[coldtea]

>I feel like this should have been 24-bit at 192 kHz.

As if anybody is going to notice the difference? Even the 24-bit vs 16-bit difference is gratious (it makes sense during recording and mixing, when listening it's just a check-mark item).

[danielknng]

> "As if anybody is going to notice the difference?"

I don't think so, no.

But since 24-bit/192 kHz music is already available in the Apple Music catalogue, I was wondering why they wouldn't just embrace it.

[Kirby64]

It costs extra money to properly support it, so why would they? For a listening device it shouldn't matter one bit. As an output (i.e. their headphone outputs), I could see some marginal benefit for recording... but not as an input to your ears.

[mlsu]

Nope. Nobody is physically capable of noticing the difference. That doesn't stop people from claiming they can, though!