Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
High Res on AirPods Max when using the lightning cable
- Thread starter H-B0mb
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nah, wired is always going to be higher quality than AAC, even with the double conversion.
Audio enthusiasts in pursuit of clean signal path are going to ditch any form of compression first and foremost (assuming at least a certain standard of conversion, which Apple’s DA/ADs are comfortably within).
You’re taking about compression and conversion as the same thing, which they aren’t. The wired signal is uncompressed. Analogue signals aren't 'compressed' to digital signals; they're converted to digital signals, which are then compressed, which doesn't generally happen in the DAC.
What? Lol. You just made all this up including down to "assuming at least a certain standard of conversion, which Apple's DA/AD are comfortably within"
Please enlighten us with this certain standard you just made up and the comfortable specifications you have determined.
No one is talking about compression and conversion as the same thing. Maybe you are. Conversion doesn't need to be compressed. But compression is conversion. Let that sink in with you for a moment. Take your time.
"Analogue signals aren't 'compressed' to digital signals;"
Nope. Analog when captured digitally is a form of compression in itself. There is no 1:1 conversion from analog to digital. There is always a codec.
And if you're not schooled on what a codec is, here's a definition from Streamingmedia.com:
"Codecs are compression technologies and have two components, an encoder to compress the files, and a decoder to decompress."
And while you're at it, here's a good read on Analog to Digital by the IEEE Signal Processing Society:
Analog-to-Digital Compression: A New Paradigm for Converting Signals to Bits
Unless you have a new theory on how analog isn't compressed when converting to digital and state your sources, it's time for you to sit down before you spread any more mis-information.
The codecs you're talking about aren't delivering anything like the sort of compression being discussed here, which is hugely lossy AAC. Equally, analogue isn't 'compressed' when converting to digital in the sense that we mean it here, which is heavily lossy compression, not the inevitable, insurmountable but largely academic inability for any digital representation to perfectly represent an analogue source without an infinitely high sample rate and bit-depth. Under your definition, you'd presumably describe a 32-bit/192kHz WAV as 'compressed', which would be pure semantics in this (or any other, really) context.
"No one is talking about compression and conversion as the same thing. Maybe you are. Conversion doesn't need to be compressed. But compression is conversion. Let that sink in with you for a moment. Take your time."
Is there really any need for that kind of childishness? Anyway, compression is indeed conversion – digital-to-digital conversion, not the analogue-to-digital conversion of relevance here. Glad to see that you agree with me on conversion not needing to be compressed, though, such as the conversion from, say, the analogue output of a MacBook Pro or any other DAC to the digital input of the AirPods Max via the cable.
The simple fact of the matter is, once again, that an uncompressed wired connection is always going to trump an AAC stream, and your peculiar combination of semantics and misrepresentation isn't going to change that.
It isn't semantics. It's fact. You're trying to get away from the fact that analog to digital is compression.
You're presenting..."analogue isn't 'compressed' when converting to digital in the sense that we mean it here..." There is no WE, it's only you making up a new definition of what analog to digital should be. And you're calling it semantics. It's these kinds of misinformation and presenting alternative definitions, then calling it semantics is what causes confusion with the rest of the people.
You're quote..."The simple fact of the matter is, once again, that an uncompressed wired connection is always going to trump an AAC stream, and your peculiar combination of semantics and misrepresentation isn't going to change that."
Once again, no one is arguing against the fact that uncompressed is better compressed. Period.
What you've originally pointed out in your post is that going wired with Apple's 3.5mm to Lightning cable with the Max is always going to sound better than using that same AAC source straight to the Max and even doubled down with...
"Nah, wired is always going to be higher quality than AAC, even with the double conversion."
And despite my sources, you disregard all this and shrug it off as "semantics". Then you restate your argument as if no one is going to notice by simply stating "an uncompressed connection is always going to trump an AAC steam" which no one is arguing against uncompressed versus compressed quality.
Where are your sources to prove your statements apart from coming from your own made up ones? Let's start with this:
"Analogue signals aren't 'compressed' to digital signals; they're converted to digital signals, which are then compressed, which doesn't generally happen in the DAC."
Or is that semantics. I'm done arguing with you and your alternative facts. The end.
Last edited by a moderator:
Your 'sources' aren't relevant to any of this. This…
"There is compression via the cable. The cable is a mini DAC. It compresses analog audio back to digital signal before the AirPods Max can even take it in."
…is a misuse of the word 'compresses' – an 'alternative fact', as you'd say. What you mean is 'converts', but I know you don't want to hear that. How is my point semantic, though? And what are these alleged alternative facts I'm peddling?
"Once again, no one is arguing against the fact that uncompressed is better compressed. Period."
Except that that's exactly what you ARE arguing against when you say that AAC (which is compressed) sounds better than the wired connection (which is uncompressed, except by your naive and misrepresentative definition of the word). Do you really not get the difference between AAC and the 'compression' that takes place in a DAC when an analogue signal is converted to a high-res digital one? You honestly think AAC wins that contest? If so, I don't know what else to say.
"What you've originally pointed out in your post is that going wired with Apple's 3.5mm to Lightning cable with the Max is always going to sound better than using that same AAC source straight to the Max and even doubled down with..."
When did I say anything about an AAC source? Obviously I'm referring to uncompressed sources – WAV, AIF, FLAC, etc.
So, anyway, since citing sources and weeding out alternative facts are so important to you, where's your source or evidence for this 'fact' from earlier?
"Until Apple builds an direct analog input, the best sound you can get is via AAC digital wireless input."
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that Leons point is that you claim that the wired will always sound better than wireless. He was referencing that for a comparison you would need to use the same AAC source.
I have done endless comparisons with different sources and keep getting the same results
Apple Music sounds very very good, but hi-res streams such as Qobuz Studio (Uncompressed FLAC) and Tidal HiFi (MQA) sound better, and to me, are worth paying the extra in monthly cost over Apple Music for serious listening.
I have tried the 3.5mm cable from my streamer using Qobuz hi-res files and the direct comparison with the Qobuz app, also streaming hi-res files and there is no difference at all between the cable or Bluetooth. I have tried really hard to tell a difference and I have been involved in high end audio for over 30 years.
As such, any claims that wired will always be better are not necessarily true, especially when talking about the APM’s. The wireless codec and implementation is fantastic and there is NO benefit to using a cable, unless that is the only way you can connect to that device (the reason for the cable purchase in the first place was for my PS5 controller)
Jason
I did the testing with the headphone output on my streamer. That has its own DAC in it.
As has been pointed out though, we have some undesirable additional processes going on here which will be having an effect.
We have the DAC in the streamer, then we also have the headphone pre-amp built in with whatever gain stage it uses. Given that it’s priority is hi-res streaming designed to output to an amplifier via either analog RCA’s or digitally via co-ax or Toslink, I don’t actually think they would have given much thought to the quality of the headphone output, other than to add one for convenience.
There will also be some additional processing going on in the APM’s to manage the analog signal coming in. I didn’t know if it has to perform A/D and then D/A but it is going to have to do something.
My take on this however, is that the Bluetooth codecs they are using are exceptionally good. A few reviewers have already pointed out that Apple Music is outperforming other non hi-res streaming services, despite its very low bit-rate due to the native AAC support and the codecs built specifically around that.
Hi-res services to me, do sound better but if I hadn’t spent quite some time doing the comparisons, I’d have been really happy anyway, and I still am very happy with Apple Music.
I use it 90% of the time, but when I’m alone and really want to experience the best I can achieve, then I’ll use Qobuz.
YMMV, but I’ll stand by my comparisons I’ve made.
Finally, even with a decent DAC, you’re still going to need a headphone pre-amp, or some sort of amplifier with a headphone output. Not many DAC’s as far as I’m aware have headphone sockets on them.
Jason
So just to be totally clear, you’re saying that you hear no difference in quality between streaming high-res audio over Bluetooth vs the APM cable, yes?
No matter how good the AAC codec in the APM is, obviously it’s not possible for it to replace the content lost at the decompression stage, so that can only mean one of two things:
1. Everything is encoded to AAC on the way in even when using the cable, which would be very disappointing indeed. Or...
2. The difference between the compressed AAC signal and the uncompressed wired signal (with a high-res source!) is there, but you're not hearing it.
Let the flaming commence…
Last edited:
i just tried it on my Pono, sounds pretty good!
(wish this was a joke)
im not A/Bing anything, maybe this weekend if i get really bored.
edit to add: if nothing else, this does allow a LOT more volume. seems like the volume dial on the headphones and volume dial on the pono are completely independent of each other.
(wish this was a joke)
im not A/Bing anything, maybe this weekend if i get really bored.
edit to add: if nothing else, this does allow a LOT more volume. seems like the volume dial on the headphones and volume dial on the pono are completely independent of each other.
Hi, to be totally clear, I AM saying that I hear no difference at all between hi-res over Bluetooth vs the APM cable directly from the headphone output on my streaming device. Bluesound Node2 for reference.So just to be totally clear, you’re saying that you hear no difference in quality between streaming high-res audio over Bluetooth vs the APM cable, yes?
No matter how good the AAC codec in the APM is, obviously it’s not possible for it to replace the content lost at the decompression stage, so that can only mean one of two things:
1. Everything is encoded to AAC on the way in even when using the cable, which would be very disappointing indeed. Or...
2. The difference between the compressed AAC signal and the uncompressed wired signal (with a high-res source!) is there, but you're not hearing it.
Let the flaming commence…
I have been involved in the AV industry for over 30 years, 6 years managing a high end HiFi store, and a total of 5 years working for high end audio manufacturers. I have travelled the world demonstrating products to distributors and dealers and have learnt a thing or 2 along the way.
I have a fairly decent multi channel system at home with excellent speakers and a very good 2 channel audio system as well.
I only say this, not to brag, or to make myself sound important, but to just give you some background on where I come from and my experience in audio. I consider myself able to hear differences in systems, even small differences and to be able to effectively evaluate what sounds good and what doesn’t (obviously within the realms of the subjective nature of audio).
I have tried extremely hard to hear the differences between Bluetooth and the headphone cable with the APM‘s and I cannot hear any difference whatsoever. You may be correct that there is a difference and I am unable to hear it, but I think I am quite good at that.
The other possibilities are that:
1. there is no difference at all and Apple are either limiting the cable side of things, as you intimate in your post, or
2. that the headphone output on my streamer is not very well implemented and that is the limiting factor
Not sure which is true, and I would welcome anyone else’s thoughts, or tests regarding this.
Hope this helps and you will not get any flaming from me. I like a good natured debate and I am always happy to hear other opinions and I appreciate other people’s knowledge as well
Jason
Hey guys , Im having very terrible issues with my gen 2 apple airpods. They work fine with my iphone 6s, but When I connected them to my computer and played some spotify, its wierd to explain but its delayed between the two, by about a split second, like its like this, tthhiiss, its really wierd. I play it through spotify on High Sierra, on the mac pro mid 2010, stock (i believe) bluetooth and wifi, I use ethernet. Can anyone help?
, Im having very terrible issues with my gen 2 apple airpods. They work fine with my iphone 6s, but When I connected them to my computer and played some spotify, its wierd to explain but its delayed between the two, by about a split second, like its like this, tthhiiss, its really wierd. I play it through spotify on High Sierra, on the mac pro mid 2010, stock (i believe) bluetooth and wifi, I use ethernet. Can anyone help?the volume almost doubles when using my standalone digital audio player, im afraid im going to blow the speakers if its up too loud— not that ill do that, if just for my ears sake. anyway, i love it. i cant speak to if its “better” but it still sounds great and i can turn it up to 11. the cable was a solid purchase for that alone.
Ears will definitely be subjective and the reason why there will be an endless debate of what sounds better. Even a slight change in volume of the same source - people will believe they are hearing a higher quality output. Strange huh.
As for Apple's cable, the earlier audio adapter which will have contain the DAC/ADC chip from the same manufacturer was already infamously taken apart by a German tech magazine and scientifically tested to reveal it does make the source more inferior when passing through the cable. Will the ears be able to detect it? Probably not.
But to say it's better to route through it than a direct digital feed of that same source, that's another matter.
Here's the excerpt of iFixit's take-away from that magazine:
"The takeaway seems to be that in some areas, the sound quality does measure a bit worse from the adapter than we might be accustomed to. For instance, when playing an uncompressed 16-bit audio file on the iPhone 6s, the dynamic range dropped from 99.1 dB at the headphone jack to 97.3 dB at the adapter. Though keep in mind, this slightly lower measurement is still higher than the theoretical maximum you get from a compact disc (which is 96 dB). So, is it a difference you are likely to notice? If you sit in a quiet room with a really, really good pair of headphones … and you’re a canine, the answer is: maybe."
I have sources in all my arguments and not made up stuff unlike... ???
As for Apple's cable, the earlier audio adapter which will have contain the DAC/ADC chip from the same manufacturer was already infamously taken apart by a German tech magazine and scientifically tested to reveal it does make the source more inferior when passing through the cable. Will the ears be able to detect it? Probably not.
But to say it's better to route through it than a direct digital feed of that same source, that's another matter.
Here's the excerpt of iFixit's take-away from that magazine:
"The takeaway seems to be that in some areas, the sound quality does measure a bit worse from the adapter than we might be accustomed to. For instance, when playing an uncompressed 16-bit audio file on the iPhone 6s, the dynamic range dropped from 99.1 dB at the headphone jack to 97.3 dB at the adapter. Though keep in mind, this slightly lower measurement is still higher than the theoretical maximum you get from a compact disc (which is 96 dB). So, is it a difference you are likely to notice? If you sit in a quiet room with a really, really good pair of headphones … and you’re a canine, the answer is: maybe."
I have sources in all my arguments and not made up stuff unlike... ???
I bought the wire as well but probably won’t use it unless I fly. I just bought it in case it’s discontinued and not available later
Riiiight, still waiting for you to tell me what it is that I’ve “made up”. Guess I won’t hold my breath.
What is this obsession with ‘sources’? I haven’t said anything that warrants citing a source. All I’ve discussed are the fundamentals of digital audio conversion and compression – do you really need sources for that? What, exactly, would you like me to find a source for?
And why not see if you can answer this one without name-calling? You know, like an adult.