Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Announces AirPods Max Over-Ear Headphones With Noise Cancellation, Priced at $549

I've read the sound guys article a few times. I can't find much else out there discussing LDAC versus AAC in any objective way. It is an interesting read.

I can tell a difference between LDAC and AAC on my Android and I can tell a difference between wired and LDAC.

Certainly Codec is only one of the variables that goes into sound quality. Frequency response is another but as we all know, headphones are more than there frequency curve.

The point is if you are paying top dollar for headphones they should have the best specs available. Apple has been dragging its feet in the area of audio for years. I won't switch back to an iphone until they up their game and show they are serious about audio. Maybe the Max is the first step. But they need to improve Apple Music streaming quality beyond 256. And it's time to upgrade AAC. Everyone has their own priorities and for me, sound quality comes first.
 
random but in a way its kind of funny how my original iPod from like 20 years ago played better quality source files (ripped from CD's at a high rate) over a better connection (wired with no translator). Yet even as a sound engineer, I often leave my very expensive Shure SE535's at home and go with my air pod pro's because of convenience. I can honestly see both sides of the argument. 550 is way over my financial comfort zone for consumer headphones though. I really am the type to over spend on apple gear but this is the first product that I'm not just complaining about the price, I really won't purchase it at that level. I think they hit a threshold at 550 that is hard to swallow for a good group of people and thats why this thread is at so many pages already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbachandouris and Nippi2000
clerkpalmer said:
I can tell a difference between LDAC and AAC on my Android and I can tell a difference between wired and LDAC.
Click to expand...

You can tell a difference between device X's implementation of LDAC and AAC. Not between LDAC and AAC in general, as their implementation varies across devices anyway - and AAC particularly so on Android.
Same applies to you telling a difference between wired and LDAC (here the big problem being that there are many, many more variables you're not controlling when using the same headphones wired vs wireless other than just codecs).
So basically you can't make any form of generalisation.
What we can do, however, is measure a device's implementation of a codec. AAC 256kbps can be transparent for the most... if well implemented, and that's measurable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GarethR
MayaTlab said:
You can tell a difference between device X's implementation of LDAC and AAC. Not between LDAC and AAC in general, as their implementation varies across devices anyway - and AAC particularly so on Android.
Click to expand...
The first statement is true. I disagree with the second one however. LDAC delivers 3 to 4 times the information to the headphone than AAC. Even if Apples implentation of AAC is better than Android that does not mean Apple AAC is equal to LDAC.

You clearly know your audio so I am asking if you are really truly satisfied with AAC as the codec of choice for the Max? Do you not wish Apple did better for the 550 asking price? Is it your opinion that there is never any reason to improve upon Apples implentation AAC because it has been deemed transparent? Is it that there is no room for improvement or just that you don't think LDAC offers any improvement?
 
clerkpalmer said:
The first statement is true. I disagree with the second one however. LDAC delivers 3 to 4 times the information to the headphone than AAC. Even if Apples implentation of AAC is better than Android that does not mean Apple AAC is equal to LDAC.

You clearly know your audio so I am asking if you are really truly satisfied with AAC as the codec of choice for the Max? Do you not wish Apple did better for the 550 asking price? Is it your opinion that there is never any reason to improve upon Apples implentation AAC because it has been deemed transparent? Is it that there is no room for improvement or just that you don't think LDAC offers any improvement?
Click to expand...
LDAC doesn’t deliver 3 to 4 times the information than AAC. You absolutely can’t compare bitrate among different codecs anyway, particularly when comparing advanced codecs such as AAC from fairly crude ones like APTX or LDAC. What you just need to do is measure the output.

What we ideally want with wireless audio is reliability, good enough performance that artefacts are inaudible, and low latency. All current audio over Bluetooth implementations are perfectible one way or another, but given that a proper implementation of AAC can be nearly transparent at a low bitrate and that Apple can manage to have a latency around 140ms with true wireless earbuds with it, I’d rather have Apple’s implementation of AAC over anything LDAC or APTX. Let’s say that it’s measurably good enough for other things to be way more important to sound quality - chief one of which being FR curve at your own eardrum.

I’ve been wondering about whether UWB technology (U1 chip) can be used for low latency, high quality audio over wireless. I really have no idea whether it can be used for wireless audio, but if it is I have a feeling that it could be the proper solution to this conundrum and not yet another supposedly magic codec over Bluetooth.
But even then it will be pointless to listen to that on a pair of crappy headphones such as these : https://www.dropbox.com/s/3i9rca7wu3iayl6/Sennheiser HD820.pdf?dl=0
 
  • Like
Reactions: GarethR and DaPhox
clerkpalmer said:
The first statement is true. I disagree with the second one however. LDAC delivers 3 to 4 times the information to the headphone than AAC. Even if Apples implentation of AAC is better than Android that does not mean Apple AAC is equal to LDAC.

You clearly know your audio so I am asking if you are really truly satisfied with AAC as the codec of choice for the Max? Do you not wish Apple did better for the 550 asking price? Is it your opinion that there is never any reason to improve upon Apples implentation AAC because it has been deemed transparent? Is it that there is no room for improvement or just that you don't think LDAC offers any improvement?
Click to expand...
Asked and answered page 62.
 
MayaTlab said:
LDAC doesn’t deliver 3 to 4 times the information than AAC. You absolutely can’t compare bitrate among different codecs anyway, particularly when comparing advanced codecs such as AAC from fairly crude ones like APTX or LDAC. What you just need to do is measure the output.

What we ideally want with wireless audio is reliability, good enough performance that artefacts are inaudible, and low latency. All current audio over Bluetooth implementations are perfectible one way or another, but given that a proper implementation of AAC can be nearly transparent at a low bitrate and that Apple can manage to have a latency around 140ms with true wireless earbuds with it, I’d rather have Apple’s implementation of AAC over anything LDAC or APTX. Let’s say that it’s measurably good enough for other things to be way more important to sound quality - chief one of which being FR curve at your own eardrum.

I’ve been wondering about whether UWB technology (U1 chip) can be used for low latency, high quality audio over wireless. I really have no idea whether it can be used for wireless audio, but if it is I have a feeling that it could be the proper solution to this conundrum and not yet another supposedly magic codec over Bluetooth.
But even then it will be pointless to listen to that on a pair of crappy headphones such as these : https://www.dropbox.com/s/3i9rca7wu3iayl6/Sennheiser HD820.pdf?dl=0
Click to expand...
I am sorry but your characterization of LDAC as "crude" is not something I can agree with. Hifiman, Audeze, Fiio and many others have adopted LDAC uniformly as the audiophile codec of choice. They aren't doing this for fun. They are doing it because it's better and because the audiophile community demands the best.
 
MayaTlab said:
I’ve been wondering about whether UWB technology (U1 chip) can be used for low latency, high quality audio over wireless. I really have no idea whether it can be used for wireless audio, but if it is I have a feeling that it could be the proper solution to this conundrum and not yet another supposedly magic codec over Bluetooth.
But even then it will be pointless to listen to that on a pair of crappy headphones such as these : https://www.dropbox.com/s/3i9rca7wu3iayl6/Sennheiser HD820.pdf?dl=0
Click to expand...
Technically yes UWB is the answer, but as I mentioned previously(and was inexplicably downvoted/argued against) would require new hardware(probably including existing U1 iPhones). I think there's some regulatory issue with widespread UWB use as well. Someone with no clue is about to argue with you for the next 4 pages btw. Just a heads up, have fun :p.

clerkpalmer said:
I wasn't asking you. I was asking someone who knows what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
You mean the person that just gave you an answer that aligns with exactly what I've already told you?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Nippi2000
dannys1 said:
Bose are ***** end of. You shouldn't buy Bose - there are at least 7 other brands with far better drivers - but of course if you're used to the crap sound of the likes of Sonos, B&W, Harmon Kardon and all those god awful sound systems they build for cars and iPod docks then sure, you'll find yourself right at home with Bose - which is why the likes of the tech websites you've suggested like Bose (well that and Bose paying for reviews.

But what do I know? I'm just an audio engineer with 20 years in the industry, i'm sure the bloke at the Verge who has nothing to do with music but is being paid to review has a better ear...
Click to expand...
The problem with comments like this is they are not supported by any direct evidence. WHY ARE THESE BOSE HEADPHONES CRAP? Why?
 
booksbooks said:
The problem with comments like this is they are not supported by any direct evidence. WHY ARE THESE BOSE HEADPHONES CRAP? Why?
Click to expand...
Unless you mean millions of sales over the years and hundreds of excellent reviews. Other than that, no evidence at all. Lol.

Bose's house sound may not be for everyone but there is no doubt that they are a massive commercial success. I would not expect a sound engineer to like them but calling them crap is not supported by any objective evidence.

Edit - and if objective evidence is meaningful, rtings is pretty positive on them:

www.rtings.com

Bose QuietComfort 35 II/QC35 II Wireless 2018 Review

The Bose QuietComfort 35 II/QC35 II Wireless 2018 are versatile wireless over-ears with a very comfortable fit. They have a long 20-hour battery life, and their ...
www.rtings.com www.rtings.com
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: booksbooks
clerkpalmer said:
I am sorry but your characterization of LDAC as "crude" is not something I can agree with. Hifiman, Audeze, Fiio and many others have adopted LDAC uniformly as the audiophile codec of choice. They aren't doing this for fun. They are doing it because it's better and because the audiophile community demands the best.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the codec itself can be crude (ie simplistic) whilst delivering reasonably good quality. It just so happens that AAC is a more complex codec to implement and quite heavy computationally - which is why most Android or non-Apple implementations are subpar.
LDAC as a codec *is* relatively crude compared to AAC and relies on high bitrates for delivering good results. AAC is objectively audibly transparent somewhere between 256-320kbps, so additional bitrate wouldn't measurably increase audio performance.

None of this is to say that LDAC is rubbish or necessarily worse than AAC, because it isn't.
 
booksbooks said:
The problem with comments like this is they are not supported by any direct evidence. WHY ARE THESE BOSE HEADPHONES CRAP? Why?
Click to expand...

Look at my previous replies I explain clearly why. You go and buy Bose anyway it's probably what you're used to hearing.
 
clerkpalmer said:
Unless you mean millions of sales over the years and hundreds of excellent reviews. Other than that, no evidence at all. Lol.

Bose's house sound may not be for everyone but there is no doubt that they are a massive commercial success. I would not expect a sound engineer to like them but calling them crap is not supported by any objective evidence.

Edit - and if objective evidence is meaningful, rtings is pretty positive on them:

www.rtings.com

Bose QuietComfort 35 II/QC35 II Wireless 2018 Review

The Bose QuietComfort 35 II/QC35 II Wireless 2018 are versatile wireless over-ears with a very comfortable fit. They have a long 20-hour battery life, and their ...
www.rtings.com www.rtings.com
Click to expand...
They are positive about the QC35, not about the awful 700.

Edit: Basically the only places you’ll see that the 700 sound good is on websites like CNET, verge, techradar, engadget, etc, in between a mouse review, some video game launch, and an article about connected sports wristbands.
 
Last edited:
anthony13 said:
random but in a way its kind of funny how my original iPod from like 20 years ago played better quality source files (ripped from CD's at a high rate) over a better connection (wired with no translator). Yet even as a sound engineer, I often leave my very expensive Shure SE535's at home and go with my air pod pro's because of convenience. I can honestly see both sides of the argument. 550 is way over my financial comfort zone for consumer headphones though. I really am the type to over spend on apple gear but this is the first product that I'm not just complaining about the price, I really won't purchase it at that level. I think they hit a threshold at 550 that is hard to swallow for a good group of people and thats why this thread is at so many pages already.
Click to expand...
Price is relative to what people make and what people are used to spending for a current product. Because everyone knows Bose and Beats and they know they sell for about $300 that’s what people expect. The iPhone 7 was released at $650 and that’s what people expected to pay for an iPhone. With the iPhone X came out it was $999. There were so many posts here of people saying this is just ridiculous. It won’t sell, this is overpriced garbage etc etc. Apple made something different but because they added $350 to the price it shocked everyone. Even with that price it sold like crazy. Fast forward a few years and now we have phones selling for $1500+.

It’s the same exact thing with these headphones. Apple made something different and added $250 to the price. They are sold out. Not everyone went out and bought the thousand dollar iPhone just like not everyone is going to buy these headphones. Eventually this level of product will become normal and people won’t be so shocked by it.

This being said I think they’re going to take the exact approach as they did with the iPhone and eventually make a more budget friendly model. Just like you can buy the iPhone 12 Pro Max for $1099+ or you can buy the iPhone 11 for $799. These headphones are the Max version.
 
russell_314 said:
Price is relative to what people make and what people are used to spending for a current product. Because everyone knows Bose and Beats and they know they sell for about $300 that’s what people expect. The iPhone 7 was released at $650 and that’s what people expected to pay for an iPhone. With the iPhone X came out it was $999. There were so many posts here of people saying this is just ridiculous. It won’t sell, this is overpriced garbage etc etc. Apple made something different but because they added $350 to the price it shocked everyone. Even with that price it sold like crazy. Fast forward a few years and now we have phones selling for $1500+.

It’s the same exact thing with these headphones. Apple made something different and added $250 to the price. They are sold out. Not everyone went out and bought the thousand dollar iPhone just like not everyone is going to buy these headphones. Eventually this level of product will become normal and people won’t be so shocked by it.

This being said I think they’re going to take the exact approach as they did with the iPhone and eventually make a more budget friendly model. Just like you can buy the iPhone 12 Pro Max for $1099+ or you can buy the iPhone 11 for $799. These headphones are the Max version.
Click to expand...
I would agree with what you said, except this time Apple didn’t make anything different. That’s the problem. Theres no up sell here. The iPhone X brought something new to the phone world. Look at the reviews and they are overwhelmingly good. The Airpod Max’s aren‘t new. Theres nothing revolutionary about them. Theres no ‘one more thing’. They are about as exciting as the damp scrunched up sock you find in the dryer that didnt finish drying.
 
anthony13 said:
I would agree with what you said, except this time Apple didn’t make anything different. That’s the problem. Theres no up sell here. The iPhone X brought something new to the phone world. Look at the reviews and they are overwhelmingly good. The Airpod Max’s aren‘t new. Theres nothing revolutionary about them. Theres no ‘one more thing’. They are about as exciting as the damp scrunched up sock you find in the dryer that didnt finish drying.
Click to expand...
So you’re telling me Apple is lying about putting an H1 chips for audio processing, accelerometers for spatial audio, and magnetically attached ear cups or do Sony headphones have these features? I mean we could talk about the metal construction vs cheap plastic but since cheaper is also lighter I’ll just say that one cancels out.
 
russell_314 said:
So you’re telling me Apple is lying about putting an H1 chips for audio processing, accelerometers for spatial audio, and magnetically attached ear cups or do Sony headphones have these features? I mean we could talk about the metal construction vs cheap plastic but since cheaper is also lighter I’ll just say that one cancels out.
Click to expand...
No I mean those are great don’t get me wrong, but I would have hoped for something more substantial such as a better delivery option (as opposed to the compression of Bluetooth). And yea the competitors do have their own spatial audio options. Also putting a lightning port on them was a painful reminder of apples insistence on not transitioning to usb-c.
 
russell_314 said:
Price is relative to what people make and what people are used to spending for a current product. Because everyone knows Bose and Beats and they know they sell for about $300 that’s what people expect. The iPhone 7 was released at $650 and that’s what people expected to pay for an iPhone. With the iPhone X came out it was $999. There were so many posts here of people saying this is just ridiculous. It won’t sell, this is overpriced garbage etc etc. Apple made something different but because they added $350 to the price it shocked everyone. Even with that price it sold like crazy. Fast forward a few years and now we have phones selling for $1500+.

It’s the same exact thing with these headphones. Apple made something different and added $250 to the price. They are sold out. Not everyone went out and bought the thousand dollar iPhone just like not everyone is going to buy these headphones. Eventually this level of product will become normal and people won’t be so shocked by it.

This being said I think they’re going to take the exact approach as they did with the iPhone and eventually make a more budget friendly model. Just like you can buy the iPhone 12 Pro Max for $1099+ or you can buy the iPhone 11 for $799. These headphones are the Max version.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right about a budget version. If that happens, may the noise cancellation and bass be the same quality as these.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back