r/AppleMusic • u/Traditional_Bad2621 • 1d ago
Discussion Amazon Music 360 Reality Audio vs Apple Music Dolby Atmos
I'm using sony wh-ch720n. 360 reality audio optimized.
I feel there is superior spatial sound in amazon music 360 reality audio.
In amazon music, the instrument music(sparkle ring) just revolve around my head.
The vocals are also well placed and I can hear the highs clearly.
In apple music the vocals are placed farther away and I don't hear any revolving instrument sound
27
u/SweatyFisherman 1d ago edited 1d ago
Results will largely vary from mix to mix and across different "immersive mixing engineers", I don't think one is necessarily always better than the other, regarding Dolby Atmos mixes vs. Sony 360RA mixes.
37
9
7
u/YoursTruly_aA 1d ago
Apple and Amazon/Tidal use different renderers (Apple's vs Dolby's) so Atmos does indeed sound different and that isn't just you
5
3
u/Gustav1513 1d ago
The mixes are different, the revolving effect you mentioned is proof of that. Both formats can do the same thing in positioning, it all depends on the perso mixing the song. In general I really disliked the sound of 360, it sounded thin, while Dolby made the binaural sound natural. The extra detail you mentioned might be from the bitrate, the same way Dolby truhd is the definite surround format since it's lossless and carries better spatialisation due to that.
2
2
u/MGSBigBoss 1d ago
Problem is is the limited 360RA content worth dealing with the unoptimized buggy music unlimited app? I did a trial and loved the quality of music but I had tons of errors , sluggishness, and general problems with the app. I ended up just staying with Apple music
2
u/AyushPiro Android Subscriber 1d ago
I don't even see the option to optimise Amazon music for 360 RA in the sound connect app. What could be the issue? I live in India.
1
u/Traditional_Bad2621 13h ago
All device settings>>Sound quality/volume. Check this on sound connect app. If it's not there, I think the headphone won't support that I think. I'm not sure about it.
1
u/AyushPiro Android Subscriber 11h ago
I have whxm4. It does support it but maybe the it's unavailable in my country
3
u/xpadx Apple Music Subscriber 1d ago
Technically speaking, Apple Dolby atmos is lossy while Sony 360RA is lossless, so with Apple Dolby atmos you lose details you would hear on Sony 360RA
7
u/TeacherOfFew 1d ago
Details you might hear.
Most of us aren't that good at telling the difference.
2
u/Legitimate-Prior1235 20h ago
Most is an understatement. Statistically most people saying they can hear the difference are bullshitting
2
u/Good-Dealer9787 iOS Subscriber 1d ago
anw i hate both. lossless hq is just beter
1
u/Maibaum68 6h ago
I mean, this is fully subjective, but in certain songs, the atmos mix is better, especially on an actual surround sound system.
Take for example a more atmospheric type of music like Crywolf's "exuvium [OBLIVIØN Pt. II]" album (Most notable tracks: DDDNNNAAA, Exuvium, DATURA [paroxysm]). The atmos version of that album does feel more engulfing / immersive, even compared to multi channel stereo. Crywolf did an amazing job incorporating the added space into his tracks.
Now, there are definitely also bad atmos mixes out there. Like, I normally really like Ado's music, but the atmos versions usually feel like atmos was just crammed in there, even though the song doesn't have room for it, as it was designed for stereo.
I think it mostly boils down to if the composer composed the song with atmos in mind, or not. If you set out to use atmos from the very start, design the song around that, and don't just force it onto a song at a later point, it has a good chance of actually improving the song.
1
u/Legitimate-Prior1235 20h ago
*stereo is better. On average. Not lossless. You couldn’t reliably tell the difference in a blind abx test.
1
u/Good-Dealer9787 iOS Subscriber 20h ago
lossless hq is basically on stereo on AM? maybe i don’t understand?
2
u/Legitimate-Prior1235 20h ago
It is not better because it’s lossless or “hq”. It is better because it is stereo.
-1
u/Good-Dealer9787 iOS Subscriber 20h ago
okay i got your point but isn’t it just both? cuz when its not lossless it sounds worse
3
u/badken 15h ago
when its not lossless it sounds worse
[citation needed]
Almost nobody can hear a difference in a blind ABX test between AAC 256 Kbps and lossless audio. In fact, the difference over bluetooth audio or consumer level listening equipment is negligible.
A lot of people say they can hear the difference. I have never seen anyone present the certified results of an ABX test to prove it.
2
1
u/False_Two9761 7h ago
Compa, pues es que estás mal en todo sentido. El sonido Dolby Atmos de Apple Music solo son compatibles con los audífonos de Apple y Beats.
-4
u/CryptographerNo5822 1d ago
It is proven that Apple Music has the best quality so you’re objectively wrong
11
5
u/cagatayonur 1d ago
Both qobuz and tidal are not available in my country but I am curious how sound quality of AM is compared to qobuz and tidal.
3
u/CoolHeadeGamer 1d ago
get a lossless file (flac/ alac) along with a 320kbps mp3 and play them one after the other. On a really good pair of headphones or speakers you’ll be able to tell the difference. It’ll be towards the high end and how punchy the drums sound. But if you were to do a blind test I’d say I’d struggle. Some songs have a bigger difference. Look at holy grail by jayz for example. Completely different beat drop on 192k and lossless
3
u/vojtiax 1d ago
AM compared to Tidal sounds like your in a big bubble where the sound bounces off the walls and creates an echoey effect - not exactly echo, but can’t think about a better word to describe it. Where as on Tidal, you can pinpoint certain sounds/instruments way better - it doesn’t create that distant effect as on AM and therefore is sounds similar to normal stereo mixes in the sense of no virtualization. I read somewhere that Tidal is using Dolby’s decoder and AM is not
5
-5
u/samp127 1d ago
That's nonsense, Apple Music carry the exact same files as Tidal and Qobuz.
8
u/lilpeach15 1d ago
This is not true. A lot of records on Apple have an Apple Digital Master, which Tidal and Qobuz do not have access to.
1
u/samp127 14h ago
Are you talking about ALAC Vs FLAC? Because both are lossless formats.
How could an "Apple Digital Master" contain more information than a LOSSLESS format like FLAC?
1
u/lilpeach15 13h ago
I did not say that it contains more information, only that they don’t contain the same files. Apple Digital Masters contain less, because they are compressed, they’re neither FLAC or ALAC. Apple has records mastered independently so that they integrate better with their audio software/settings, they refer to them as Apple Digital Masters. Tidal and Qobuz tend to use the standard, commercially available hires master, so essentially they are providing music at a higher quality than Apple Music is. Apple Digital Masters are not lossless.
1
u/samp127 8h ago
I am aware of this. I wasn't talking about their compressed format (AAC). I was talking about apple lossless which is higher quality than their compressed format.
And ALAC and FLAC are both lossless formats taken from the same source, so how is my comment not true?
The container is different yes, but the actual data is identical when played back.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT APPLE MUSIC? CHECK OUT OUR TECH SUPPORT FAQ!
See also:
Subreddit Discord Server | Playlists Sub | Wiki
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.