damaging their hearing these days because of prolonged use of poor quality headphones of which which Apple’s bundled EarPods are amongst the worst. You contradict yourself, you say you need to be trained to hear a difference, yet you say he can't tell a difference because he might have 'damaged hearing'. First of all, if you need to be 'trained' to hear a difference it really isn't worth it to increase the file size of a track for mainstream consumption, also, I assume you are one of those insecure audiofools that buy snake oil and actually believe they can hear a difference, yet they offer ZERO PROOF.

I am not against Apple offering lossless or even hi res downloads / streaming, but with improved mastering and less compression. A poorly mastered track will still be horrible at 24/96.

A great master will sound great, even as a 256k AAC file. Sorry, but I rather trust music engineers and people that actually create the music, over an 'expert audiophile'. This is just marketing crap. Nobody has ever been able to hear the difference between a 256kbps AAC audio file (like Apple Music is) and a 24bit WAV file. All the people that say they hear a difference didn't take a double blind test yet OR are so so afraid to show their test results online – I wonder why.

I've taken a double blind test several times and was never able to reliably tell the difference. By the way: I'm an audio engineer whose ears should be trained to do that.

And all people who say they can are LIARS. They do biased tests by switching back and forth with them knowing which file is what. Of course your brain will tell you that WAV sounds better. But as soon as you don't know which is which you'll fail.

'Because i can't hear a difference, no one can hear a difference' lol. Lets try a few more. 'Because I can't see it, no one can see it' 'Because I can't smell it, no one can smell it' 'Because I don't believe it, no one can believe it'.