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

[cube]

Since then, Qobuz has a few albums at even higer sampling rates, and the total number of "Hi Res" climbed to over 77000 (this also includes 27000 at 24/44.1 and 6500 at 24/48, plus a few at 16-bit high freq).

I don't know how many of those can be streamed at that quality without purchase with Sublime+.

Qobuz does not add watermarks, but some labels may do.

 

[kyjaotkb]

I have a 44.1kHz FLAC Qobuz subscription, now they also have Hi Res streaming without buying.

Do you mean their 'test' playlist where you can stream a dozen HD tracks?

Otherwise, streaming in Hi-Res requires having a Sublime+ subscription or having bought the Hi-Res download on their a-la-carte store.

The main problem with democratising Hi-Res is supply. Less than 10% of major label content does exist in >16/44 in their supply chains. And the vast majority of new releases are still coming out of the studios and are delivered to the labels in 16/44 or, still in more cases than we'd think, in a compressed format...

 

[JamesPDX]

If the master file's bit depth and sample rate can be determined, there's no point in going higher than that for your download/rental/purchase.

 

[cube]

I don't think Qobuz provides any format higher than the master (or what they get).

 

[shamino]

It's not 8 times larger. That is a silly comment.

That depends entirely on the compression ratio. FLAC and ALAC typically get about 2:1 compression. A 128Kbps format (MP3 or AAC) compressed from a 16/44 (CD-like) source is about 11:1 - making the FLAC/ALAC file 5.5 times the size. For FLAC/ALAC to be 8x larger, the (lossy) compressed file would need to have a 16:1 ratio, which would be about 88Kbps (from a CD-like source). This is more compression that most people use, but not completely unreasonable for someone whose ears are not too particular about sound quality.

Nonsensical. Protools HD and studio masters all rendered out at 24 bit 96 or 24 bit 192. ...

24 bit 96khz masters or better are often kept to ensure hardware downcoversion to anything can be achieved later.

High resolutions are far more important in the studio than they are for distribution. This is because digital processing of any kind produces "round off" error. These errors accumulate in the least-significant bits and tend to produce artifacts in the highest frequencies.

If you record and edit at 16/44, then those errors can be audible. If you record and edit at 24/96 or 24/192, then the errors all get stripped away during the conversion to 16/44 (which you have to do for CD releases and are likely to do for many other media as well).

This is (and now I'm speculating) probably why some people here have reported worse quality audio from downloaded high resolution audio files. They may be getting files using the original master's resolution, so those errors are still in the data stream. But this is just speculation - I would need to see the production process that these sources use before I could say anything definitive here.

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".

And because you get a cleaner sound after converting those high resolution studio masters to 16/44 for distribution than you would using 16/44 for the entire record/edit/mix process.

I don't think Qobuz provides any format higher than the master (or what they get).

I hope they don't. Upscaling audio doesn't improve quality - it just makes the files bigger and has the potential to introduce distortions.

 

[cube]

I think the exception could be that a DSD64 recording might be equivalent to 20-bit at a certain sampling rate and these would be delivered as 24-bit in Hi Res, as their DSD downloads have not launched yet.

 

[Coluch]

Slightly off topic but it’s inexcusable that AirPlay can’t even stream 48 KHz which is the standard frequency for TV/Cinema. It sends 44.1 kHz instead, the standard for audio CDs and music. Some will argue there’s no way you can tell the slight reduction but I argue there’s no reason they can’t send it in its native encoding quality! It’s a pretty minor increase in bit rate and still well within spec, even for slow Wi-Fi!

Can anyone confirm this is still the case with AirPlay 2?

You are mistaken. Airplay has always streamed ALAC in both 44.1kHz and 48kHz depending on the source and destination. Any source sent to the Apple TV via Airplay, has always been 48kHz ALAC, even if it is 44.1kHz mp3 audio, it is upsampled to lossless 48Khz for the TV. And YES, this is still the case in Airplay 2, with even more capability rolled in. I've attached a screenshot of an Airplay 2 queue, buffering multiple minutes of mixed source material into a single upsampled playback stream. There's a lot of cool new magic in Airplay 2. Your comment is wrong about both versions of Airplay however.

 

[simonmet]

You are mistaken. Airplay has always streamed ALAC in both 44.1kHz and 48kHz depending on the source and destination. Any source sent to the Apple TV via Airplay, has always been 48kHz ALAC, even if it is 44.1kHz mp3 audio, it is upsampled to lossless 48Khz for the TV. And YES, this is still the case in Airplay 2, with even more capability rolled in. I've attached a screenshot of an Airplay 2 queue, buffering multiple minutes of mixed source material into a single upsampled playback stream. There's a lot of cool new magic in Airplay 2. Your comment is wrong about both versions of Airplay however.

I should clarify. AirPlay probably does stream 48 kHz to Apple TV with HDMI. This I didn’t check since I don’t have or use Apple TV. But it doesn’t to AirPort Express.

I trust my DAC which tells me what it’s receicving from AirPort Express via optical digital when I’m playing 48 kHz movies or audio files, or for that matter even higher frequencies.

I can attach proof of this as can others who have similar equipment. This is first-hand observation. So I’m not completely mistaken but should’ve explained it better.

And yes, I still think this limitation is kind of stupid and dumb.

 

[Coluch]

I should clarify. AirPlay probably does stream 48 kHz to Apple TV with HDMI. This I didn’t check since I don’t have or use Apple TV. But it doesn’t to AirPort Express.

I trust my DAC which tells me what it’s receicving from AirPort Express via optical digital when I’m playing 48 kHz movies or audio files, or for that matter even higher frequencies.

I can attach proof of this as can others who have similar equipment. This is first-hand observation. So I’m not completely mistaken but should’ve explained it better.

And yes, I still think this limitation is kind of stupid and dumb.

Since you were talking about TV/Cinema audio, I was speaking to that use case - which is the Apple TV. 48kHz is the only option for ATV Airplay. For other devices like the Airport Express, 44.1kHz is the default because it’s made for music applications, not video.

In any case, 44.1 isn’t a limitation of Airplay, it’s a hardware setting. There is always the possibility that Apple will include both 44.1/48kHz capabilities in the forthcoming firmware updates for Airport devices as Airplay 2 rolls out, but hardware may be a limiting factor - particularly for the older plug models, which some speculate may not be able to be updated for AP2.

I guess we’ll just have to see what happens.

(As an aside, I’m really curious what usage you have that requires video sound to an Airport express. Mind sharing? If updates don’t solve it, you could always pick up an older Apple TV just as an audio receiver.)

 

[simonmet]

Hi Coluch

Say I’m watching TV or movies from a MacBook or iPhone (yes I do watch stuff on my iPhone Plus!) but I want to parse the audio to my stereo connected via AirPort Express rather than listen through the MacBook or iPhone’s crappy speakers. This is a very common use case for me personally. It’s also one of AirPlay’s best features. It can do this with zero sync or timing issues and is one of those cases where Apple’s “it just works” mantra is completely justified. Impressive stuff.

On the other hand, audiophiles have been wanting higher than 44.1 kHz streaming support on AirPort Express for a long time but Apple fails to listen or act on those requests. I see no technical limitation or bandwidth issues as you suggest. I believe the AirPort Express has a max 48 kHz internal DAC but I could be wrong on that and it shouldn’t be (and isn’t) the reason for the maximum 44.1 kHz streaming limit currently in place.

I’d prefer up to 96 kHz support but I know Apple won’t do this because they don’t even allow us to sync 96 kHz files to iDevices with iTunes, claiming those devices can’t play the files but neglecting to consider the use case of external DACs that can.

So even just 48 kHz on AirPort Express support would mean no down-sampling is required for the TV and video applications described above.

If you mean the really old Apple TV that looks like a Mac Mini then I’ll pass on that because it’s a bit too big and ugly, but I’d certainly have considered the new model if Apple hadn’t removed optical digital and it had all the other features of AirPort Express.

I know optical digital is made redundant by HDMI for video but there are still plenty of music (or just plain stereo) users who still really love the standard so it’s sad to see it be another victim of Apple’s propensity to cut ports and connectivity options on their products.

 

[drdaz]

Alas, over Bluetooth, an iPhone, which doesn't have Apt-X compatibility, will re-compress anything that's not AAC to SBC, which sounds like absolute crap.

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I'd be really interested to hear if there's a source for this info (it's repeated several times in this thread).

Why wouldn't Apple encode to AAC where available? There's hardware support for doing so since iOS 4 era hardware (https://developer.apple.com/library/content/qa/qa1663/_index.html), so why would Apple choose the inferior codec?

My own listening suggests that audio transcoding (of for example Spotify's output) is of a very high quality.

 

[Delgibbons]

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I'd be really interested to hear if there's a source for this info (it's repeated several times in this thread).

Why wouldn't Apple encode to AAC where available? There's hardware support for doing so since iOS 4 era hardware (https://developer.apple.com/library/content/qa/qa1663/_index.html), so why would Apple choose the inferior codec?

My own listening suggests that audio transcoding (of for example Spotify's output) is of a very high quality.

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2...ped-aac-apple-makes-an-ass-out-of-you-and-me/

"
better sound quality will more-than-likely result from pairing with an aptX-equipped smartphone – i.e. not the iPhone 7. Here the aptX-loaded Samsung Galaxy S7 betters its Apple rival.

Only if/when Apple unleashes a) their own superior-sounding Bluetooth codec or b) offers lossless Bluetooth-like streaming is this likely to change."

And

A long read but a good one. Brew a coffee and settle in

"later versions of Bluetooth could support wireless transmission of uncompressed audio, which takes 1.41 Mbits per second, but most Bluetooth audio leverages 128K-256 kbits per second compressed audio. Apple also chose not to support Qualcomm’s AptX technology (originally developed by CSR, the Bluetooth silicon maker that Qualcomm acquired), which offers support for high-quality audio streamed over Bluetooth."

https://www.recode.net/2016/9/14/12904906/apple-iphone-7-audio-sound-quality-opportunity-airpods

 

[drdaz]

A long read but a good one. Brew a coffee and settle in

"later versions of Bluetooth could support wireless transmission of uncompressed audio, which takes 1.41 Mbits per second, but most Bluetooth audio leverages 128K-256 kbits per second compressed audio. Apple also chose not to support Qualcomm’s AptX technology (originally developed by CSR, the Bluetooth silicon maker that Qualcomm acquired), which offers support for high-quality audio streamed over Bluetooth."

https://www.recode.net/2016/9/14/12904906/apple-iphone-7-audio-sound-quality-opportunity-airpods

The article laments the fact that Apple didn't choose to support uncompressed and high-res (24/96) audio, as well as AptX, which is, I guess, a valid perspective. AptX is also a lossy codec, which I don't know is an improvement (over for example AAC) when transcoding already compressed audio.

It doesn't state anywhere that iOS uses SBC for Bluetooth audio when the content isn't originally in AAC format. It's this nugget of 'truth' that I'm trying to find a source for

 

[kyjaotkb]

The article laments the fact that Apple didn't choose to support uncompressed and high-res (24/96) audio, as well as AptX, which is, I guess, a valid perspective. AptX is also a lossy codec, which I don't know is an improvement (over for example AAC) when transcoding already compressed audio.

It doesn't state anywhere that iOS uses SBC for Bluetooth audio when the content isn't originally in AAC format. It's this nugget of 'truth' that I'm trying to find a source for

I can't find the article anymore where I read that Spotify gets compressed in SBC on the iPhone.
Spotify on an iPhone in BT definitely sounds worse than on my Android phone which supports Apt-X - whereas I expected AAC to sound about as good as Apt-X on an OGG 320kbps source. But one technical thing I believe is playing in favour of that argument: in the A2DP standard, SBC and Apt-X are used for "on-the-fly" conversion, whereas AAC is used the same way as MP3 i.e. whole tracks are sent to the headphone over BT and decoded straight on the headphones. I am not sure, DRM and sandbox-wise, whether iOS could extract whole tracks from Spotify, recompress them into AAC and send them over to the headphones...

Some literature here: https://developer.apple.com/hardwaredrivers/BluetoothDesignGuidelines.pdf
http://helpguide.sony.net/mdr/1000x/v1/en/contents/TP0001176186.html

 

[drdaz]

But one technical thing I believe is playing in favour of that argument: in the A2DP standard, SBC and Apt-X are used for "on-the-fly" conversion, whereas AAC is used the same way as MP3 i.e. whole tracks are sent to the headphone over BT and decoded straight on the headphones. I am not sure, DRM and sandbox-wise, whether iOS could extract whole tracks from Spotify, recompress them into AAC and send them over to the headphones...

The links you provided don't (as far as I could tell) support the assertion that Apt-X and AAC are used differently. Quite the opposite in fact.

Bluetooth headphones generally play music, not store it, so I can't understand how 'whole tracks are sent to the headphone over BT'. Furthermore, the A2DP standard is a streaming protocol, not a file transfer protocol; it's hard to imagine anybody using it for full-file transfers as you suggest.

And about the DRM and sandbox, that would apply to any re-encoding of audio (including SBC) if things worked as you assume here. What's actually going to be happening is something like:

Spotify --> PCM --> AAC / SBC --> [Transmit over BT link]

Since iOS can't natively decode Ogg Vorbis or understand Spotify's DRM, Spotify *has* to decode their stream to PCM (or some other iOS supported format) for iOS to play it, Bluetooth audio or not.

 

[drdaz]

Spotify on an iPhone in BT definitely sounds worse than on my Android phone which supports Apt-X - whereas I expected AAC to sound about as good as Apt-X on an OGG 320kbps source.

Out of interest, what headphones do you use?

 

[kyjaotkb]

Out of interest, what headphones do you use?

I have both MDR-1000x and WH-1000XM2

 

[jpwheeling2000]

If you are using the USB DSP with a Hi-Res compatible app (Qobuz, 7Digital...) then Bob's your uncle. You are not limited at all to what the iPhone can and cannot output.
Interestingly, the cheapest DSP you can find is Apple's own Lightning-to-headphone jack adaptor, which decodes 24-192:
http://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/info/hi-res-guide/bancs-d-essai/we-ve-tried-it-the-apple-lightning178666
otherwise there's a good overview of what does and doesn't work in Hi-Res on iOS here
http://www.qobuz.com/FR-fr/info/Hi-Fi/Les-cingles-de-la-Hi-Fi/Choisissez-votre-DAC-ou-votre179124

You will however need to resort to using the camera kit for USB DACs:
http://blogsv2.qobuz.com/qobuz-blog...-your-iphone-or-ipad-well-it-is-now-possible/

PS: love the Qobuz website (I am not affiliated to them!)

[doublepost=1531359588][/doublepost]Kyjaotkb it's great your giving us a Web Sight on what's Compatible, how about a Web Sight thats in English so we can read it

 

[kyjaotkb]

[doublepost=1531359588][/doublepost]Kyjaotkb it's great your giving us a Web Sight on what's Compatible, how about a Web Sight thats in English so we can read it

A Web Sight?