One person hearing the difference is rare but plausible. An entire staff hearing it is highly improbable.
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.
Apple Engineer Addresses Lack of Lossless Support on New AirPods Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One person hearing the difference is rare but plausible. An entire staff hearing it is highly improbable.
I tested people familiar with the songs because they are more likely to notice the differences.
Lossless does not cost you more so what would the scam achieve?
Just listen to both and if you can't notice a difference stick with the regular AACs.
Yes and no.
For people who care and can hear the difference and have a high enough quality set up to enjoy true lossless files, no, it’s absolutely not a scam.
For audio engineers and music producers in the studio environment, it also absolutely is not a scam.
For 99% of people streaming wireless music from their iPhone to their tiny light portable convenient earbuds, it’s basically pointless.
It’s like the difference between 8K 120FPS HDR and 1080P/24-30-60 sdr, there’s a small amount of people that might be able to appreciate the first, but put the second in front of the majority of people and they’ll think it looks fine.
For AirPods and AirPods Pro and when using AirPods Max wirelessly, AAC is fine. If you truly think shoving a massive lossless file over Bluetooth into your teeny tiny earbuds is going to make that massive of a difference, you’re kidding yourself. You’re just wasting bandwidth and battery at that point.
But on an actual proper set up with someone who can hear the difference, it’s a real thing.
And that’s what most of the people demanding APPs just get lossless support don’t seem to understand.
Either it's placebo, or you're using a codec that cuts frequencies. Any modern m4a standard of higher bandwidth… say 256 variable… no chance. Any A/B test is a failure.
The best way to describe it from an engineering process is you have to do math on a file.
A lossless, high-bitrate file (like a 32-bit file) is something that holds samples out to a double, rather than just an int (16-bit). This means that when you apply effects or changes to each, you're either applying complex math to a number that's out to 8 or 16 decimal places per sample, or one that's rounded to no decimals.
Keep doing math with rounding, and you end up with perceivable differences.
Once it's in its final form, and you smush it down with a good codec that does not truncate frequencies, and you end up with a fantastic final outcome. Smash it with 128 mp3, and you get rubbish.
Bluetooth can only handle so much data, and the amount of compression (and type) will make your true-wireless earbuds work really hard and burn battery. Thus, it's always a balance at the end form. Even this video example is a bit flawed because every video camera on the market shoots video and immediately compresses the original because we don't have anything that will write fast enough, or hold enough data, to be practical - and practical is not a problem anyhow because raw video vs. properly codec'd video is again imperceivable. When it comes to audio, you do actually record lossless, and the raw form is manipulatable.
All to say, it's a "real thing", but if you do it right, it's like viewing a painting in a museum from 2 metres… did you notice the protective glass? Probably not.
I think there is a case to improve the audio and to offer lossless sound quality over the air. There are so many variables with sound quality though. Offering it won't have any negative effect but as to who will benefit will be those that can perceive the difference.
As for my self, I can tell the difference between a cheap pair of headphones and Sony's 1000MX5 or Apple's AirPods Max with a high quality 320kbps sound file but I don't think "I" could tell the difference 'as much' going to lossless at a level that a true audiophile would appreciate. Those types of individuals are trained with experience to hear the subtleties and invest a good amount of their time and money on it. No average consumer just buys a pair of $80,000 Sennheiser Orpheus/HE 1 to listen to streaming music. 😂
As for my self, I can tell the difference between a cheap pair of headphones and Sony's 1000MX5 or Apple's AirPods Max with a high quality 320kbps sound file but I don't think "I" could tell the difference 'as much' going to lossless at a level that a true audiophile would appreciate. Those types of individuals are trained with experience to hear the subtleties and invest a good amount of their time and money on it. No average consumer just buys a pair of $80,000 Sennheiser Orpheus/HE 1 to listen to streaming music. 😂
My apologies for the delayed replies. I will do my best to respond to many of the posts here.
I mostly agree with this. FLAC has already become the golden standard. But part of the problem is that ALAC doesn’t do the same. If it did, I probably wouldn’t care so much. But they are not equivalent in many aspects - ALAC is at an unacceptable disadvantage.
FLAC is not a niche market. That’s like saying MP4 is a niche market just because more people stream videos than download them.
Still - Can I load up my iPhone with WAVs? MP3s? AIFF? ALAC? AAC? Why is the only format with any current relevancy the one that’s not on this list? Why does no other developer have this problem?
No excuses. There is no justification. And you my friend, as a paying customer, should be just as upset about deliberately crippled software as I am even if it’s not a feature that matters to you.
This makes sense. Even if the final Bluetooth pipeline employs lossy compression, your music is going to sound less sucky if it only gets lossy compressed once as opposed to twice.
The MD5 thing was touched upon. Though I have my own comments in response to that response as well. That’s the archival security/data integrity part.
I would sooner format my entire drive than willingly strip every file of their provenance. ALAC, as it currently exists without any sort of per-file checksum, is a dealbreaker.
With FLAC you know every piece of audio is bit for bit, sample for sample, 100% identical to what was encoded. With ALAC, you are flying blind.
In terms of performance - The FLAC encoder is more efficient. Smaller files = less space wasted on nothing = also less data to stream.
The differences may appear small , and can vary based on encoding parameters, not to mention audio content as well, but they do exist and they do add up. If I were to convert my entire library to ALAC it would be significantly larger than it already is, for no particular reason at all. On the scale of hundreds of GB.
FLAC is also less CPU intensive to decode than ALAC. In fact, it’s even less CPU intensive to decode than MP3, something we figured out on portable devices over 20 years ago.
Is this significant enough to make a difference with regards to battery life? Who’s to say without testing, but the difference is there.
And there’s the problem. They are deliberately blocking the files from going into Music or iTunes, the ONLY official way to get files onto your portable device in their walled garden. No reason. Just anti-consumer behavior and a deliberate removal of the choice to not use Apple’s proprietary codec.
You got a source for that buddy?
Name one mainstream major label production I can go listen to right now on a streaming platform that is only available in a lossy compressed form. I’ll wait.
Almost hit the nail on the head here. Unfortunately, you CAN’T use the F2K File Integrity Verifier with ALAC
Or rather, to accurately clarify that statement: you can use it on an ALAC file. But it can’t tell you anything meaningful. Without a stored MD5, there is no known value to refer to. A corrupt ALAC file only corrupt enough to still decode - however incorrectly - would be undetectable.
Not only will it need new hardware, it will require the development of an entirely new communications protocol. That’s the problem, Bluetooth ain’t cutting it.
You hit the nail on the head here. Why are we asked to jump through these hoops? Either we have to convert, which itself is a chore and a net negative. Or we have to load our files into sandboxed apps, locked away from most of Apple’s media features like a second class music library. Whatever happened to “it just works”?
I don’t think it’s too much to ask to be able to drag and drop a file into my iTunes library like I can do with ANY OTHER common audio file format and sync it to my phone.
Even if, like you said, the goal was that you only wanted AAC compressed versions on your phone, it should not be this difficult to get to that end result. Apple’s on-the-fly conversion feature wouldn’t be locked away from us if only the files could be loaded in the first place.
There are the previously mentioned technical disadvantages - inefficiency and no stored checksum. FLAC is also more widely supported outside of the Apple world when it comes to other hardware/software.
Anything other than lossless is a scam.
I mostly agree with this. FLAC has already become the golden standard. But part of the problem is that ALAC doesn’t do the same. If it did, I probably wouldn’t care so much. But they are not equivalent in many aspects - ALAC is at an unacceptable disadvantage.
FLAC is not a niche market. That’s like saying MP4 is a niche market just because more people stream videos than download them.
Still - Can I load up my iPhone with WAVs? MP3s? AIFF? ALAC? AAC? Why is the only format with any current relevancy the one that’s not on this list? Why does no other developer have this problem?
No excuses. There is no justification. And you my friend, as a paying customer, should be just as upset about deliberately crippled software as I am even if it’s not a feature that matters to you.
This makes sense. Even if the final Bluetooth pipeline employs lossy compression, your music is going to sound less sucky if it only gets lossy compressed once as opposed to twice.
The MD5 thing was touched upon. Though I have my own comments in response to that response as well. That’s the archival security/data integrity part.
I would sooner format my entire drive than willingly strip every file of their provenance. ALAC, as it currently exists without any sort of per-file checksum, is a dealbreaker.
With FLAC you know every piece of audio is bit for bit, sample for sample, 100% identical to what was encoded. With ALAC, you are flying blind.
In terms of performance - The FLAC encoder is more efficient. Smaller files = less space wasted on nothing = also less data to stream.
The differences may appear small , and can vary based on encoding parameters, not to mention audio content as well, but they do exist and they do add up. If I were to convert my entire library to ALAC it would be significantly larger than it already is, for no particular reason at all. On the scale of hundreds of GB.
FLAC is also less CPU intensive to decode than ALAC. In fact, it’s even less CPU intensive to decode than MP3, something we figured out on portable devices over 20 years ago.
Is this significant enough to make a difference with regards to battery life? Who’s to say without testing, but the difference is there.
And there’s the problem. They are deliberately blocking the files from going into Music or iTunes, the ONLY official way to get files onto your portable device in their walled garden. No reason. Just anti-consumer behavior and a deliberate removal of the choice to not use Apple’s proprietary codec.
You got a source for that buddy?
Name one mainstream major label production I can go listen to right now on a streaming platform that is only available in a lossy compressed form. I’ll wait.
Almost hit the nail on the head here. Unfortunately, you CAN’T use the F2K File Integrity Verifier with ALAC
Or rather, to accurately clarify that statement: you can use it on an ALAC file. But it can’t tell you anything meaningful. Without a stored MD5, there is no known value to refer to. A corrupt ALAC file only corrupt enough to still decode - however incorrectly - would be undetectable.
Not only will it need new hardware, it will require the development of an entirely new communications protocol. That’s the problem, Bluetooth ain’t cutting it.
You hit the nail on the head here. Why are we asked to jump through these hoops? Either we have to convert, which itself is a chore and a net negative. Or we have to load our files into sandboxed apps, locked away from most of Apple’s media features like a second class music library. Whatever happened to “it just works”?
I don’t think it’s too much to ask to be able to drag and drop a file into my iTunes library like I can do with ANY OTHER common audio file format and sync it to my phone.
Even if, like you said, the goal was that you only wanted AAC compressed versions on your phone, it should not be this difficult to get to that end result. Apple’s on-the-fly conversion feature wouldn’t be locked away from us if only the files could be loaded in the first place.
There are the previously mentioned technical disadvantages - inefficiency and no stored checksum. FLAC is also more widely supported outside of the Apple world when it comes to other hardware/software.
Anything other than lossless is a scam.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure, and TIFFs have no substance compared to JPGs. /s
Obvously, "good" audio has a subjective factor to it. Typical mp3 128 etc vs AAC 256 and already the audio has improved. A reasonably well crafter/engineered CD quality recording can be noticed over AAC 256. The quality also needs to consider the source of the audio as well. Lots of combinations just to get what sounds good to our ears.
Uhh… lossless digital has existed for decades longer than lossy digital. I think I know which one is the scam with all marketing hype and no substance
Exactly. TIFFs are used by photo editors, designers, studios, and printers.
TIFFs are not used as final viewable files for consumer digital devices.
Just like -
Uncompressed WAV and AIFF files are used by recording engineers, audio editors, sound designers, and mastering houses.
very true i agree. u can have the higher possible quality but if ur speakers or the Amp are junk the sound will be junk as well.
A couple of things, it matters on the mastering, and remastering. Been a Jazz fan all my life. You could listen to Verve recordings done in the 50’s and 60’s that sound way better than some of todays artists. Bluetooth was originally designed for printers. Wired will always sound better than wireless. AirPods etc. are really designed for convince. That is why us old folks loved the original AirPort Express. You got 16/44 thru it. It was very popular with those that knew it, and the ability to run a mini toss link to your good amp or stereo with a good dac. probably the best earphones I own are still the original ectomic er4’s. Etomic is a hearing aid company. Those were true noise canceling! Basically you told to wet the tips, and push and twist inside your ear canal to get a good seal, and I mean way in there. Great for flying but you had to pull them out to hear anything.Over twenty years old still love them.
Interesting points. I would agree that I would rather have a reliable experience versus lossless audio.
What I don't understand is, why do some people insist on degrading the sound in every way just to the point of being acceptable? Using blind listening to determine whether a change makes a difference is a fallacy, because A: blind listening does not prove that a difference is not there, and B: Differences add up. If you reduce every step of the playback chain to the lowest possible quality you can get away with, it will add up to a very audible difference when you put it all together. Why are people insisting on hi-res being a "scam", when it is actually one of the relatively few pieces of the puzzle in high-end audio that is a measurable, provable difference! The only discussion is, at which point does it become audible? But the road to true high-end audio performance is to improve every little detail as much as possible, even though each individual detail doesn't make much difference. In the end, you will end up with a completely different system.
You won't feel the difference if you take out 1% of the air in your car tires. But do it 20 times, and I guarantee that you will notice the difference!
Having said all that, I 100% agree with Apple that there are many other areas of performance in a headphone that is more important than the bitrate. A good headphone with Bluetooth sounds a lot better than a bad headphone with lossless hi-res. The main issue with hires vs lossy is that some people believe that if it is lossy it is ruined and unlistenable. This is not the case at all. It is just one of many nails in the coffin, and you can totally get away with missing a few. But you can't take out too many. What most people don't realise, is that if you have a 320 kbps file, and transmit that through 320 kbps Bluetooth, the result is NOT the full quality of 320 kbps. The degradation in each step adds up. This is why you don't use lossy compression in the content production process. I tend to agree that for use in "on-the-go" headphones, the quality of 192 kbps is probably a good target for being indistinguishable from lossless. But that is considering the whole chain. In other words, both your file format and the transmission path needs to be higher than that, to keep the acceptable level of quality. The main benefit of "lossless" is that it takes the insecurity out of that equation.
If you keep your files lossless right up to the point of bluetooth transmission, bluetooth is fine. If you keep your files right on the verge of acceptable, it will no longer be acceptable after the bluetooth transmission.
I have what most here will consider a very expensive stereo system at home, and pretty expensive headphones. When I'm out of the house, I will happily use Bluetooth, and I never notice the difference. I DO notice the difference between Airpods Pro 1 vs 2, I even believe that the difference between them is highly underestimated in reviews. With AP1 I was always slightly annoyed with the difference from my "real" headphones. AP2 is good enough that I don't really think about it anymore, for casual use. Oh, and by the way, if you use Airpods Pro 2 for the kind of serious listening where you are actually concerned about these differences, you are a moron.
You won't feel the difference if you take out 1% of the air in your car tires. But do it 20 times, and I guarantee that you will notice the difference!
Having said all that, I 100% agree with Apple that there are many other areas of performance in a headphone that is more important than the bitrate. A good headphone with Bluetooth sounds a lot better than a bad headphone with lossless hi-res. The main issue with hires vs lossy is that some people believe that if it is lossy it is ruined and unlistenable. This is not the case at all. It is just one of many nails in the coffin, and you can totally get away with missing a few. But you can't take out too many. What most people don't realise, is that if you have a 320 kbps file, and transmit that through 320 kbps Bluetooth, the result is NOT the full quality of 320 kbps. The degradation in each step adds up. This is why you don't use lossy compression in the content production process. I tend to agree that for use in "on-the-go" headphones, the quality of 192 kbps is probably a good target for being indistinguishable from lossless. But that is considering the whole chain. In other words, both your file format and the transmission path needs to be higher than that, to keep the acceptable level of quality. The main benefit of "lossless" is that it takes the insecurity out of that equation.
If you keep your files lossless right up to the point of bluetooth transmission, bluetooth is fine. If you keep your files right on the verge of acceptable, it will no longer be acceptable after the bluetooth transmission.
I have what most here will consider a very expensive stereo system at home, and pretty expensive headphones. When I'm out of the house, I will happily use Bluetooth, and I never notice the difference. I DO notice the difference between Airpods Pro 1 vs 2, I even believe that the difference between them is highly underestimated in reviews. With AP1 I was always slightly annoyed with the difference from my "real" headphones. AP2 is good enough that I don't really think about it anymore, for casual use. Oh, and by the way, if you use Airpods Pro 2 for the kind of serious listening where you are actually concerned about these differences, you are a moron.
I mostly agree with the "weakest link" analogy, the problem is that most people have no clue what the weakest link of their setup actually is.
Yep. If your speakers/headphones are the equivalent of viewing a JPG in a web browser then you don't need to worry about lossless. However, if you have a large high quality screen at home you might choose to display 16 bit PNG or TIFF images because 8-bit JPGs have artifacts like banding in gradients. So to reiterate what everyone else is saying, while lossless is better, unless you have good headphones or speakers you wont notice the benefits.
Last edited:
Because a club is the perfect listening environment, of course. And DJs are well known for their perfect hearing...
100% accurate only to you. Not to anyone else. Because it's complete unverifiable. I could claim I can hear the difference between anything, but without evidence, proof, it just isn't fact.
Sorry, but if you're going to post stuff like that up on the internet, expect people not to take you seriously.
You've just argued against your own claims.Your UE Boom speaker is the equivalent of a fairly low-res jpeg. Nightclub speakers are the equivalent of large res jpegs; they are designed to produce high volume for sustained periods, not be 'high fidelity'. A nightclub is perhaps the worst listening environment you can get; full of soft bodies soaking up sound, myriad surfaces for sound waves to bounce off and distort, and low frequency/bass levels so high that other frequencies are effectively drowned out.
The 'TIFF' analogy would be some high end speakers, amplifier and source, in a carefully designed listening environment.
Any Airpod devices can be seen as comparable to jpegs, in this regard. Which is fine.
It's not. This is nonsense.
In my case, it's my ears...
I tested several other people in a night club environment using a sound system which stressed the audio files. Everyone I tested consistently picked the lossless file. The results were accurate to that test.
You see... I don't actually care if you take me seriously.
Lordy. But nobody knows about this mythical 'test' except YOU. Do you not see the problem here? Nobody else here can verify your claims. Which you are striving to assert as fact. That there are several holes in your 'methodology' is just part of the problem. I don't want to even begin with just how flawed it all is. This could be a complete fiction for all we know. The only way to get others to actually believe your claims, is to be able to prove them. This is called science. You have none.
You've made some effort to keep telling us this.
Look at you, conflating the results of wildly different tests. Atta boy!!!!
Fun facts.
1. I tested before the club opened.
2. The test-subjects were located where the club's system is optimized for. They weren't hanging out over at the bar where the sound is reflected off surfaces.
3. You don't know anything about the quality of the club's system or the songs I used.