Oh my. What comes out from his own thoughts are the fundamentals and doesn't need sources. At all. And he's the adult here. Lol.
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
Oh my. What comes out from his own thoughts are the fundamentals and doesn't need sources. At all. And he's the adult here. Lol.
Okay, I guess sensible discussion just isn’t your thing. And your failure to actually respond to a single thing I’ve said in the last few posts speaks for itself. I give up.
so I got FiiO Q3 + 3.5mm to Lightning + APM
there's really a difference in the sound quality. It tested both wired and on Bluetooth from my iPhone 12 Pro Max.
On BT, the sound is a bit muted and low volume but when connected to the FiiO Q3 (gain OFF, bass boost OFF), the volume is a bit boosted even at the same volume level plus the clarity of the sound is good than on BT. Soundstage is better than on Bluetooth.
I'm no audiophile nor have experience in the audio industry but I can really hear the difference.
I don't know maybe my ears but the difference is there.
there's really a difference in the sound quality. It tested both wired and on Bluetooth from my iPhone 12 Pro Max.
On BT, the sound is a bit muted and low volume but when connected to the FiiO Q3 (gain OFF, bass boost OFF), the volume is a bit boosted even at the same volume level plus the clarity of the sound is good than on BT. Soundstage is better than on Bluetooth.
I'm no audiophile nor have experience in the audio industry but I can really hear the difference.
I don't know maybe my ears but the difference is there.
You have introduced a variable into the mix which you have not measured - your FIIO DAC/AMP. While that's a very respectable Chi-Fi brand, it doesn't just convert, it's also an AMP. Therefore anything it outputs, it naturally boosts.
So unless you measured the voltage output with a Digital Multi Meter so get a baseline of how much power is being output before it reaches the 3.5mm to Lightning cable, how do you know you have the same volume level with the APM's internal amp?
And how do you correlate that volume unless you have a device like an oscilloscope that you fed a tone signal generator output by the (1) FIIO to the APM and then (2) the same tone signal output by the APM alone.
So unless you have actually balanced the sound output when comparing from both sources, it would be impossible to compare the true worth. Because any change in volume is a change in detail and thereby perception from an individual of what sounds better.
And like my other arguments in this thread, I have links to back these up. Here's an excerpt of the psychology of loudness perception:
"....music or other familiar audio sources that sound correctly equalized at one level may sound a little “off” at a different volume."
Source: https://www.mixonline.com/recording/why-louder-sounds-better-373768
And to prove how difficult it is to measure an amp output, here's Texas Instrument's White paper guide to help manufacturers measure their chips:
https://www.ti.com/lit/an/sloa068a/sloa068a.pdf
The bottomline, enjoy your tools. Whether you feel like you need to use an external converter to enjoy the APM then that's great. There's a reason why "audiophiles" have a never ending search for that elusive perfect sound for theirs ears. Various combinations of DAC, amps, and headphones will yield various results because each of these variables act differently when combined together.
Cheers.
I’m disputing it.
I haven’t been able to separate uncompressed audio from the same file compressed to 256kb/s AAC using ABX testing tools and ridiculously expensive gear. Nor has anyone else I’ve been able to pester into actually doing the experiment.
PS. The 3.5mm to lightning cable has the advantage of reducing latency to pretty much zero. It’s actually pretty decent over bluetooth, but still noticeable. DS
Oh, the sound-nerds have been fighting.
What I'm basically completely missing in this thread are good facts about the standards used, as well as what actually comes out of every stage where there's a conversion/compression happening.
And the real problem here is that there's just no way to easily intercept those signals to make a proper comparison; depending on the hardware in the APM it might even with the right equipment and skills be near impossible to compare the signals at an identical stage efter having arrived via BT or cable.
To remove any bias we really need to end up with some fancy-pants 3D visualisation thingie showing exactly how the sound matches up after their respective obstacle courses; as well as looking at how those paths compare when the sources' quality drops (ie if the degradation in each path is different with different quality input), as well as looking at during what circumstances the BT-bandwidth drops enough to influence the sound quality even further (ie if we would benefit from using the cable perhaps even when just on the subway with lots of other wireless stuff bouncing around).
And all of that comes from the top of my head as I'm looking at it as just data; just the stuff that is (or should/could be) measurable. Hard facts.
And all that is still sort of "silent" data; after that we can move on to how that's actually turned into what we end up actually hearing with our ears, a stage where even minor differences could surprisingly matter more than the mere data suggests as far as how we experience stuff.
As far as trusting people just using their ears I in 999/1000 cases don't trust them as far as I can throw rocks at them. Sorry, but not many people are able to objectively evaluate sound; and that also goes for many many of the professionals. ?
Soooo… I'm sort of hoping that my ranting here will get one of you nice sound-nerds to fill in the blanks in my knowledge about what of this data actually is available, what's been torn down and properly measured/visualised etc…
Edit: Let me just say that my interest here is purely because I'm trying to justify buying that stupid Apple cable myself. ?
What I'm basically completely missing in this thread are good facts about the standards used, as well as what actually comes out of every stage where there's a conversion/compression happening.
And the real problem here is that there's just no way to easily intercept those signals to make a proper comparison; depending on the hardware in the APM it might even with the right equipment and skills be near impossible to compare the signals at an identical stage efter having arrived via BT or cable.
To remove any bias we really need to end up with some fancy-pants 3D visualisation thingie showing exactly how the sound matches up after their respective obstacle courses; as well as looking at how those paths compare when the sources' quality drops (ie if the degradation in each path is different with different quality input), as well as looking at during what circumstances the BT-bandwidth drops enough to influence the sound quality even further (ie if we would benefit from using the cable perhaps even when just on the subway with lots of other wireless stuff bouncing around).
And all of that comes from the top of my head as I'm looking at it as just data; just the stuff that is (or should/could be) measurable. Hard facts.
And all that is still sort of "silent" data; after that we can move on to how that's actually turned into what we end up actually hearing with our ears, a stage where even minor differences could surprisingly matter more than the mere data suggests as far as how we experience stuff.
As far as trusting people just using their ears I in 999/1000 cases don't trust them as far as I can throw rocks at them. Sorry, but not many people are able to objectively evaluate sound; and that also goes for many many of the professionals. ?
Soooo… I'm sort of hoping that my ranting here will get one of you nice sound-nerds to fill in the blanks in my knowledge about what of this data actually is available, what's been torn down and properly measured/visualised etc…
Edit: Let me just say that my interest here is purely because I'm trying to justify buying that stupid Apple cable myself. ?
My first post on this awesome forum, so please go easy on me. It sounds like this thread has died since March 2021 but for those who didn't reach a conclusion after reading these 3 pages, here's something that might summarize and help you:
Without going into too many details about the electronics behind it, firstly keep these things in mind:
A) Speakers and Headphones need analog signal for them to produce sound. Not digital. An analog signal is a continuous signal, and a digital signal is in the form of on-off pulses.
B) Old record players / tape players used to produce direct analog signals. Think 3.5mm = analog, everything else (USB-C, Lightening) = Digital. But modern-day MP3 players like iPod or cell phones like iPhone produce sampled audio signal (also known as digital signal). Not analog. A sampled audio (regardless of its sampling "resolution" - think 192 Kbps or 16-bit terms you see) is inherently lossy when compared to analog. Even if such sampled audio feels great to human ears, it is still lossy. But not everyone can tell the difference or need to tell the difference; it is often enough for most listeners if it's sampled with a high-enough resolution. But for someone in a studio recording and mixing the audio, analog is important to get the audio in its near-purest form. Think a microphone kept in front of an acoustic guitar (or sitar). That microphone needs to record the beautiful string sounds of the guitar or the sitar faithfully. Then magnetic tape needs to record it. A tape player then faithfully reproduces the recording on a large enough speaker. This setup is the most desired one to listen to recorded audio in a near-lossless form (well, the most lossless would be you sitting next to the guitar or sitar player live but you get the point). So, long story short, Analog = almost lossless. Digital = Lossy.
C) Now you know that most phones or players these days do not have a 3.5mm direct analog signal output. Just digital. But remember B) Digital = Lossy. Yikes! What do we do now? Well, we can make the digital signal as close to lossless as possible, right? Yup. So, there are some compression (sampling) standards that are used to produce a digital signal that is very very close to analog in quality. Let's sideline the efficiency of compression algorithm discussion because it is irrelevant here. Long story short, digital signal, when sampled amazingly well, can get close to analog signal.
D) Let's assume that an amazing compression algorithm (#middleout) is giving us a near-lossless digital signal from that iPhone lightening port. Still lossy, but pretty great. But remember A). Our headphones / speakers need analog signal to play audio. So, a "digital to analog" converter is required, which is your DAC. A DAC simply prepares your digital signal to be played back from your headphones / speakers as faithfully as it can. It cannot "improve" your audio quality - crap in crap out - but, DACs use some fancy algorithms and processing techniques to reduce noise, increase faithfulness, and some other stuff to synthetically enhance your audio quality before it enters your headphones / speakers. It ain't real, but again, as long as it sounds great, right? Sure. For most people, yes. For studio - nope. Pure and un-altered are best. Long story short, iPhone --> Digital Audio Signal ---> Digital to Analog Converter (DAC) ----> Analog Signal ----> Headphones / Speakers that have a 3.5mm analog input ----> Your Ears/Heart. So basically, if your source is producing audio in digital format, your permanent losses start from Step 0. It only gets worse from there no matter how expensive your next equipment is
E) Now, let's talk about AirPods Max. AirPods Max have a lightening port as input. Look at C) which means it accepts digital signal. Whoa! but look at A) speakers need analog signal to play. That means, based on D) inside those AirPods Max, there has to be a DAC inside to produce sound from those headphones. There is.
Based on the five points above, can you now guess why Apple is selling a 3.5mm (Analog) to Lightening (Digital) cable? It has little to do with "High-Res" or "Improved quality". It simply means, if you happen to have a machine (think airline seats) that only has a 3.5mm (analog) output, there needs to be a way to carry that analog signal all the way to the AirPods Max. But Airpods Max lightening port only accepts digital signal, so that analog signal has to first be converted to digital at the AirPods Max entrance, because it won't be accepted otherwise, so the cable does that analog to digital conversion. And once the digital signal is in, it must be converted yet again to analog to drive the headphones to play it. That's it! Long story short --
Machine with 3.5mm (analog) output gives you analog music signal ---> Apple 3.5mm to lightening cable converts analog signal to digital (A2D) ---> Enters into the AirPods Max's via the digital lightening port ---> DAC converts digital signal to analog ---> drives the headphones --> music to your ears.
So, as you see, nowhere in this path the signal is getting improved / enhanced, just converted and carried. Remember, the less lossy the first source of your audio, the fewer the middle-men, the better is the final output to your ears. This is why I said, listening to live music sitting right next to the performer is the most lossless and beautiful thing ever. Introducing technology in the middle (no matter how expensive they are) will help carry that audio to the other side of the world, sure, but the downside is that some purity will be sacrificed!
This will also solve another mystery - the little 3.5mm female to lightening male dongle we used to get when Apple first took out the 3.5mm port is very different from this cable because that takes digital output from iPhones and carries it to 3.5mm so it is Digital to Analog, this apple cable we are talking about here is Analog to digital - exactly the opposite. And analog to digital conversion isn't all that easy so it costs!
Without going into too many details about the electronics behind it, firstly keep these things in mind:
A) Speakers and Headphones need analog signal for them to produce sound. Not digital. An analog signal is a continuous signal, and a digital signal is in the form of on-off pulses.
B) Old record players / tape players used to produce direct analog signals. Think 3.5mm = analog, everything else (USB-C, Lightening) = Digital. But modern-day MP3 players like iPod or cell phones like iPhone produce sampled audio signal (also known as digital signal). Not analog. A sampled audio (regardless of its sampling "resolution" - think 192 Kbps or 16-bit terms you see) is inherently lossy when compared to analog. Even if such sampled audio feels great to human ears, it is still lossy. But not everyone can tell the difference or need to tell the difference; it is often enough for most listeners if it's sampled with a high-enough resolution. But for someone in a studio recording and mixing the audio, analog is important to get the audio in its near-purest form. Think a microphone kept in front of an acoustic guitar (or sitar). That microphone needs to record the beautiful string sounds of the guitar or the sitar faithfully. Then magnetic tape needs to record it. A tape player then faithfully reproduces the recording on a large enough speaker. This setup is the most desired one to listen to recorded audio in a near-lossless form (well, the most lossless would be you sitting next to the guitar or sitar player live but you get the point). So, long story short, Analog = almost lossless. Digital = Lossy.
C) Now you know that most phones or players these days do not have a 3.5mm direct analog signal output. Just digital. But remember B) Digital = Lossy. Yikes! What do we do now? Well, we can make the digital signal as close to lossless as possible, right? Yup. So, there are some compression (sampling) standards that are used to produce a digital signal that is very very close to analog in quality. Let's sideline the efficiency of compression algorithm discussion because it is irrelevant here. Long story short, digital signal, when sampled amazingly well, can get close to analog signal.
D) Let's assume that an amazing compression algorithm (#middleout
) is giving us a near-lossless digital signal from that iPhone lightening port. Still lossy, but pretty great. But remember A). Our headphones / speakers need analog signal to play audio. So, a "digital to analog" converter is required, which is your DAC. A DAC simply prepares your digital signal to be played back from your headphones / speakers as faithfully as it can. It cannot "improve" your audio quality - crap in crap out - but, DACs use some fancy algorithms and processing techniques to reduce noise, increase faithfulness, and some other stuff to synthetically enhance your audio quality before it enters your headphones / speakers. It ain't real, but again, as long as it sounds great, right? Sure. For most people, yes. For studio - nope. Pure and un-altered are best. Long story short, iPhone --> Digital Audio Signal ---> Digital to Analog Converter (DAC) ----> Analog Signal ----> Headphones / Speakers that have a 3.5mm analog input ----> Your Ears/Heart. So basically, if your source is producing audio in digital format, your permanent losses start from Step 0. It only gets worse from there no matter how expensive your next equipment is E) Now, let's talk about AirPods Max. AirPods Max have a lightening port as input. Look at C) which means it accepts digital signal. Whoa! but look at A) speakers need analog signal to play. That means, based on D) inside those AirPods Max, there has to be a DAC inside to produce sound from those headphones. There is.
Based on the five points above, can you now guess why Apple is selling a 3.5mm (Analog) to Lightening (Digital) cable? It has little to do with "High-Res" or "Improved quality". It simply means, if you happen to have a machine (think airline seats) that only has a 3.5mm (analog) output, there needs to be a way to carry that analog signal all the way to the AirPods Max. But Airpods Max lightening port only accepts digital signal, so that analog signal has to first be converted to digital at the AirPods Max entrance, because it won't be accepted otherwise, so the cable does that analog to digital conversion. And once the digital signal is in, it must be converted yet again to analog to drive the headphones to play it. That's it! Long story short --
Machine with 3.5mm (analog) output gives you analog music signal ---> Apple 3.5mm to lightening cable converts analog signal to digital (A2D) ---> Enters into the AirPods Max's via the digital lightening port ---> DAC converts digital signal to analog ---> drives the headphones --> music to your ears.
So, as you see, nowhere in this path the signal is getting improved / enhanced, just converted and carried. Remember, the less lossy the first source of your audio, the fewer the middle-men, the better is the final output to your ears. This is why I said, listening to live music sitting right next to the performer is the most lossless and beautiful thing ever. Introducing technology in the middle (no matter how expensive they are) will help carry that audio to the other side of the world, sure, but the downside is that some purity will be sacrificed!
This will also solve another mystery - the little 3.5mm female to lightening male dongle we used to get when Apple first took out the 3.5mm port is very different from this cable because that takes digital output from iPhones and carries it to 3.5mm so it is Digital to Analog, this apple cable we are talking about here is Analog to digital - exactly the opposite. And analog to digital conversion isn't all that easy so it costs!
Last edited:
Let's sum up, the choice is yet a painful compromise between :
- The lossy bluetooth AAC converted to analog by the AirPods Max --> A lossy digital signal once converted
- The lossless digital converted to analog (first DAC) followed followed by A2D (second adapter) followed by the final DAC --> A lossless digital signal thrice converted
While the rumour spread about HiFi Apple Music, the solution would be to have a bidirectionnal lightning cable, only compatible on AirPods max 2 ? It will be hard to swallow.
- The lossy bluetooth AAC converted to analog by the AirPods Max --> A lossy digital signal once converted
- The lossless digital converted to analog (first DAC) followed followed by A2D (second adapter) followed by the final DAC --> A lossless digital signal thrice converted
While the rumour spread about HiFi Apple Music, the solution would be to have a bidirectionnal lightning cable, only compatible on AirPods max 2 ? It will be hard to swallow.
Here‘s a game changer for Apple lossless this June and will support all AirPods and Beats models with an H1/W1 chip. Apple stated it will stream it NATIVELY:
”
To start listening to Lossless Audio, subscribers using the latest version of Apple Music can turn it on in Settings > Music > Audio Quality. Here, they can choose different resolutions for different connections such as cellular, Wi-Fi, or for download. Apple Music’s Lossless tier starts at CD quality, which is 16 bit at 44.1 kHz (kilohertz), and goes up to 24 bit at 48 kHz and is playable natively on Apple devices. For the true audiophile, Apple Music also offers Hi-Resolution Lossless all the way up to 24 bit at 192 kHz.1”
”
Lossless Audio
Apple Music will also make its catalog of more than 75 million songs available in Lossless Audio. Apple uses ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) to preserve every single bit of the original audio file. This means Apple Music subscribers will be able to hear the exact same thing that the artists created in the studio.To start listening to Lossless Audio, subscribers using the latest version of Apple Music can turn it on in Settings > Music > Audio Quality. Here, they can choose different resolutions for different connections such as cellular, Wi-Fi, or for download. Apple Music’s Lossless tier starts at CD quality, which is 16 bit at 44.1 kHz (kilohertz), and goes up to 24 bit at 48 kHz and is playable natively on Apple devices. For the true audiophile, Apple Music also offers Hi-Resolution Lossless all the way up to 24 bit at 192 kHz.1”
I don't think one should be listening with the APM to high-resolution music. The DAC inside the cable is not very good.
I will keep using my APM wirelessly. For high-resolution, I have much better headphones and equipment.
I do hope that the APM v2 will feature a new bluetooth codec that support lossless audio.
I will keep using my APM wirelessly. For high-resolution, I have much better headphones and equipment.
I do hope that the APM v2 will feature a new bluetooth codec that support lossless audio.
This assumes apple doesn't have a bluetooth codec for ALAC... i reckon there is already the capability on the H1 chip. Theres no way they would have designed the airpod Max without exploring better bluettoth codecs. My bet is a firmware update will unlock the capability. Fingers crossed at least.
That's what I've been saying in this thread. With that said, you missed the announcement. Apple has stated they will activate lossless STREAMING in their native format. So this doesn't have to do anything with the flimsy optional cable that people think are providing them with better sound quality.
This announcement is how Apple will actually implement lossless quality streaming on their existing AirPod models. And whether that will make a difference in sound quality for their AirPods and AirPods Pro we'll have to wait and see. I'm hopeful for the AirPods Max, there should be a better experience especially when they activate Dolby Atmos.
Exactly. This is my bet. It's a plot twist and their H1/W1 chips were capable of higher quality streaming all along.
Lossless streaming as in Apple music. Apple also said you need an external DAC to utilize it, so they won't release a lossless bluetooth codec.
But let's see what happens next month instead of guessing.
As per the announcement there are two tiers of lossless. The first tier is their "Lossless" which starts at CD quality (meaning 16 bit at 44.1 kHz) and is playable natively on Apple devices.
And yes, the second tier will of course require an external DAC being their "Hi-Resolution Lossless" which plays up to 24-bit at 192kHz - similar to any current hi-res streaming service that requires a capable DAC and obviously Amp.
My question is what kind of DAC you need to enjoy Hi-Resolution Lossless. Will the DAC in the 3.5mm to Lightning cable suffice, or would you need a Lightning to USB Camera Adapter + USB DAC?
I hope this is true. I don’t think apple have explicitly mentioned it so I’m waiting for confirmation.
This kind of feature would have been on their roadmap for a while so I’ll be extremely annoyed if the APM doesn’t support the lower tier lossless format
Apple advised you will need an external DAC to enjoy Hi-Res Lossless and I will be very surprised if Apple qualified their existing cable to be included in those "external" which will have to be capable of 24-bit, 192kHz decoding. At it's present form, I would say that's a hard no go.
Until Apple provides more information by June on how this will be, we will just keep discussing on scenarios.
At this point, you'll definitely need an external DAC to enjoy this kind of hi-res music for proper decoding.
Apple has stated the lower tier lossless CD-quality format will be supported by all models sporting either the H1 or W1 chip. So yes, the APM will be able to stream this.
As for the higher tier Hi-Res Lossless, Apple has also stated this is currently capable only with an external DAC. Here is their fine print:
"Due to the large file sizes and bandwidth needed for Lossless and Hi-Res Lossless Audio, subscribers will need to opt in to the experience. Hi-Res Lossless also requires external equipment, such as a USB digital-to-analog converter (DAC)."
Do you have the quote that specifically says that lower tier lossless format will be supported by H1 and W1 chip? I thought that was only for Dolby Atmos
Thanks for the information. I was checking out the DragonFly Black DAC because it's only $100 but that only supports 24-bit, 96kHz audio so it seems like a poor choice and probably won't even support Hi-Res. Finding one that's both portable and reputable is difficult. I may just put off the multi-hundred-dollar investment until I can get a proper DAC.
I was mis-quoting the H1/W1 chip capability because actually, the tier 1 lossless will be natively supported on Apple devices as per my previous quote above and below:
"Apple Music’s Lossless tier starts at CD quality, which is 16 bit at 44.1 kHz (kilohertz), and goes up to 24 bit at 48 kHz and is playable natively on Apple devices"
You're right about the H1 / W1 chip, this announcement purports to the Dolby Atmos capability in which it will be enabled by default for all Apple devices with those chips.
The good news is that Dolby Atmos, it seems, per Macrumors article in the front page that it will support any headphones if you manually enable it. Here is the Macrumors quote from Apple (I don't see this quote from their announcement so if anyone finds a separate article from Apple themselves:
"Apple Music subscribers using the latest version of Apple Music on iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple TV7 can listen to thousands of Dolby Atmos music tracks using any headphones. When you listen with compatible Apple or Beats headphones, Dolby Atmos music plays back automatically when available for a song. For other headphones, go to Settings > Music > Audio and set Dolby Atmos to Always On. You can also hear Dolby Atmos music using the built‑in speakers on a compatible iPhone, iPad, MacBook Pro, or HomePod, or by connecting your Apple TV 4K to a compatible TV or audiovisual receiver."