Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The spacial audio feature will be pretty cool and definitely the feature which most users will benefit from, at no additional cost to current subscribers. Also, if done correctly, this will be a feature that will sell more AM subscriptions over the other services. The lossless seems just to be icing on the cake for Apple to say they have it. Imagine if they didn't include it? They would be ripped to shreds by all the tech pundits. So good on them for getting ahead of it. Curious to see what Spotify actually delivers when they roll it out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacCheetah3
For example, in the car today, I listen to ”Synchronicity II and Message in a Bottle from “The Police Live“ Live from Atlanta 1983. I did a back and forth test on those songs between Apple Music and then the CD, and it is not even remotely close. The clarity on the CD is far beyond the Apple Music file. Not even close
wrong comparison, for the purpose of this test. how is your apple music file played? from your phone - through wired connection or bluetooth? that in itself is the bottleneck, not the file served by apple music
 
John Prosser (a well known leaker) kinda insinuated on Twitter that in the near future Apple will issue a firmware update for all of the Airpods models with BT 5.0. That firmware update will allow them to process and play the lossless streams untouched. Take this with a pinch of salt, of course, but the question is... is even technically possible?
 
Technically speaking, it makes sense that it doesn't work on those devices, but that is literally the entire list of things I listen to music on. Not losing sleep over it, I really don't care that much about audio quality, but it still sucks.
 
John Prosser (a well known leaker) kinda insinuated on Twitter that in the near future Apple will issue a firmware update for all of the Airpods models with BT 5.0. That firmware update will allow them to process and play the lossless streams untouched. Take this with a pinch of salt, of course, but the question is... is even technically possible?
On normal Bluetooth standard , no, as AirPods only support SBC and AAC.

What’s possible is if Apple developed their own proprietary wireless transmission with some help from the H1/W1 chip. Nobody talked into details on those chips, so there’s a possibility of a hidden feature.

Just like MagSafe. Apple first follows the Qi standard, then they built their own proprietary MagSafe and fast wireless charging on top of it.
 
Hi guys, first of all I'm sorry for my English. I have read all the comments under this article and still don't know how to receive hi-res audio. I do understand that I need a DAC, and I have an amplifier NAD with a DAC (until now I was able to listen Tidal master via bluesound MDC module - but it's a different story with Apple Music - no API), but now I don't know which Apple device and how I should connect to receive hi-res lossless. ATV 4k can (according to apple website) only transfer via HDMI lossless signal, not hi-res lossless. If not ATV 4k HDMI port, than I have a choice of iPhone's lightning port or iPad and MacBook's usb-c port to DAC via actually of what kind of wire? Best for me would be use ATV 4K via HDMI to TV and optical from TV to DAC, but as I can understand it will not transfer hi-res lossless signal. Am I right or wrong? Any advice?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos
I have a feeling the point that everyone is missing is the conversion when it comes to AirPods...

Production studio creates the Master File, then that is converted to whatever is served on the streaming service (AAC/ MP3 whatever) then that is decoded to digital audio steam inside the phone and -when talking about wireless headphones - that is reconverted to bluetooth digital stream and then decoded inside your headphones DAC.

Resolution / Bit Depth and Lossy/Lossless are two different things. Resolution is something that only MIGHT matter in the production studio since higher sample rates and bit depth allow for better harmonic overtones and headroom that affect the effect processors you work with and can possibly create marginally better results. You can think of it as having a 30" 4K Display 1 meter away from your eyes and displaying 8K content on it (192KHz) vs 4K content on it (48Kz) - all other things being equal.

Lossless files contain bit by bit the exact audio stream. If it's 44,1Khz / 16 bit depth then it has 44100 samples per second of which each sample can take a position of either of 16bits. On the other hand all lossy files are essentially psychoacoustic filters that encode the audio into a data file, not an audio stream. They remove from the audio stream stuff that your ears won't easily notice to reduce file size without reducing the audible quality and that's why a lossy file needs decoding. When your DAC is decoding that lossy file, it tries to piece together the missing info to produce an analog signal as close as possible representing that original lossless file and it does a pretty damn good job at it, but of course there are missing info that we just don't hear / notice. On the next step to transfer the audio to the wireless headphones, when you re-encode / re-decode a file stream for wireless playback then you are trying to use that psychoacoustic filter again on a file that's already processed by it, therefore it's much easier to introduce artefacts, skew the transients, add mild distortion all very minute though and very un-noticeable as far as normal listening goes (If you A/B then you might possibly understand the differences but even there it will be hard).

Even if the link from the iPhone to the AirPods Max or Pros isn't lossless in that case, a lossless file on my iPhone will instead suffer only 1 conversion from lossless to lossy, that of the bluetooth link. It's bound to be better even if it's going to be a small amount / un-noticable to most people (if not all people for that matter, but that's not the story here).

All Apple is doing is being technically correct and saying that you cannot have 192KHz lossless playback on your Headphones. But you know what, the DAC on the Headphones allegedly is capable of 48KHz / 24 bit playback - and that is lossless too! Hell 44100Hz / 16 bit can be lossless too! Can you have the bluetooth connection stream the file directly to the headphones to avoid the AAC conversion? Maybe some AirPlay update is in the works to allow that. But even if it never happens, having one less A/D to D/A conversion in the chain is appreciated for me. Especially when it's for free.
 
John Prosser (a well known leaker) kinda insinuated on Twitter that in the near future Apple will issue a firmware update for all of the Airpods models with BT 5.0. That firmware update will allow them to process and play the lossless streams untouched. Take this with a pinch of salt, of course, but the question is... is even technically possible?

BT5 supports higher bandwidth for the larger lossless files. Devices need HW to use BT5. It is unknown (to me) whether existing Airpods use chips that support BT5
 
I have a feeling the point that everyone is missing is the conversion when it comes to AirPods...

Production studio creates the Master File, then that is converted to whatever is served on the streaming service (AAC/ MP3 whatever) then that is decoded to digital audio steam inside the phone and -when talking about wireless headphones - that is reconverted to bluetooth digital stream and then decoded inside your headphones DAC.

Resolution / Bit Depth and Lossy/Lossless are two different things. Resolution is something that only MIGHT matter in the production studio since higher sample rates and bit depth allow for better harmonic overtones and headroom that affect the effect processors you work with and can possibly create marginally better results. You can think of it as having a 30" 4K Display 1 meter away from your eyes and displaying 8K content on it (192KHz) vs 4K content on it (48Kz) - all other things being equal.

Lossless files contain bit by bit the exact audio stream. If it's 44,1Khz / 16 bit depth then it has 44100 samples per second of which each sample can take a position of either of 16bits. On the other hand all lossy files are essentially psychoacoustic filters that encode the audio into a data file, not an audio stream. They remove from the audio stream stuff that your ears won't easily notice to reduce file size without reducing the audible quality and that's why a lossy file needs decoding. When your DAC is decoding that lossy file, it tries to piece together the missing info to produce an analog signal as close as possible representing that original lossless file and it does a pretty damn good job at it, but of course there are missing info that we just don't hear / notice. On the next step to transfer the audio to the wireless headphones, when you re-encode / re-decode a file stream for wireless playback then you are trying to use that psychoacoustic filter again on a file that's already processed by it, therefore it's much easier to introduce artefacts, skew the transients, add mild distortion all very minute though and very un-noticeable as far as normal listening goes (If you A/B then you might possibly understand the differences but even there it will be hard).

Even if the link from the iPhone to the AirPods Max or Pros isn't lossless in that case, a lossless file on my iPhone will instead suffer only 1 conversion from lossless to lossy, that of the bluetooth link. It's bound to be better even if it's going to be a small amount / un-noticable to most people (if not all people for that matter, but that's not the story here).

All Apple is doing is being technically correct and saying that you cannot have 192KHz lossless playback on your Headphones. But you know what, the DAC on the Headphones allegedly is capable of 48KHz / 24 bit playback - and that is lossless too! Hell 44100Hz / 16 bit can be lossless too! Can you have the bluetooth connection stream the file directly to the headphones to avoid the AAC conversion? Maybe some AirPlay update is in the works to allow that. But even if it never happens, having one less A/D to D/A conversion in the chain is appreciated for me. Especially when it's for free.

Very true. The current double recompression would be eliminated by starting with a lossless file, and that will be more noticeable for bluetooth playback (from a quality standpoint), that anything else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos
Very true. The current double recompression would be eliminated by starting with a lossless file, and that will be more noticeable for bluetooth playback (from a quality standpoint), that anything else.

There is no double compression with Apple Music 256 AAC and AirPods (at least on iOS) – it's a direct passthrough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos
There is no double compression with Apple Music 256 AAC and AirPods (at least on iOS) – it's a direct passthrough.
I'm finding it hard to believe that Apple treats differently AirPods over other Bluetooth Headphones. If it was AirPlay - ie Audio over Wifi, I'd believe that. But over bluetooth I don't think that there's any special Apple sauce going on. I'm not by any means Apple's in-house developer but since AirPods are Bluetooth Headphones and since playing ALAC and WAV files from iPhone makes absolutely 0 difference in the UX compared to playing Apple Music AAC, I don't believe that there's an extra step introduced when playing the higher quality files. My logic may be flawed, but if I was playing ALAC files which are reconverted on the fly to AAC to go over bluetooth vs playing AAC which are "directly passed through" to bluetooth wouldn't I notice some sort of extra lag for that process? Lag in adjusting volume, pausing, playing - which in my mind if I was introducing an extra step should be there.

EDIT: Actually the end all-be all argument against the "direct passthrough" argument is that if that were the case then you wouldn't be able to hear multiple audio events going on. For example an Apple Music song 256 AAC playing on AirPods, while simultaneously listening to some in-game audio from another app. If the connection was taken over by a file transfer rather of an audio file than an A2DP audio stream then you wouldn't be able to hear them both at the same time... would you?
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: B/D
Will we get lossless quality with a pair of high end wired headphones plugged into the lightening to 3.5mm audio jack?
The internal DAC in an iPhone supports ALAC decoding and output through lightning already, so yes. Actually that is not dependent on the quality of the headphones because they receive an analog signal via the audio jack. Try it yourself, load some ALAC music files to your iPhone and compare them to their AAC (current Apple Music) versions to hear if there’s any difference.
 
I can’t wait for apple to turn the switch on lossless audio. I want folks to see that you can hear the difference even on AirPods because you’re starting with a better quality file before your phone converts it and sends it to your ear.
The Dolby 3D sound thing is very cool, but from my experience, the lossless files will be the bigger deal.
 
Whats the point of this if no one can tell the difference, and even if you can most people probably wouldn't care
 
This is just annoying and confusing. All my critical listening stuff is attached to my PC which uses windows and foobar2000. I use my Apple Pro Max headphones for work with my MacBook pro. So if I'm correct I will need to move all of my critical listening gear over to my MacBook Pro, and buy a USB-A to USB-C dongle and hope my DAC has mac drivers to actually use this? Then I can give my girlfriend my APM headphones cause I won't be using them for work, and I won't be using them for after-work listening... I am confused why I bought these then :(
Your Max headphone would be perfect for listening Dolby Atmos music on Apple Music so why you are pissed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim
I can’t wait for apple to turn the switch on lossless audio. I want folks to see that you can hear the difference even on AirPods because you’re starting with a better quality file before your phone converts it and sends it to your ear.
The Dolby 3D sound thing is very cool, but from my experience, the lossless files will be the bigger deal.

the (simulated) surround will be wayyyy more perceivable by people than switch to lossless.
 
Listen, as a mix engineer who mixes the records you're listening to, I can confidently say I am not getting them mixed up and I confidently wager £50,000 that you couldn't tell the difference between a FLAC file and a 320kbit MP3 of the same source - so far no one has been able to do - as said, there's an entire blind test on the most detail speakers they could find in a fully audio treated room.

In the greatest respect I drive a Tesla with the premium audio system which has been further enhanced and it's still a million miles away from anything remotely capable of being able to recreate the audio frequencies you can't even hear anyway! As I said, you and neither do I have the best car audio system in the world and even if we did it'd be at the **** end of hi-fi speakers which are at the **** end of studio monitors.

I've got a pair of £1400 Sennheiser HD800s, with a £800 super flat amp to drive them and a £1000 DAC - that combo alone still can't let you hear the difference in compression between a 320kbit MP3 and it's lossless brother, so your car certainly can't - that's why I am able to be bold about my assumptions.

I was able to discern the difference between the lossless wav and 128kbps, at certain part of a song only, with a room closed, fans off, earphone shoved deep in my ears, with full concentration. At a couple of points in the songs, I could make out the difference. I was able to spot the difference at 128kbps, 160kbps. Difference vanished at 192kbps, and nothing at 256kbps, 320kbps. Though I was using sony earphones (regular, not studio levels ones)

I was hoarding lossless for my listening pleasure and preferred MFSL CDs over regular ones, but I sat down and did this blind test for myself. Then I realised, I would probably never make myself spend $1000s to get hardware that will make me hear the difference. I thought maybe at that level I might be able to hear some difference.

Thanks for clearing up.

256kbps is more than you need for stereo songs
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.