Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don’t get this. Why mixing up the player and the headphone? ALAC has existed since the iPod days, yet nobody, zero tech reviewers pointed out the lack of support on the AirPods. Nobody, zero tech sites, cared about the codec support. But now suddenly it’s newsworthy?

And please stop saying a headphone “supports lossless” through analog. It’s analog!
 
Is spatial audio really that big of a deal with headphones? I don't see how, when using headphones, it could be made to feel more "spatial", but I'm a bit of a layman in this area for sure.
Whatever you're doing right now, stop, close your eyes and listen to the real-world sounds all around you, wherever they are. You can tell from what direction those sounds are coming, right? You can hear that a person is talking to the left and behind you, and some distance away. You can hear that airplane is flying overhead. You're doing all that with only two ears.

There is a thing called binaural recording that's been around for decades. Essentially, if you place microphones where the ears should be in a mannequin head, record sounds with just those two microphones and then play that back through headphones directly into a listener's ears, the audio recorded on those two channels will be perceived by the listener as the sounds of the three-dimensional surroundings of the mannequin head. Subtle delay of sounds from one side to the other, along with echoes, reverberations and even the audio "shadow" of the head are all perceived by the listener's ears to recreate that three-dimensional or spatial audio sound.

Surround sound in your home theater plays back sound via the speakers placed all around you, and you perceive sound locations based on what sounds are coming from which speakers. For spatial audio in earbuds or headphones, a lot of computational work happens to recreate those subtle delays, echoes and reverberations directly into those two earphone or earbud speakers, so that three-dimensional location information is perceived by your two ears just as it is in binaural recordings or in the real world.

So they really have buried the lede on this one. Spatial audio coming to Apple Music at no extra charge is the big news, and it is every bit as big as the popularization of stereo sound over mono that happened over fifty years ago.
 
Can people with Sony XM4’s get lossless audio when using the adapter + wired connection?
It's a good question. Sony says in the docs that they support it over the wire (you have to turn the headphones on to get it, it's not passive). I think this more or less depends on the DAC in the Apple dongle.
 
Mate - people can't tell the difference between lossy and lossless on £30,000 speakers in a world class acoustically treated studio. With the best "car stereo" in the entire world, even sat stationary with no road or engine noise you wouldn't be able to hear the difference. So no, you're not - just enjoy ACC via bluetooth its more than enough for your needs (that you've been enjoying for the last 5 years anyway).

It all depends on what kind of music you were listing to. Bass and mid-frequencies won't make differences. Only high frequencies from hi-hat, cymbals or xylophone would make significant difference between lossless and lossy
 
Just thinking how far we have come in 30 or so years. I remember turning on DNR to remove some of the hiss from my "Cars Greatest Hits" cassette tape…

I still loved the music then. So, I think I can weather this minor storm.
 
Glad I didn’t wasted my money on AirPods Pro.
What a waste for those who did.
Really? I think the ANC is fantastic, the stems are much smaller, the seal works well even with ANC off and they have a much better sound reproduction IMO versus the AirPods. Best $200 buds I've used so far.


Oh, did you mean the Max?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: ErikGrim and B/D
Not sure how much spatial audio will help music? Unlike films were it works well and you want sounds coming from all angles to complement the film and action.
music is mostly recorded in stereo and the movement of sound from all around isn’t something I see lending itself well to many forms of music.
be interested to hear it but fear it might sound gimmicky
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmw1480
I’m willing to bet that that old fashioned “obsolete“ 3.5 mm audio jack isn’t a bottleneck here. I wouldn’t mind seeing the gain response for one of them measured on a VNA.
 
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.

You would not hear differences on regular electric mix or rap, unless you pay attention to and focus on high frequency instruments play.

The difference is obvious if the song is orchestrated heavily with high frequency instruments, something like cymbals, xylophone, harp, where most lossy compression take place
 
I couldn’t care less about lossless audio, but I’m interested in spatial. Do all tracks need to be remastered manually to make use of it, or is there some automagic system that does it? If the former, do we know how widespread this is?
 
Not sure how much spatial audio will help music? Unlike films were it works well and you want sounds coming from all angles to complement the film and action.
music is mostly recorded in stereo and the movement of sound from all around isn’t something I see lending itself well to many forms of music.
be interested to hear it but fear it might sound gimmicky
Most music is recorded in studios with 24, 48 or more channels and currently mixed down to two-channel stereo. When the sound is mixed instead to Dolby Atmos format, it positions the music all around you. You can hear instruments where they are and even, when applicable, the subtle acoustics of the room. Even with a something like a rock recording, something that sounds a little muddy and jammed together in a stereo mix can become brilliantly clear in an Atmos mix. This isn't like the arguments above about whether people can tell the difference between a compressed AAC recording and lossless ALAC. Stereo and spatial audio is like the difference between black-and-white and color. People will notice the difference. Don't knock it until you've heard it.
 
Mate - people can't tell the difference between lossy and lossless on £30,000 speakers in a world class acoustically treated studio. With the best "car stereo" in the entire world, even sat stationary with no road or engine noise you wouldn't be able to hear the difference. So no, you're not - just enjoy ACC via bluetooth its more than enough for your needs (that you've been enjoying for the last 5 years anyway).
Finally, a comment that makes sense. No one can tell the difference between lossless and a 320 kbps ACC file in a regular listening environment. Lossless is pure marketing snake oil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dannys1 and lars666
For your information, here are some facts for those interestred:

- In the audio world "lossless" typically refers to lossless relative to CD quality, which is 16/44.1 or a dynamic range of 16 bits and a sample rate of 44.1kHz.
- 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 (as it is for image pixels). In other words, with a sample rate of 44.1 we can accuratly reconstruct frequencies up to 22kHz, well above the limit of human hearring. For reference, the highest note on a piano is 4286 Hz and most speakers will not be able to produce signals over 22kHz either.
- Does playing at 192kHz make sense? Yes, if you like to play music for your dog and you have very high-end speakers with no other bottlnecks in the connection chain. Otherwise, absolutely not.
- The dynamic range determines the number of different volume levels you can represent. With 16bit you can represent signals from wispering to over 90dB, enough to cause damage to your ears after long exposure.
- Is there an advantage of a dynamic range higher than 16bit? Yes, if you want to accuratly represent fine details ranging from whispering to explosions. For most pop/rock music there is no difference at all.
- Recordings are mostly done at higher sample rates and higher bit rates. Why? This is not because we can hear a difference in the recording, but because it gives additional headroom during production, changing a signal invitably results in some losses which can as such be minimized.
- Airplay does support ALAC 16/44.1, in fact if I am not mistaken, it transcodes all input to this format for transmission. I don't see any reason why HomePods would not be able to play lossless input streams. If you will hear a difference is another question...
- Some people seem to belief everything lossy is the same, this is obviously not the case, the codec and bitrate make a huge difference.
- Currently Apple uses 256 AAC, truth is, most people don't hear a difference with lossless (CD quality) either, especially with low end equipment like HomePods for example. However, there are definetly people who can hear a difference on high-end equipment. If you want to check for yourself with your equipment you can do an ABX test here: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/itunes.html
- There are many reasons why you can compress a PCM signal lossy without any perceptual difference at all. For example, our sensitivity does not only depends on the signal intensity but also on the frequency. For example, humans can not hear sounds at 60Hz under 40dB. While these signals are encoded in PCM, these can be removed without any perceptual difference for humans.
- Eventhough most people can't hear a difference in a scientific ABX test they still belief they do hear a difference. Why? One reason is because mostly they don't test blind. At the moment you have prior knowledge you can't do an unbiased test. Tests have been done with exactly the same equipment audio but different logo's (Bose vs B&O for example), the more premium brand will consistenly perceived better even if the hardware is exactly the same. Secondly, it is common to decode the signal sligtly different. For example, simply increase the volume with 1dB and almost all test subjects will perceive this as higher quality. Third, often tests are done where other factors or at play, such as the DAC, connections and so on.

I can't tell the difference because I didnt realize I'd have to AXB the same 20 seconds of the Killers 10 times.

Joking aside, it made me think... regardless of whether you can hear the difference or not, I wondered whether I WAS listening to a playback that was different or not (by the time the sound got to the speakers did something in my system degrade/compress the signal) - and to that end, if I'm using Safari 13.1.2 and I have sound going to a USB 2.0 connected external audio interface that has a max of 24 bit, 96khz out to studio monitors. Is safari sending the lossless signal to my audio interface?

This question is somewhat relevant to the question of Apple Music, and how people get the high-res lossless signal out of their apple device in the first place - and if they know what might interfere with the signal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmw1480
Unfortunately there are still alot of badly encoded files on both Spotify and Apple Music.

You are right though, outside of a very quiet room with decent cans, 99.99% of consumer playback doesn't warrant any more than 256kbps AAC.

There are occasions I can hear artifacts even on decent rips vs an original CD during a listening session which would be nice not to have to deal with .... ever.

Some people want the painting though, not the print, even if the image looks the same when it's mounted on a wall :)
Can you give us a specific example of a badly encoded file with artifacts? I'd love to hear it.
 
To illustrate the difference between 48 kHz and 96 kHz recordings here are some waveforms to compare. Notice the spacing of the data points. Whether that spacing difference can be heard is different question.

96 kHz high bitrate (4626 kb/s)

96 kHz.png


48 kHz high bitrate (2304 kbs)

48 kHz.png


and a different track at 44.1 kHz at 256 kbs. Note that the scale is much larger - could not zoom into the .00 level

Screen Shot 2021-05-18 at 12.04.01 PM.png



You can hear instruments where they are and even, when applicable, the subtle acoustics of the room.

Don't understand. Atmos is a object oriented format, where the sounds are objects which can be moved in space, normally above you. Great for things like a helicopter flying over you from back to front.

Any good stereo system and recording will allow you to place the instruments on the stage and hear the reverberations. Yamaha receivers even have sound modes where you can tailor the reverbs to your taste - small club, church, concert hall, etc.

Just need confirmation that Airplay (which is already using Apple Lossless codec), will work with the multitude of receivers and speakers out there.

Airplay is not listed as supporting lossless.
 

Attachments

  • 48 kHz.png
    48 kHz.png
    259.9 KB · Views: 87
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.