General 24bit Audio Now Supported?

[davehutch]

iTunes have supported multi channel 24bit/96khz alac files for some time already. The funny thing is that you had to use m4v as file suffix instead of m4a. And airplay and syncing to iPhones were hit and miss. The higher bit rate and sample frequency is to me a wasteful gimmick however, but the multi channel is cool.

Thanks for the reply but my questions still stand.

 

[simonmet]

This is great news as a 7 Plus owner. I can keep my library unified again and not have to upload high-res music to my iPhone separately.

96 kHz is enough for me personally as I don’t have any 192 kHz files. I can hear improvements up to 24-bit 96 kHz but I doubt I could beyond that so the 96 kHz limit is fine by me. The difference between lossless 24/96 and 256 kbps AAC is like night and day - the latter sounding completely flat and lifeless by comparison.

I do hope this signals an upgrade to iTunes Store quality is coming.

 

[Helmsley]

Basically, yes 🙂 From a purely technical standpoint, there's no real benefit to hi-res audio. That said, many hi-res versions are produced more meticulously, from better masters. This might make them sound better. Although, you could always downsample those files and still reap the benefits.

I’d agree with that.

In terms of playback, empirical evidence from listening tests backs up the assertion that 44.1kHz/16 bit provides highest-possible fidelity.

 

[Superhai]

Thanks for the reply but my questions still stand.

Yes I somehow misread your post. However, rename the file from .m4a to .m4v and you will be able to sync the oddest of alac files. Including 24 bit/192 kHz. And it does play on the iPhone music player. I don't know however if there is any way to output the files in its full format.

 

[davehutch]

Yes I somehow misread your post. However, rename the file from .m4a to .m4v and you will be able to sync the oddest of alac files. Including 24 bit/192 kHz. And it does play on the iPhone music player. I don't know however if there is any way to output the files in its full format.

Thanks, that's interesting. Clearly the issue is with the Lightning Audio Module (LAM) being limited to 24/48, which of course also affects any MFi DAC that uses a Lightning connector. From what I've heard, a Lightning to USB cable then a DAC such as a Dragonfly might allow native playback of higher sample rates but I don't have one to test.

 

[HDFan]

In terms of playback, empirical evidence from listening tests backs up the assertion that 44.1kHz/16 bit provides highest-possible fidelity.

There are also a number of listening tests that say that greater then CD quality produces a better listening experience:

https://phys.org/news/2016-06-people-difference-high-resolution-audio.html
https://www.audiostream.com/content/abx-tests-prove-hi-res-audio-legit
http://positive-feedback.com/Issue77/pogue.htm

It's an open issue.

 

[fjarl]

There are also a number of listening tests that say that greater then CD quality produces a better listening experience:

https://phys.org/news/2016-06-people-difference-high-resolution-audio.html
https://www.audiostream.com/content/abx-tests-prove-hi-res-audio-legit
http://positive-feedback.com/Issue77/pogue.htm

It's an open issue.

Interesting stuff. The first one seems to be a metastudy? Seems like a weird way to conduct research about hearing. The last one is just a... challenge to a journalist? The second is interesting though. One person (out of two people who tried) could tell the difference between cd quality and hi-res audio. From the comments it seems to be a debate though whether it was because of the way the laptop dealt with the files and whether hi-res sounded better rather than just different.

On the other hand, if something makes you enjoy your favourite bands even more, why not do it?

 

[HDFan]

The Journalist is David Pogue, who was the New York Times technology reporter before he moved to Yahoo Tech. He is the most famous technology reporter in the states (Neil Degrasse Tyson limits himself mostly to astronomy), having hosted a number of Public Television science specials. He has a column in Scientific American:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/david-pogue/

Here's his original review:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/it-was-one-of-kickstarters-most-successful-109496883039.html

The difference between a 256 Kbps file and a high res version of a good recording is night and day, for me showing up most obviously in cymbals and drums.

I always look to him first for a review of new products because he is a great presenter and very funny. Check out some of his videos:

https://finance.yahoo.com/tech/pogue

 

[Superhai]

The difference between a 256 Kbps file and a high res version of a good recording is night and day, for me showing up most obviously in cymbals and drums.

I usually do not go deep into these discussions as there are too much religious feeling about their positions on both side of the spectrum.
But comparing a 256kbps file to uncompressed 24 bit / above 96khz sound files, are mostly agreed that there is an audible difference. The question has usually been if 16 bit/44 kHz is perceivable different from an audiofile played in 24 bit/ 96 kHz ( or anything above the CD-reference).

Usually the argument comes down to the sampling frequency used, as you would need a silent anechoic chamber to be able to enjoy the full dynamic range of 16 bit. In the dbSPL range with 0 db at 20 μPa, the background noise in a silent room are around 25 dbSPL, and you would not and should not be exposed to sound above around 120dbSPL. If you turn up your sound system to a level where peak is at where you will risk damaging hearing, the lowest sound that a 16 bit system can playback will still be at background noise level.

Now there is the effect of sampling frequency. There are theories which state that a human are still able to perceive frequencies above 20kHz even if the ear are unable to hear it. But there are more mundane technical reasons why higher sampling frequencies are possible to discern. The output from an DAC is theoretically squares, but square waves are impossible to create in the real world. This creates amplitude distortions. Usually this is fixed by a low pass filter at half the sampling frequency (the Nyquist frequency). Without it you will get a so called aliasing effect. Further on your loudspeakers will also naturally be a low pass filter, as in a electric cable, it is definitely impossible to create perfect square waves from an moving system as a speaker. The movement at the beginning of a wave will create over harmonics as high as the element is able to swing.

But no matter what your system is constructed from, the last and most effective signal processor is your brain, and most of the artifacts you will hear are created there.

 

[Shirasaki]

But no matter what your system is constructed from, the last and most effective signal processor is your brain, and most of the artifacts you will hear are created there.

This.
There are also lots of people saying “just use imagination to fill whatever is missing while listening to some hi-res music”.

 

[Pjave2]

Hi all, I posted separately but am copying my questions to this thread as it seems most relevant:

I have an iPhone 7 Plus.
I've tested it successfully with AIF and ALAC files at 24bit/96kHz and I've also seen that anything higher than 96kHz is still not working, with the error message that my iP7+ does not support that particular sample rate.

My question is, can you now play 96kHz files through the Lightning port to a suitable DAC, or is it still limited to 48kHz despite the actual sample rate of the file?
Does someone have a Dragonfly Red for example who could confirm whether it picks up the higher sample rate now (LED lights indicate sample rate)
If it is still limited to 48kHz, when can you actually play the 96kHz version? Is it only over Airplay for instance?

Hi, Yes it does work via an Dragonfly Red, ive tested with ALAC 24/96 and the led on the Dragonfly changes to Magenta colour. Tested with a couple of albums.

However what does not work is the EQ setting in Apple Music player. Nothing happens when you change the EQ settings. Its only on My ALAC 24/96, on My ALAC 16/44.1 files the EQ works perfect. Ive reported the issue to Apple. Same with or without the Dragonfly Red.

 

[DblHelix]

Hi, Yes it does work via an Dragonfly Red, ive tested with ALAC 24/96 and the led on the Dragonfly changes to Magenta colour. Tested with a couple of albums.

However what does not work is the EQ setting in Apple Music player. Nothing happens when you change the EQ settings. Its only on My ALAC 24/96, on My ALAC 16/44.1 files the EQ works perfect. Ive reported the issue to Apple. Same with or without the Dragonfly Red.

This is expected. The audio out is raw, same as shooting photos in raw, audio changes do not affect it.

 

[davehutch]

This is expected. The audio out is raw, same as shooting photos in raw, audio changes do not affect it.

That doesn’t make sense if the EQ works on lower sample rates?

 

[ebernet]

Hi all, I posted separately but am copying my questions to this thread as it seems most relevant:

I have an iPhone 7 Plus.
I've tested it successfully with AIF and ALAC files at 24bit/96kHz and I've also seen that anything higher than 96kHz is still not working, with the error message that my iP7+ does not support that particular sample rate.

My question is, can you now play 96kHz files through the Lightning port to a suitable DAC, or is it still limited to 48kHz despite the actual sample rate of the file?
Does someone have a Dragonfly Red for example who could confirm whether it picks up the higher sample rate now (LED lights indicate sample rate)
If it is still limited to 48kHz, when can you actually play the 96kHz version? Is it only over Airplay for instance?

Why would you want to bother? Why not bring your 24/96 files on a USB key or SD/Mini SD card and instead invest in an Apple Music account and have all you 24x96 files encoded for streaming at your iPhone? Are you traveling with some portable DAC that you need to have those hi res files come off your phone instead of a USB stick or SD card? When you are in a setting where that kind of quality matters, you should have access to something that can read those cards and is way cheaper than using and tying up your iPhone. You realize too that AirPlay is capped at 48 anyway?

I think it is a general thing reading all the comments here about 24 bit 96 and ways to get it out of the iPhone and me being Audiofile as well and just realized we are all being silly about tools for the purpose. iPhones are silly for storage of 24x96 files - 512 GB SD cards can be had for $20, and that level of storage is $350 on an iPhone (upgrade from the minimum of 64 GB to the 512). iPhones are also horrible at being used as hard drives, which is really the only real way we can get anything over 24x48 off the iPhone anyway.