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.
Alleged AirPods Studio Depicted in Leaked Image and Video Clip
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
?256 kbps AAC, properly implemented, measures in ways that are inaudible to human beings. There is a 99,999999% chance that you'd fail an A/B blind test between Apple's current 2020 implementation of their 256 kbps AAC and CD quality.
Even 256 kbps AAC over bluetooth (which is something different from the file format), as implemented by Apple, measures in ways that most if not all users would struggle to differentiate from wired : https://www.soundguys.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-bluetooth-headphones-aac-20296/
Meanwhile, a 2-3 dB change in some areas of the frequency response can easily be noticed by most users, and even some high-end, "hi-fi" headphones still measure as poorly as this :
Headphones v1.5 - Graph Tool
www.rtings.com
While even worse, headphones' frequency response is significantly affected by each user's individual anatomy.
Most people would be better served spending a lot more time caring about frequency response than anything else, by a mile.
Or in other words, in order of importance to what's audible : frequency response / individual anatomy's influence on frequency response / ergonomics influence on frequency response / master used to produce the file (there's more than a double dozen different masters of the Who's Who's Next and they all sound very different from each others) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> headphones - induced distortion >>>>>>>>>> 256 kbps AAC vs. CD quality file format .
It makes very little sense to me to make 256 kbps AAC a fixation when we're still producing headphones that miss FR targets by miles regardless of their price range.
Wireless ANC BT headphones, as a by-product of having an internal DAC / DSP / mics, have all the necessary theoretical bases to a) equalise the frequency response to a specific curve, preferably one that corresponds to the various curves that have been demonstrated as being favoured by most users (which usually corresponds to a pair of speakers that measure flat in an anechoic room when put in a decently well tuned listening room) - look up Harman curves for example -, and b) fine tune that frequency response to each user's individual HRTF (for example by analysing the user's ear shape with a system similar to Face ID and create a personalised HRTF profile). Passive headphones won't ever be able to do that.
That being said most ANC BT headphones manufacturers still don't care and produce headphones that measure as poorly as this : https://www.rtings.com/headphones/graph#1619/3992
While that's yet to be realised, in the future the truly "Hi-fi" headphones will be powered and make extensive use of their DSP and sensors. There is no future for passive headphones if what you want is "High Fidelity".
You also have the likes of iTunes mastering which is tailored for their particular streaming service to negate the "bad frequencies" and provide perceived better, and "nicer" audio via a lossy format to the masses than a CD master.
Apple will focus on the masses they provide music to rather than the 1/10000 with golden ears. Of that I have no doubt.
Re: HRTF using the 3D camera would be ideal! The APP's already measure individual ear canal length with sound, which is all you need for insert type earphones. That's the 500 times a second claim. They calibrate a target curve - it might not be Harman but I guess Apple has research that shows theirs is preferred for their customer base.
Remember Harman curve was derived in a quiet listening space. These devices are rarely used in such an environment.
Also there's no benefits for overears vs IEM's for sound. APP's are flat to 10hz, there's no more bass to be had from bigger drivers. The benefits would be other things: battery life, comfort, high frequency isolation, fashion.
Looking at those images the Studios won't be priced at 349, they could compete with the newly released Beoplay H95's which are £700 😟
Nah, if AAC was ideal, Apple wouldn't have made ALAC, which is noticeably far superior. And the average person CAN tell the difference between CD and ACC, IMO. ACC is noticeably flatter.
They tried to claim hifi with the HomePod despite the actual lack of specs to back the claim up, and they suffered for it. The reality is the hifi crowd demand much more than Apple offered, and the price point was too alienating for users who were not audiophiles. Any attempt at doing this with headphones would likely end in the same result.
I'd agree that most people "should" notice the difference between a Physical CD and CD ripped straight to ACC (with decent headphones) but if the music has been specifically remastered for ACC playback it fudges results quite a bit.
As if blind tests hadn’t been performed multiple times over the last decades. Latest ones have repeatedly demonstrated that most if not all people, even trained listeners, struggle to differentiate 256 or 320 Kbps AAC or even MP3 from lossless.
That being said not all 256 Kbps AAC files are created equal. Encoders quality vary among themselves and over time. A recently encoded 128 Kbps AAC file has good chances to sound differently (ie better) than one from 2004.
I am very confident that both you or I would fail to pass a blind test between CD quality and an 2020 Apple encoded 256 Kbps AAC file.
“Audiophiles” aren’t necessarily gifted with excellent ears, after all some of them gushed on Head-fi about the HD820 until measurements showed how much of a POS it unarguably is.
That being said not all 256 Kbps AAC files are created equal. Encoders quality vary among themselves and over time. A recently encoded 128 Kbps AAC file has good chances to sound differently (ie better) than one from 2004.
I am very confident that both you or I would fail to pass a blind test between CD quality and an 2020 Apple encoded 256 Kbps AAC file.
“Audiophiles” aren’t necessarily gifted with excellent ears, after all some of them gushed on Head-fi about the HD820 until measurements showed how much of a POS it unarguably is.
I'd don't think that I'd fail on a blind test (1:1 rip) to tell the difference, I can HF artefacts in ripped 320kbps Mp3 tracks most of the time.
BUT if one version has been enhanced specifically for ACC it might sound more "exciting" or pleasing to the ears than the CD. Depending on the original it might make it difficult to decide which one subjectively sounds "better" (depending on the headphones). Which is why I say it could mess with results.
Which MP3 encoder ? Which version ? Which device for encoding ? Which for playing (that's particularly important for AAC BTW) ? Etc.
Personally back when iTunes started I didn't have much trouble finding differences in my early attempts at ripping my CDs in lossy formats vs lossless.
But in 2020 with Apple's encoder and 256 kbps AAC I most certainly do.
Apple's requirements for a master to be considered an "Apple Digital Master" aren't meant to change how a master sounds but how it is delivered. There is no such thing as an "enhanced for AAC" master.
That being said some of the masters that were delivered to Apple for their iTunes or Apple Music services may be different from the ones sold on CDs (perhaps the Who's Who's Next, which is notorious for having been released in dozens and dozens of different masters), and Apple's handling of them might be different from other streaming services.
All this talk about 256 kbps AAC vs. lossless is frankly just completely pointless when even high-end headphones still fail to land within 2-3 dBs of a desired FR target, won't ever be able to adapt to individuals' own HRTFs as long as they're passive and don't feature advanced DSPs, and some "audiophile" approved HPs still measure as bad as this :
Headphones v1.5 - Graph Tool
www.rtings.com
Let's just say that it's quite comical to witness some "audiophiles" hell-bent on refusing to EQ the aforementioned headphones and insist on using 24/192 files...
In the long list of things that Apple could do to improve the fidelity of their sound reproduction systems, improving on their AAC 256 kbps should be way down the list.
Alright, so these have been announced.
Actually somewhat surprised that you *can* connect these to a 3.5mm jack (via this new $35 3.5mm to Lightning cable).
I wonder if these function like the BeoPlay H95-- they do not function passively when connected via audio cable, the sound is apparently still being processed by the headphone's built in DSP. (My guess is yes, there probably isn't a completely passive mode on these.)
Actually somewhat surprised that you *can* connect these to a 3.5mm jack (via this new $35 3.5mm to Lightning cable).
I wonder if these function like the BeoPlay H95-- they do not function passively when connected via audio cable, the sound is apparently still being processed by the headphone's built in DSP. (My guess is yes, there probably isn't a completely passive mode on these.)
