Lightning to 3.5mm -any point to buy?

[bigshot]

I think you're right about not being able to feed it directly. Apple is more interested in signal processing. They probably don't want to bypass it with big chunky files that are too big to flow through the processor neatly.

 

[rumz]

I think you're right about not being able to feed it directly. Apple is more interested in signal processing. They probably don't want to bypass it with big chunky files that are too big to flow through the processor neatly.

Yeah— well I assume they wouldn’t want to bypass the DSP regardless— all that computational processing is where The headphones get their sound signature, noise cancellation, etc., right? The H95 are the same— even analog signals are being converted to digital and then processed in the headphones. I guess I question whether there’s some other aspect of the H1 or whatever part of the signal chain that only handles AAC.

this is primarily just an area of curiosity for me, since I acknowledge that I’m unlikely to listen to these in “Wired mode” much, if at all, even if the option exists.

 

[bigshot]

Yeah, me too. It's not like lossless sounds any different.

 

[jazz1]

I'm a life long Apple user, but I'd take Cue's dismissal of lossless with a grain of salt. He also said the reason Apple didn't support Blu Ray was because Apple's HD standard was good enough. I believe he also crowed about removing ports from the 2016 MB.

You can definitely tell the difference in rock music between 256 ACC and lossless/AIFF. Digital stuff recorded in 16 bit Garageband? Not so much.

I wish Cue/Apple would just be honest and say "lossless" is not something most of our Apple device users are just not interested in. Does Apple think "lossless" via Apple Music is just a placebo? I suppose since Apple's devices alone can't really support lossless it is not a priority.

I'm just now trying to compare Apple Lossless music to what Tidal offers. Yes, I am using some mid-fi equipment (Schiit Asgard 3 w/DAC card, and Audeze LCD-2, Sennheiser HD-650 headphones). Lossless with this extra equipment certainly makes a difference to me, but it does anchor me to a desk. I know there are more mobile, higher end, equipment solutions. In fact when I was desk bound at work I used the Chord Mojo DAC/Headpone Amplifier streaming Apple Music via Macbook.

I'm not an audiophile snob. I just like to get the best possible sound I can afford in any given environment. I go mobile with my iPad/iPhone using Jabra 65T earbuds, Bowers & Wilkins PX7, and soon Apple's own AirpodPro Max headphones. I'm excited about this last purchase!

 

[profcutter]

There's no such thing as 16/24. In your line of work you know that, right?

By definition, any file that reaches audible transparency sounds the same as the original signal. AAC 256 VBR is audibly transparent, so yes, it sounds the same as 24/96 or 16/44.1.

I have to disagree with you here. I’ve been recording field audio for over a decade with a SoundDevices field recorder. It was a huge jump over the old 16 bit recorder, or in camera XLR recording. I always record 24/96, because with my ancient Neumann shotgun mic, there is a definitive difference between 16 bit or 24 bit audio on the same device. Since I have to go back and translate the recordings after the fact (mostly interviews), I’ve noticed both with myself and with professional translators, the 24 bit recordings are better defined and result in fewer translation errors. If 16 bit and 24 bit were indistinguishable, this would never be the case. It is a blind test, because I don’t tell me translators if the file is 16 bit or 24 bit. I just hit play, and they listen through the same AKG 240m cans I do.

 

[alee]

Good thing I'm too old to hear the difference anymore. When I was in my 20s, the differences were huge. I should have bought Apple stock with the money I spent on Hi-Fi back in the day, when I could tell the difference. Instead I spent it on an SACD player, marveled at the insane audio. Now it could be 16/44 and you could tell me it was an SACD and I'd believe you.

Now rapidly approaching 50, and I'm pretty much resigned to 3 classes of audio quality: terrible, ok and good. Certainly a cheaper way to enjoy music now that "good" can be had for around $500.

 

[bigshot]

Does Apple think "lossless" via Apple Music is just a placebo?

Yes. The difference between Apple and Tidal isn't the file format. It's the mastering being used. They aren't necessarily using the same master. If they were, the differences in file format wouldn't make any difference. High data rate compressed audio, lossless and HD audio all sound the same because they are transparent. Transparent means that there is no audible difference between file formats. They may arrange the zeros and ones in different ways, and some may have more zeros and ones than others, but to human ears, they all sound the same.

People who hear differences are either 1) Comparing different masterings (like comparing Apple to Tidal), 2) Experiencing perceptual error (level differences or auditory memory issues), or 3) Allowing expectation bias to color their perception.

The way you avoid these three things is to take a sample track at the highest data rate you want to compare and bump it down to high data rate lossy. Level match. Arrange the two files to playback into a switcher. And try to discern a difference over multiple tests blind. If you don't do this, your results are anecdotal and are likely not accurate.

 

[bigshot]

I have to disagree with you here. I’ve been recording field audio for over a decade with a SoundDevices field recorder. It was a huge jump over the old 16 bit recorder, or in camera XLR recording.

Note that I say "for the purposes of listening to recorded music in the home". If you are recording and mixing, you need the extra headroom to allow for signal processing. But for playback, 16/44.1 or AAC 256 VBR is all you need to play a Beethoven symphony on the best home stereo imaginable.

 

[bigshot]

Good thing I'm too old to hear the difference anymore. When I was in my 20s, the differences were huge.

When you were in your 20s, lossy codecs were likely primitive compared to those being used today. Technology doesn't sound still. The 128 MP3s people listened to in the mid 1990s were nothing like a current AAC 256 VBR file like Apple Music uses. Your ears haven't gotten worse, the codecs have gotten better. But a lot of people judge lossy based on obsolete impressions from decades ago that don't reflect current technology.

The same goes for home audio electronics. Apple's $9 headphone adapter has a MUCH better DAC than anything in CD players that cost a couple of grand back in the mid 80s. The iPhone in your pocket has better specs than the most expensive McIntosh systems from the 70s. And a plain vanilla AVR does too.

This isn't the same game as when we were kids. You have to keep up if you don't want to sound like the guy saying, "It'll never fly, Orville." Apple sees the future as being DSPs, not lossless. They've been right enough times in the past not to doubt them now. I think they are on the right track.

 

[alee]

When you were in your 20s, lossy codecs were likely primitive compared to those being used today. Technology doesn't sound still. The 128 MP3s people listened to in the mid 1990s were nothing like a current AAC 256 VBR file like Apple Music uses. Your ears haven't gotten worse, the codecs have gotten better. But a lot of people judge lossy based on obsolete impressions from decades ago that don't reflect current technology.

oh I wasn’t listening to much compressed stuff. It was SACDs and DVD Audio.

Most people’s hearing isn’t anywhere where it was back when they were young. In fact, some locations use certain high frequencies played through speakers as an anti-loitering measure for those that can hear it. Most adults can’t hear above 16khz. Teens can. If you can still hear those frequencies, more power to you.

 

[bigshot]

Not to worry... It really isn't a great loss to not hear anything above 16kHz. It's a tiny part of audible sound- only about three whole notes on a musical scale. The only thing up there is upper harmonics in cymbals that are masked by much louder fundamentals and lower harmonics below that, the squeal from CRT TVs and bad ballasts in fluorescent lights. It's more headache inducing than it is musical. The whole top octave (10kHz to 20kHz) adds little or nothing to commercially recorded music.