Apple Lists FLAC Audio Playback Support for 4K Apple TV, iPhone 7, iPhone 8, iPhone X

[EightyTwenty]

The CD sampling rate is almost as annoying as the NTSC refresh rate.

It is, but I find the total lack of any coherent standard for today's "hi-res" infuriating. There is no set standard at all. It's the wild west. We have the following formats all claiming to be "hi-res":

1) 24/44.1
2) 24/48
3) 24/88.2
4) 24/96
5) 24/176.4
6) 24/192

Albums are being released in all of those different formats. More and more the trend is to go to 24/44.1 which is of very little (if any) value over 16/44.1. That is just frigging sad. It's an absolute mess. Should have gone for 24/60 or stuck to 24/48 (there's a nice symmetry there).

 

[Abombito]

By the way, all those Bluetooth 5 bells and whistles will change nothing.

Can you explain why? Is it just because even though it allows for more bandwidth, since the files/transmission codecs are already compressed it won't make a difference?

 

[sos47]

good news! ordering an iPhone 7 today and saving 600 bucks comparing to an X.

 

[cube]

It is, but I find the total lack of any coherent standard for today's "hi-res" infuriating. There is no set standard at all. It's the wild west. We have the following formats all claiming to be "hi-res":

1) 24/44.1
2) 24/48
3) 24/88.2
4) 24/96
5) 24/176.4
6) 24/192

Albums are being released in all of those different formats. More and more the trend is to go to 24/44.1 which is of very little (if any) value over 16/44.1. That is just frigging sad. It's an absolute mess. Should have gone for 24/60 or stuck to 24/48 (there's a nice symmetry there).

There are also some at higher sampling rates and also 16-bit for most of that.

 

[star-affinity]

FLAC! But where are DTS, DTSHD, TrueHD, Atmos - for that matter where is bitstreamed anything on the Apple TV 4K? They support DD+ but won't even bitstream it, it has to be converted to LPCM. I was going to pre-order today, but changed my mind at the last minute due to the limited audio options.

I think more people care about HD audio formats for their movies than care about FLAC.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is so bad about something being converted to LPCM? Isn't that a lossless, uncompressed format? Is something lost in the process?

Edit:
Seems nothing should be lost:

Am I losing any quality by using LPCM?

No. Since LPCM is a lossless format, using it will result in no loss of quality. What your ears hear will be exactly the same. The only difference is your receiver will recognize the audio stream as PCM instead of Dolby/DTS.

https://support.firecore.com/hc/en-us/articles/217735707-Audio-Options-tvOS-

[doublepost=1505512498][/doublepost]

Implementing FLAC on ATV4K is pointless, since the device remains crippled by 16/48 playback. That is, attempting to playback any such hi-res audio files via the ATV4K is a waste of time and effort.

Is it?
So the statement below is incorrect?

LPCM in uncompressed, lossless format which on the Apple TV supports up to 7.1 channels of 24-bit, 48KHz audio.
https://support.firecore.com/hc/en-us/articles/217735707-Audio-Options-tvOS-

Or does the limitation you mention only involve FLAC files?
[doublepost=1505513414][/doublepost]

At last! FLAC support! I can finally cut my music library in half and delete all the ALAC that I had to remux from FLAC just to put it on my phone. I don't own 256gb devices just to fill them up with mp3's.

What would you gain by doing so? Did you see post #68 by zorinlynx above?

 

[cube]

deleted

 

[Delgibbons]

What about

It is, but I find the total lack of any coherent standard for today's "hi-res" infuriating. There is no set standard at all. It's the wild west. We have the following formats all claiming to be "hi-res":

1) 24/44.1
2) 24/48
3) 24/88.2
4) 24/96
5) 24/176.4
6) 24/192

Albums are being released in all of those different formats. More and more the trend is to go to 24/44.1 which is of very little (if any) value over 16/44.1. That is just frigging sad. It's an absolute mess. Should have gone for 24/60 or stuck to 24/48 (there's a nice symmetry there).

What about DSD 1-bit audio

http://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/

 

[Ted13]

This is bizarre, are you serious?! Isn't there an optical out?

No TOSlink since the AppleTV 3 - which is why I never updated to the Apple TV 4, but with the new 4K I'll be forced to upgrade my AppleTV and get an external HDMI to HDMI + TOSlink converter.

 

[Mizhou]

This is nicely summarized in this document from a VERY trusted source: http://www.lavryengineering.com/docu...ing_Theory.pdf

Your VERY trusted source, says that your link is broken.

 

[cube]

I think Qobuz is lacking a multichannel 24-bit/48kHz streaming tier.

 

[dannys1]

AAC isn't as good even as AptX...

Not really comparing apples (excuse the pun) and oranges there - one is a codec the other is a streaming technology.

Regardless, despite what audiophiles might spout out, no one in the world has yet to reliably spot the difference between a 256kbps AAC or 320mp3 vs its Wav/AIFF/Flac/ALAC original.

Try for yourself - when faced with the blind test no one gets more than 50% guess rate, even on the best gear in the world in a full sound treated world class studio (which no one apart from audio engineers have) http://abx.digitalfeed.net

Most of the audiophile thing is simply placebo affect.
[doublepost=1505596809][/doublepost]

It is, but I find the total lack of any coherent standard for today's "hi-res" infuriating. There is no set standard at all. It's the wild west. We have the following formats all claiming to be "hi-res":

1) 24/44.1
2) 24/48
3) 24/88.2
4) 24/96
5) 24/176.4
6) 24/192

Albums are being released in all of those different formats. More and more the trend is to go to 24/44.1 which is of very little (if any) value over 16/44.1. That is just frigging sad. It's an absolute mess. Should have gone for 24/60 or stuck to 24/48 (there's a nice symmetry there).

None of this formats will make any different to the end user - it's just to a way to sell over priced stuff to audiophile fools who'll pay for it.

Everything is recorded at 24bit in the studio these days - it helps with recording as it gives you more headroom and a lower noise floor - it has nothing to do with "sounding better".

Higher sample rates help "a little bit" with multiple tracks in that you can render software plugins with lower aliasing.

All this stuff only helps tiny bits in a multi-track recording with plugins that might benefit and even then it's just a case of using your ears. Once you've got a mastered 2 track file it's not going to make a blind bit of difference to the human ear and no one on this planet will be able to spot the difference no matter how much they claim they can, they will ALWAYS ALWAYS fail in a blind test on any equipment and songs they want to use (check every scientific test ever taken, the results are always the same - the end users are only ever guessing)

 

[cube]

Upmixing probably works better on lossless than on lossy audio.

 

[JamesPDX]

This is bizarre, are you serious?! Isn't there an optical out?

Slightly OT, but it's really too bad that Apple (and others) declined to support the ADAT optical format which can carry 8 simultaneous 24-bit 48KHz uncompressed signals over a single S/PDIF optical cable. -So there's 7.1 that could be blasting in or out of any dual-duty audio i/o port.

I'd pay for digital albums if they were uncompressed 24/96 or at least 24/44.1. -Until then, I'm buying post 1980's CDs and rolling my own AAC and Lossless, depending on the playback device. I have a couple straight AIFF 16/44.1 that sound amazing through my Apollo and my studio monitors. -But they were engineered by Kevin Elson and Mike Stone and Mastered by Bob Ludwig. -But it all starts with the music...

 

[cube]

Slightly OT, but it's really too bad that Apple (and others) declined to support the ADAT optical format which can carry 8 simultaneous 24-bit 48KHz uncompressed signals over a single S/PDIF optical cable. -So there's 7.1 that could be blasting in or out of any dual-duty audio i/o port.

I'd pay for digital albums if they were uncompressed 24/96 or at least 24/44.1. -Until then, I'm buying post 1980's CDs and rolling my own AAC and Lossless, depending on the playback device. I have a couple straight AIFF 16/44.1 that sound amazing through my Apollo and my studio monitors. -But they were engineered by Kevin Elson and Mike Stone and Mastered by Bob Ludwig. -But it all starts with the music...

You can buy up to 24-bit/384kHz from Qobuz.

 

[JamesPDX]

Not really comparing apples (excuse the pun) and oranges there - one is a codec the other is a streaming technology.

Regardless, despite what audiophiles might spout out, no one in the world has yet to reliably spot the difference between a 256kbps AAC or 320mp3 vs its Wav/AIFF/Flac/ALAC original.

Try for yourself - when faced with the blind test no one gets more than 50% guess rate, even on the best gear in the world in a full sound treated world class studio (which no one apart from audio engineers have) http://abx.digitalfeed.net

Most of the audiophile thing is simply placebo affect.
[doublepost=1505596809][/doublepost]

None of this formats will make any different to the end user - it's just to a way to sell over priced stuff to audiophile fools who'll pay for it.

Everything is recorded at 24bit in the studio these days - it helps with recording as it gives you more headroom and a lower noise floor - it has nothing to do with "sounding better".

Higher sample rates help "a little bit" with multiple tracks in that you can render software plugins with lower aliasing.

All this stuff only helps tiny bits in a multi-track recording with plugins that might benefit and even then it's just a case of using your ears. Once you've got a mastered 2 track file it's not going to make a blind bit of difference to the human ear and no one on this planet will be able to spot the difference no matter how much they claim they can, they will ALWAYS ALWAYS fail in a blind test on any equipment and songs they want to use (check every scientific test ever taken, the results are always the same - the end users are only ever guessing)

Yeah, but there's always the garbage-in/garbage-out aspect.

Using the "native" sample rate on the UAD Apollo 8 seems to be the sweet spot but it's probably because so many of the plugins have a cutoff beginning or at 30KHz in order to emulate certain hardware. -But those high rates are really CPU-greedy in Pro Tools, and most sample libraries are still at 44.1 KHz.

At least as far as bit depth; yeah, it's about dynamic range. Overall, I'd say yes to your assertions if we're talking a NIN or Lady Gaga album –because the masters are either clipping or on the bleeding edge at -0.1 dBFS, and still there is inter-sample clipping. And I'd say no, if it's newly-recorded orchestral music. And especially no if you if you were hearing the premaster mix I made for my former band, but nobody is going to hear that, which is too bad because 32 channels of 24/44.1 going through a Pro Tools 32 bit Master bus can sound so incredibly fat and tight, even without a bus limiter on the master. But, overall I'd say you're right because most people don't have a "flat-response" monitoring system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMWUOCbWp1M
But on the other hand, what you say is true about the audiophile phenomenon. There's a saying:
"Vinyl doesn't sound better, it's just fashionable..."

2-track at 15 or 30-IPS on a 2-track mastering deck is another thing.

[doublepost=1505640175][/doublepost]

You can buy up to 24-bit/384kHz from Qobuz.

Thanks, really. But that's a great example of a sample rate that is way too high. And I'm not Goldilocks. http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf
[doublepost=1505640674][/doublepost]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is so bad about something being converted to LPCM? Isn't that a lossless, uncompressed format? Is something lost in the process?

Edit:
Seems nothing should be lost:

Am I losing any quality by using LPCM?

No. Since LPCM is a lossless format, using it will result in no loss of quality. What your ears hear will be exactly the same. The only difference is your receiver will recognize the audio stream as PCM instead of Dolby/DTS.

https://support.firecore.com/hc/en-us/articles/217735707-Audio-Options-tvOS-

[doublepost=1505512498][/doublepost]

Is it?
So the statement below is incorrect?

LPCM in uncompressed, lossless format which on the Apple TV supports up to 7.1 channels of 24-bit, 48KHz audio.
https://support.firecore.com/hc/en-us/articles/217735707-Audio-Options-tvOS-

Or does the limitation you mention only involve FLAC files?
[doublepost=1505513414][/doublepost]

What would you gain by doing so? Did you see post #68 by zorinlynx above?

24-bit PCM (where BWF, WAV, and AIFF files come from) totally rule. Yeah, no reputable mastering/post house is even bothering to compress the audio delivery to AAC, etc. The data is so freakin' huge at 2K or 4K, that everyine not encoding for Dolby Atmos is like, just print it. -So your newer video formats (if they're true to the master/stems should be 5.1 of 7.1 channels of 24/48 PCM. -At least your stereo mix will be that. I'll take a great stereo mix over surround any day.

 

[0947347]

Definitely on well recorded classical stuff. Granted not a massive difference on pop stuff thats been squashed to buggery and ruined by brickwall limiting anyway.

Again....this is the advantage of microSD expansion I guess.
[doublepost=1505474275][/doublepost]

SBC is bloody horrendous.

What does the SBC stands for?
I would guess

S ounds
B asically
C rap

 

[dannys1]

But on the other hand, what you say is true about the audiophile phenomenon. There's a saying:
"Vinyl doesn't sound better, it's just fashionable..."

2-track at 15 or 30-IPS on a 2-track mastering deck is another thing.

It's funny how the audio production community largely laughs senseless at what audiophiles claim to be able to hear. I mean the amazing ears they possess appear to be better than Bob Ludwig here himself haha.

Of course we've got our own foibles that Gearslutz time and time again show no one in a blind test can ever spot correctly - the power of the mind!

But still audiophiles are hilarious, they buy into the marketing jargon like an unproven religion.

I'm with you on 24bit for classical music though yes, the dynamic range is insane so I definitely think the noisefloor would benefit from it in the final mix.

The funniest audiophile thing is when they spend more on speaker cable than the cables in the studio cost to record it on.

 

[kyjaotkb]

Think you missed the part in the article that says whilst the lightning adaptor is capable of hi-res audio, would still have to unlock that feature which they haven't done.

'As the converter chip is compatible with 24-bit audio at 192kHZ, it is therefore possible to stream Qobuz in Hi-Res mode (if you have the Sublime subscription and you've bought the albums), certain in the knowledge that files up to 24-bit/192kHZ will be decoded properly.'
[doublepost=1505663605][/doublepost]

I think Qobuz is lacking a multichannel 24-bit/48kHz streaming tier.

there isn't any significant amount of content available... for instance, WMG and SME have, together, a whopping zero audio product in multi-channel in their digital supply chains. Unsure about UMG but can't be much more...
[doublepost=1505664399][/doublepost]

Can you explain why? Is it just because even though it allows for more bandwidth, since the files/transmission codecs are already compressed it won't make a difference?

You got it. Plus the extra bandwidth is only at very short distance per my understanding, the main advantage of BT5 being longer range for low-bandwidth communications at low power (think IoT).

 

[cube]

'As the converter chip is compatible with 24-bit audio at 192kHZ, it is therefore possible to stream Qobuz in Hi-Res mode (if you have the Sublime subscription and you've bought the albums), certain in the knowledge that files up to 24-bit/192kHZ will be decoded properly.'
[doublepost=1505663605][/doublepost]
there isn't any significant amount of content available... for instance, WMG and SME have, together, a whopping zero audio product in multi-channel in their digital supply chains. Unsure about UMG but can't be much more...

You can stream many albums in Hi Res without buying with the new Sublime+ subscription.

I know Qobuz does not have a lot of multichannel albums, but a Hi-Fi+ subscription at 24/48 would still be great even if most of the stuff is stereo and some only at 16/44.1, 16/48, or 24/44.1 . Then Qobuz could downsample Nx the higher stuff to 48 or 44.1 . "DA-78HR Quality".

 

[gnasher729]

I re-ripped all my music to Apple Lossless years ago but would have preferred FLAC as my understanding is that's it's an open standard compared to AL. So is this going to be an option in iTunes from here forward (rip in FLAC) or have I misread/misunderstood?

It doesn't matter really, because you can re-encode from one lossless format to another as often as you like, without any quality loss. What counts is compatibility, size, and energy usage. I was under the impression that FLAC was designed to be decoded with little energy.

But support for decoding doesn't mean there is support for encoding.
[doublepost=1505666907][/doublepost]

I have no faith in wireless audio. I'm no audiophile, but it's apparent to even me how sh*tty the fidelity is. I thought it was the quality of the DACs in PC products, but apparently it's a combination of that and undisclosed software conversions mentioned in this thread.

In the end, sound quality depends on how much energy you can use to produce the sound. With wired headphones, you have all the power of a rather big iPhone battery, and a few powerful processors. Wireless headphones are powered by a tiny 1.5 Volt AA battery. Of course if the signal is first decoded and then re-encoded to some other format to send to the wireless headphones, that's not going to help.

 

[andsoitgoes]

Hmm, does anyone know if the iTunes HD files are going to be bumped up to HD Audio? Or if the audio of DD+ is getting to an equivalency?

That’s my biggest hesitation with the current system, I tend to buy blu rays with iTunes copies so that I can have the best of both worlds, but I like being able to utilize the highest quality audio I possibly can.

I know infuse works as well, but sometimes I want to support the movie fully financially.

 

[ErikGrim]

It's possible that Apple is still testing FLAC support for its range of mobile devices, and may even have plans to offer the lossless compression standard as a download option in iTunes and playback in the Music app further down the line.

Completely unfounded speculation. If Apple ever were to offer lossless compression as an option, they would use ALAC obviously.

 

[cube]

Completely unfounded speculation. If Apple ever were to offer lossless compression as an option, they would use ALAC obviously.

It is more likely for the apps to add support for FLAC playback than for apple to provide lossless files.

 

[JamesPDX]

I'm just back to buying CDs and rolling my own portables. I'm extremely choosy about what I'll listen to, but I keep my CDs.

From a Cloud-download, I would only "buy" uncompressed 24-bit BWF or AIFF. But it's not available, so I don't. I was in a band that released an album on Bandcamp. I put up the full 24/44.1 master because I wanted fans to hear what I had rolling in my studio. Great recording, punishing guitar work, terrible sales.

 

[cube]

Status end 2012:

http://www.qobuz.com/fr-fr/info/MAG...I-PRATIQUE/Quel-format-de-fichier-audio149111

You can download your purchases again from your account in another format.