Apple Once Again Rumored to Be Developing High-Resolution Audio Formats

[Kilmister]

If you prefer vinyl, stupid rate digital, or streaming over cd then fine but the science stays the same, and that science includes the fact that your brain can easily trick you in so many ways.

I prefer vinyl, and at the same time I'm totally happy with people getting the same result out of a cd. I never said otherwise. The opposite has not been the case in this thread, though. Many condescending posts at people just for having another opinion or experience than some other posters. Very sad.

As for what is most important, it's the music. Of course the science behind the hi-fi system and formats is interesting, but if someone claims my listening experience is wrong they are wasting both mine and their time. I cannot unhear something just because some dude on the internet says my ears are fooling me and I really should be hearing something else.

 

[Kilmister]

They don't really care about the music. It's money.

Steve Jobs really cared about the music, and I think they still do at Apple. But Apples primary concern is money, of course. Like every other big company/corporation.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Well said MagnusVonMagnum, I'd extend it to say that in addition to many people not understanding digital audio, they also do not understand analogue audio, or the basic physics of sound in the air, or even a basic understanding of the human ear and brain.

There are a lot of armchair quarterbacks in the world regarding a nearly endless variety of topics. My knowledge of audio isn't even in the same realm as the guys who invented things like MP3 or AAC. The mere idea of removing audio but not having it be audible kind of amazes me. It's much harder in concept than something you can see and magnify and freeze frame (like JPEG). But it IS amazing how little the average person knows about well...just about anything really and yet so many have such strong opinions about things of which they are mostly ignorant. Hearing a "difference" is a very psychological thing. I point back to what I wrote earlier about the Coke Vs. Pepsi challenge from so many years ago. It's SO EASY to fool the human brain it's unreal. You can't trust your senses when things are just varied a tiny bit in ways you don't recognize.

Volume changes are the equivalent of sugar content in the Pepsi/Coke challenge. People normally prefer the drink with more sugar, particularly when given first (it makes the less sweet drink taste odd/bad. Just suck on a lemon first and you can taste SOME sweetness along with sour if you pay attention. Eat some chocolate first and then taste a lemon. The lemon will taste nothing but sour). A slight volume change and people normally prefer the LOUDER of the two, even if they are IDENTICAL sources. Ever listen to a USB stick in the car with songs on it and you set the volume for the song that's playing and then a much quieter song comes on next and it sounds like crap? If you turn up the volume it sounds great again. But then play the previous song and you're blasted out of your seat. But your brain doesn't always just say, "It's too quiet" especially if you're in a quiet car where you can easily hear the quiet passages. But things like bass get exponentially louder to the brain as they pass certain thresholds (i.e. Humans do NOT hear in a linear fashion at all in terms of frequency response OR volume and most people don't know that either!)

The numbers can define, or describe, audio quality, or better accuracy, just as chemical analysis can describe the content of a fine wine.

I've done the beer snob thing and to a lesser extent wine and Scotch whiskey. Sometimes the higher priced stuff does taste better and sometimes it does not. But there is always peer pressure in any group to go along with the bandwagon so-to-speak. Tell someone a $6 wine tastes as good as a $600 one and they will berate you right out of the room. Do a double-blind test and even the wine snobs get testy when they can't tell which is the more expensive wine. That's because it's based on rarity of grapes, age of vintages, reputation of the vineyard, etc. etc. and the damn grapes don't know they are supposed to be inferior to other grapes. They're all still made from fermented grapes! There's no gold powder added to make that $600 wine worth more! Yeah, sometimes cheaper crap is cheaper for a reason and sometimes it's just snobby nonsense. Are certain painters really worth MILLIONS for their art while more life-like paintings done by nobodies worth almost nothing? That depends on whether you're an art critic or not. I personally wouldn't pay 10 cents for a Picasso (yeah, whatever the reasons for the distortion, it doesn't resonate with me), but Bob Ross from PBS always amazed me with his landscape paintings and he could paint them all day long like they were nothing. Art critics hate Thomas Kincade, but they look pretty nice to me (I'm not crazy about them like my mother, though).

But ART is one thing and ACCURACY is another. You can't really argue about preferences except for peer group pressures of society, etc. But you can measure accuracy in many ways and you can measure ability to hear differences with carefully done double blind testing and thus can at least disprove SOME of the more ridiculous claims made about playback technologies. The problem is that too many people push along some pseudo-science nonsense babble and people hear about it and believe it and before you know it, digital sound is "stair-stepped" and even the magazines are describing it that way when it's blatant nonsense.

Even if you can get the truth across to some people, there's multitudes that still hear the stair-step crap and continue to pass the superstition and BS along. More complex audio discussions aren't always easy to understand in technical terms and most people have ZERO patience to even read more than two sentences these days (hence the limits and popularity of Twitter). You see "TLDR" and you wonder why you wasted your time trying to educate someone when they can't spend 2 minutes reading 3 paragraphs that someone with a better reading ability could read in 20 seconds or less. People ask me why I type so much and part of it is because you can't simplify technical matters into two sentences and when you can type 85-90wpm (I've hit 105 on a good day), it's not that big of a deal either. I can type while I think and then edit. Reading it should be child's play by comparison but people won't bother because they tend to be lazy and ignorant which is often why they don't know WTF they're talking about in the first place.

When I mention snake-oil, people don't even know where that term came from (ironically true snake oil has some health benefits to it, but the term has come to mean any hacked together mixture by people that have little or no real knowledge that has unproven health claims made for it). The reason they could sell "tonics" and other things is because people will believe anything. If you took a tonic for a week and your cold went away, you'd attribute it to the tonic rather than the cold simply running its course, etc. and then recommend it to someone else. Why PROVE it does something? Just buy it. Yeah, that's sounds familiar.

These Shakti stones absorb horrible negative frequencies around your room! Place them near corners and windows and behind your listening location and notice the difference! Look at all these paid people that agree! Buy yours today for only $19.99 and if you order in the next 10 minutes, we'll throw in not one, not two, but three extra stones for the price of one. Just pay extra shipping and handling! (the S&H isn't shown, but it's $30 each for all three, so your total is $110 for three stones you could have dug up in your backyard and washed them off and they'd still do nothing. 😉)

 

[Benjamin Frost]

There are a lot of armchair quarterbacks in the world regarding a nearly endless variety of topics. My knowledge of audio isn't even in the same realm as the guys who invented things like MP3 or AAC. The mere idea of removing audio but not having it be audible kind of amazes me. It's much harder in concept than something you can see and magnify and freeze frame (like JPEG). But it IS amazing how little the average person knows about well...just about anything really and yet so many have such strong opinions about things of which they are mostly ignorant. Hearing a "difference" is a very psychological thing. I point back to what I wrote earlier about the Coke Vs. Pepsi challenge from so many years ago. It's SO EASY to fool the human brain it's unreal. You can't trust your senses when things are just varied a tiny bit in ways you don't recognize.

Volume changes are the equivalent of sugar content in the Pepsi/Coke challenge. People normally prefer the drink with more sugar, particularly when given first (it makes the less sweet drink taste odd/bad. Just suck on a lemon first and you can taste SOME sweetness along with sour if you pay attention. Eat some chocolate first and then taste a lemon. The lemon will taste nothing but sour). A slight volume change and people normally prefer the LOUDER of the two, even if they are IDENTICAL sources. Ever listen to a USB stick in the car with songs on it and you set the volume for the song that's playing and then a much quieter song comes on next and it sounds like crap? If you turn up the volume it sounds great again. But then play the previous song and you're blasted out of your seat. But your brain doesn't always just say, "It's too quiet" especially if you're in a quiet car where you can easily hear the quiet passages. But things like bass get exponentially louder to the brain as they pass certain thresholds (i.e. Humans do NOT hear in a linear fashion at all in terms of frequency response OR volume and most people don't know that either!)



I've done the beer snob thing and to a lesser extent wine and Scotch whiskey. Sometimes the higher priced stuff does taste better and sometimes it does not. But there is always peer pressure in any group to go along with the bandwagon so-to-speak. Tell someone a $6 wine tastes as good as a $600 one and they will berate you right out of the room. Do a double-blind test and even the wine snobs get testy when they can't tell which is the more expensive wine. That's because it's based on rarity of grapes, age of vintages, reputation of the vineyard, etc. etc. and the damn grapes don't know they are supposed to be inferior to other grapes. They're all still made from fermented grapes! There's no gold powder added to make that $600 wine worth more! Yeah, sometimes cheaper crap is cheaper for a reason and sometimes it's just snobby nonsense. Are certain painters really worth MILLIONS for their art while more life-like paintings done by nobodies worth almost nothing? That depends on whether you're an art critic or not. I personally wouldn't pay 10 cents for a Picasso (yeah, whatever the reasons for the distortion, it doesn't resonate with me), but Bob Ross from PBS always amazed me with his landscape paintings and he could paint them all day long like they were nothing. Art critics hate Thomas Kincade, but they look pretty nice to me (I'm not crazy about them like my mother, though).

But ART is one thing and ACCURACY is another. You can't really argue about preferences except for peer group pressures of society, etc. But you can measure accuracy in many ways and you can measure ability to hear differences with carefully done double blind testing and thus can at least disprove SOME of the more ridiculous claims made about playback technologies. The problem is that too many people push along some pseudo-science nonsense babble and people hear about it and believe it and before you know it, digital sound is "stair-stepped" and even the magazines are describing it that way when it's blatant nonsense.

Even if you can get the truth across to some people, there's multitudes that still hear the stair-step crap and continue to pass the superstition and BS along. More complex audio discussions aren't always easy to understand in technical terms and most people have ZERO patience to even read more than two sentences these days (hence the limits and popularity of Twitter). You see "TLDR" and you wonder why you wasted your time trying to educate someone when they can't spend 2 minutes reading 3 paragraphs that someone with a better reading ability could read in 20 seconds or less. People ask me why I type so much and part of it is because you can't simplify technical matters into two sentences and when you can type 85-90wpm (I've hit 105 on a good day), it's not that big of a deal either. I can type while I think and then edit. Reading it should be child's play by comparison but people won't bother because they tend to be lazy and ignorant which is often why they don't know WTF they're talking about in the first place.

When I mention snake-oil, people don't even know where that term came from (ironically true snake oil has some health benefits to it, but the term has come to mean any hacked together mixture by people that have little or no real knowledge that has unproven health claims made for it). The reason they could sell "tonics" and other things is because people will believe anything. If you took a tonic for a week and your cold went away, you'd attribute it to the tonic rather than the cold simply running its course, etc. and then recommend it to someone else. Why PROVE it does something? Just buy it. Yeah, that's sounds familiar.

These Shakti stones absorb horrible negative frequencies around your room! Place them near corners and windows and behind your listening location and notice the difference! Look at all these paid people that agree! Buy yours today for only $19.99 and if you order in the next 10 minutes, we'll throw in not one, not two, but three extra stones for the price of one. Just pay extra shipping and handling! (the S&H isn't shown, but it's $30 each for all three, so your total is $110 for three stones you could have dug up in your backyard and washed them off and they'd still do nothing. 😉)

Amen.

I like your Pepsi example. I once found that if I drank coffee straight after cleaning my teeth, it tasted of chocolate. Mint+coffee=chocolate!

I am considering an external DAC; do you have any advice? Is it worth it? I use my 2008 iMac to play music from iTunes (Apple Lossless ripped from CD or AAC) using a cable from the headphone socket to my B&O speakers (via a B&O amp). The sound is great, but I wonder whether a DAC wouldn't open up the sound sometimes with the strings in symphony orchestras.

 

[cycledance]

Amen.

I like your Pepsi example. I once found that if I drank coffee straight after cleaning my teeth, it tasted of chocolate. Mint+coffee=chocolate!

I am considering an external DAC; do you have any advice? Is it worth it? I use my 2008 iMac to play music from iTunes (Apple Lossless ripped from CD or AAC) using a cable from the headphone socket to my B&O speakers (via a B&O amp). The sound is great, but I wonder whether a DAC wouldn't open up the sound sometimes with the strings in symphony orchestras.

it irks me how you say amen and agree with magnus and then:

"The sound is great, but I wonder whether a DAC wouldn't open up the sound sometimes with the strings in symphony orchestras."

you wanna know the answer? NO!

you can buy a dac...and listen to it and u will say wow! why? cause u turned up the volume and u'll actively listen for details.
and don´t start with bs like jitter and high bit rate and all that.
at best u get less noise.

expensive DAC's are not worth it. they are a scam.
DAC's sound the same. don't pay more than 200 at max.
most usb dacs will do if u really need to spend money to soothe your audiophile needs. i know you have no choice.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

it irks me how you say amen and agree with magnus and then:

"The sound is great, but I wonder whether a DAC wouldn't open up the sound sometimes with the strings in symphony orchestras."

you wanna know the answer? NO!

you can buy a dac...and listen to it and u will say wow! why? cause u turned up the volume and u'll actively listen for details.
and don´t start with bs like jitter and high bit rate and all that.
at best u get less noise.

expensive DAC's are not worth it. they are a scam.
DAC's sound the same. don't pay more than 200 at max.
most usb dacs will do if u really need to spend money to soothe your audiophile needs. i know you have no choice.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[richard_cooper]

But ART is one thing and ACCURACY is another. You can't really argue about preferences except for peer group pressures of society, etc. But you can measure accuracy in many ways and you can measure ability to hear differences with carefully done double blind testing and thus can at least disprove SOME of the more ridiculous claims made about playback technologies. The problem is that too many people push along some pseudo-science nonsense babble and people hear about it and believe it and before you know it, digital sound is "stair-stepped" and even the magazines are describing it that way when it's blatant nonsense.

Exactly, well put in your whole piece. To extend the painting analogy a bit more. The high sample rate argument is like criticising a painter for not using infra-red, ultra-violet, or X-Ray reflective pigments, because although we can't see it they somehow influence what we see on the painting, as it make reds brighter, or blues more spacey or some such crap.

I am considering an external DAC; do you have any advice? Is it worth it? I use my 2008 iMac to play music from iTunes (Apple Lossless ripped from CD or AAC) using a cable from the headphone socket to my B&O speakers (via a B&O amp). The sound is great, but I wonder whether a DAC wouldn't open up the sound sometimes with the strings in symphony orchestras.

In my view no. I use an external DAC with my laptop because it's got a volume knob on it, which is more convenient than software controls for me. It cost me about £15 and frankly there is no quality difference between that and the internal headphone out (Macbook Pro) except it goes louder. I've also got a bunch or "professional" interfaces, again the same but have more I/O for when that's needed.

 

[s2mikey]

High resolution audio. Takes me back to the high end audio hobby. Ya know, when people had separate audio components and dedicated listening rooms in the house. Member that? Wow. Nostalgia....

Not sure if there is a clamoring for high resolution audio formats though. SACD and whatever didn't exactly catch fire with consumers. MP3s in higher resolution don't sell that well I don't believe. Seems convenience is king these days. Earbuds plugged into your phone or iPod touch works for most people.

Did I miss something? 🙂

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Amen.

I like your Pepsi example. I once found that if I drank coffee straight after cleaning my teeth, it tasted of chocolate. Mint+coffee=chocolate!

I am considering an external DAC; do you have any advice? Is it worth it? I use my 2008 iMac to play music from iTunes (Apple Lossless ripped from CD or AAC) using a cable from the headphone socket to my B&O speakers (via a B&O amp). The sound is great, but I wonder whether a DAC wouldn't open up the sound sometimes with the strings in symphony orchestras.

This is what I use for an external DAC with my Carver $2k/pair ribbon speakers in my living room: OREI DA9 Digital Optical Coax Coaxial Toslink to Analog RCA L/R Audio Converter (currently $16 on Amazon). It handles 24/96 and 24/192 in addition to 16/44 and 16/48 and every combination thereof. I think the price should tell you what I think about high-end DACs and how useful they are for "opening up" sound. 😉

High resolution audio. Takes me back to the high end audio hobby. Ya know, when people had separate audio components and dedicated listening rooms in the house. Member that? Wow. Nostalgia....

I still have separate listening rooms and in my living room, separate components.

Living room setup:

Speakers:

-Carver AL-III Ribbon speakers with a custom Active crossover setup replacing the internal passive ones and bi-amped.

Active Crossover:

-Audio-X-Stream CXR 22FX

This is a custom design by a former Carver engineer that was purchased by a guy selling it and modified versions of it under the name Audio-X-Stream back in the day. It replaces the passive 3-control adjustable crossovers the original Carver AL-III ribbons had that allow you to adjust woofer Q and two frequencies of ribbon trim plus levels. The design uses inductance to remove the reactive load component the passive crossovers had and make the Carver speakers an easy load to drive from an amplifier (the passives were more at home with something like the Carver Lightstar or Sunfire amplifier designs that were load independent. Normal amplifiers have trouble driving reactive loads. This gives it an effective 3dB more sensitivity (the equivalent of making your amplifier behave as if it were 2x the power) but it also requires bi-amping since the woofers and ribbons are handled separately.

Amplifiers:

-Yamaha M-45 120 watts into 8 ohms and 180 watts into 4 ohms Class A/AB amplifier for the ribbons

The Carvers are 4 ohm speakers and with the active crossovers present a purely resistive load instead of the highly reactive load the passive crossovers had, given an effective increase in sensitivity of 3dB, the same as doubling the overall amplifier power compared to their original condition.

-Carver TFM-35x (x means THX Certified) 250 watts into 8 ohms and 350 watts into 4 ohms amplifier for the 10" woofer drivers

The woofers go down to 27Hz so they're really closer to subwoofer drivers and cross to the ribbons at 200Hz with the active crossover to eliminate an anomaly in the ribbons (the passive crossovers originally crossed at 125Hz).

Pre-Amplifier

-Carver C-5 Sonic Holography Preamplifier. This is a completely analog pre-amplifier with a MM Phono section and two tape-loops (for recording or adding processor units). It has dual-room capability, but not even a tuner on-board. It has a remote control, but the volume pot is analog and motor-controlled.

It has Carver's Sonic Holography processing to eliminate interaural cross-talk (i.e. when you sit in the sweet spot between the speakers and they are properly aligned, it cancels out the initial left channel wavefront for the right ear and right-channel wavefront for the left-ear (or at least it reduces it). The effect is that the soundstage widens and deepens and you can hear surround type out-of-phase sounds up to an 180 degrees arc to your sides as if you had surround speakers in the room. It's unreal sounding with some material using just 2-channels and stereo sound (also works reasonably well for Dolby material as it has its surround sound out-of-phase as such).

I currently have a 2nd Gen AppleTV and an Amazon FireTV Stick connected for streaming my local library and things like Netflix and/or Amazon Video, etc. to the system. I also have a turntable and CD player connected as well as my cable box and a Macbook Pro via a PreSonus and with that my Roland Digital Piano as well.

My Home theater room has a Yamaha Receiver, PSB speakers all around in a 6 channel setup (the back of the room won't easily support 7 speakers due to a door way in the corner) plus a Definitive Tech Powerfield 1500 15" subwoofer with its own 250 watt amplifier (making it 6.1). It has similar streaming boxes, cable box and BD/DVD/CD, game boxes and DVD-Audio capability. It uses a 93" screen with a Panasonic HDTV LCD projector.

I have Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 systems in my den and bedrooms connected with Airport Express units and an older Definitive Tech surround system in my exercise room powered by an older Denon Receiver (yeah I've got 4 channel surround with an LCD TV while I walk on my treadmill. 😉 and an AppleTV there as well)

 

[Mac 128]

Here's an interesting rumor that just turned up:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/02/rumor-calls-for-256gb-option-on-iphone-7-plus

Now I would expect the 256GB iPhone to be inevitable. But let's look at the evidence so far:

The iPhone can now shoot 4K video
It can take 12MP photos
It can take Live Photos
The camera connection kit just became compatible with the the iPhone in current models.
The iPad Pro Lightning connector can support USB 3.0 file transfer rates.

Now why would Apple do all of these things? Clearly it's to allow media content created on the iPhone to be offloaded efficiently. While the camera kit can be used to get media onto the phone, it's not an easy task, so that seems less likely. But that could change in order to take 4K movies on an iPhone and import it into the iPad Pro -- though like the iPad and camera kit in the past, that capability could be restricted to the iPP.

Now we have a rumor that Apple may be preparing to accommodate HQ audio files, which will add considerably to the local storage. And most recently the rumor of 256GB storage on the iPhone 7, which would go along way to accommodating the extra file size of both video and audio -- why else would they offer it with the 7 and not with the 6S, unless the 7 users may really need it over the 6S users for whom it would just be helpful?

Apple has long said the iPhone doesn't need more storage because iCloud can stream all of a users content, whenever needed. But iCloud is useless for creating HQ content, especially when you're on a family vacation at Machu Picchu, shooting 4K movies with HQ audio, 12mp photos, Live Photos, and panoramas; and there is no internet available. That 128gb, or even 256gb is going to run out fast, especially if you've got a lot of apps on there. In which case all of these other recent implementations come into play, and sticking your camera kit into the iPhone and quickly offloading photos and videos onto 64GB SD cards would come in very handy.

And frankly, I don't believe there's going to be much Hi-Res commercial audio or video for streaming and download anyway. So all of these rumors are adding up NOT to be about that, but the user created content. Pro video AND pro audio. Later, Apple can get into content with the foundation laid for it.

Moreover, whether Apple removes the 3.5mm Jack with the iP7, or ever, is irrelevant to these rumors, but certainly makes them more compelling as that rumor, along with the rumor of manufacturers gearing up their Lightning audio products, suggest that taken as a whole, that the iPhone 7 is going to need expanded offline storage for larger file sizes which can be created with the hardware. Whether an "audiophile" wants to store large audio files, or a movie buff wants to store large movie files is a secondary perk. And the USB 3 speeds guarantee the bandwidth is there to pass huge data streams in realtime from all this new Lightning audio equipment rumored may in the works.

 

[SactoGuy18]

One wonders if Apple will do something akin to this:

This was the Apple iPod Radio Remote, which turned the older model iPods into an FM receiver. Now imagine a more modern version of this with a 350 mm long cable that plugs into the iPhone 7's Lightning port, has no FM radio function (but with the same controls), and is a tad thicker to accommodate the 24 bit 96 kHz compatible DAC and headphone amplifier, can plug in any stereo headphone with the 3.5 mm jack, and whole unit is powered off the Lightning port connection? That way, you can both an adapter to accommodate older headphones and a miniature headphone amp to play back the higher-resolution Apple Lossless format files.

 

[Mac 128]

One wonders if Apple will do something akin to this:

This was the Apple iPod Radio Remote, which turned the older model iPods into an FM receiver. Now imagine a more modern version of this with a 350 mm long cable that plugs into the iPhone 7's Lightning port, has no FM radio function (but with the same controls), and is a tad thicker to accommodate the 24 bit 96 kHz compatible DAC and headphone amplifier, can plug in any stereo headphone with the 3.5 mm jack, and whole unit is powered off the Lightning port connection? That way, you can both an adapter to accommodate older headphones and a miniature headphone amp to play back the higher-resolution Apple Lossless format files.

Yes, I brought that up in this post:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...tning-connector.1941037/page-43#post-22422688

Part of which I'll reprint here:

Like you, I imagine a $40 (OK that may be a bit optimistic) in-line adapter similar to the iPod Radio accessory, which would incorporate an Watch-sized screen instead of just the shuffle controls, allowing the user to directly interact with the app with access to all controls of the iPhone (perhaps using a subset of watch OS for consistency), not just skipping tracks, and changing volume. It could also serve as a backup battery, which could kick in when the iPhone is depleted, or self-power the backlight on the remote, as well as other features like noise cancellation. Or for those who appreciate wireless, a more expensive Bluetooth dongle that doesn't require a wired connection to the iPhone at all. Users can leave their iPhone in their bag, while clipping an iPod shuffle-sized device anywhere, with complete visual access to the phone controls, and backwards compatibility with wired legacy equipment.

I'm not as hopeful to see Apple offer FM radio in their adapter because radio is contrary to their iCloud and Apple Music subscription model, but certainly a third party could offer it.

I also think they could offer it as a combination Lightning/Bluetooth dongle which could be used either way, and could further have some built-in storage so it could be used completely independently from the iPhone, like a shuffle or a nano. The built-in radios provide dual wireless connectivity to an iPhone, or to a set of BT headphones if used independently. When paired to the iPhone only, wired headphones could be used. When plugged into the iPhone via Lightning the radios are likewise disabled completely, relying on the iPhone radios for wireless. Without changing much about the design, Apple could replace the iPod line, and offer a seperate less expensive DAC remote/dongle. The latter offers much more via Lightning than any current 3.5mm wired headphone.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

One wonders if Apple will do something akin to this:
This was the Apple iPod Radio Remote, which turned the older model iPods into an FM receiver. Now imagine a more modern version of this with a 350 mm long cable that plugs into the iPhone 7's Lightning port, has no FM radio function (but with the same controls), and is a tad thicker to accommodate the 24 bit 96 kHz compatible DAC and headphone amplifier, can plug in any stereo headphone with the 3.5 mm jack, and whole unit is powered off the Lightning port connection? That way, you can both an adapter to accommodate older headphones and a miniature headphone amp to play back the higher-resolution Apple Lossless format files.

WTF would they need or even want to do that? My $16 OREI outboard DAC from Amazon handles 24/96 and 24/192 just fine and it's just a chip like any other you could find inside an iPod/iPhone. In other words, Apple can easily support 24/96 and 24/192 in the next iPhone by simply including an appropriate DAC in the phone itself (for analog) or you could use an outboard DAC of your choice with a lightning port digital output adapter. Hell, the Airport Express (and my 2008 Macbook Pro for that matter) has a combo headphone sized jack on it that can output analog or digital from the same port! The current iPhone 6 models could output 24/96 from their lightning port if Apple would ever add support in iOS for something other than freaking 48kHz! It's EMBARRASSING that AppleTV Generation 2-4 cannot output 44.1KHz ALAC files at 44.1kHz but instead resample EVERYTHING (up or down) to 48kHz including 24/96 (yes iTunes will store 24/96 just fine and even play it back correctly on your Mac itself; you do need to adjust the output settings in the Audio/MIDI Setup Utility, though (they don't default to 24/96 output capability).

As for FM radio, hell I was surprised to see the Lumia phones all have it built-in. I've been thinking of getting a Lumia phone. The mid-range model is only around $50 to buy outright and unlike the iPhone there's no issue using it with a pre-pay TRAC phone plan (i.e. buy minutes that include some data an turn data off and you have a dirt cheap pre-pay monthly plan for like $8 a month and can still use the smart phone stuff with WiFi and turn data on if you really need to use it (from your set pool of 1GB for a 1000 minute purchase, etc.) I'm not paying $600 for an iPhone and then have to pay $70+ a month when all I really want is cell phone access in the same box as a glorified iPod Touch. They don't want to sell you that becuase the want to make BIG MONEY off of you. I'd rather take the savings and put it into a new Macbook Pro every other year instead (yeah it adds up to that much!) Alternatively, I could get an Android model for a bit more. I think it would work with the iPhone too but they cost too damn much for something that is out of date in one year's time and unsupported in future App versions once iOS dumps you.

 

[Mac 128]

WTF would they need or even want to do that?

They won't do it for the audiophile, they will offer it for the consumer who insists on wearing a wired headphone, who is being forced to give up their 3.5mm jack, or buy an adapter. Again I don't see Apple offering FM radio, even though they currently do in the iPod nano, since that's not their business model. However, for those who object to a Lightning-to-3.5mm adapter, that doesn't do anything apparent to them, Apple can put it in a Shuffle-sized box as I described above with a fully interactive remote touch screen interface, which blows away what any analogue, wired headphone remote can currently do. That makes Lightning an improvement over what they've been using. It could even offer noise cancellation their old headphones may not do. On second thought, adding FM radio might be a fantastic inducement to the bus-riding crowd who is going to scream the loudest when Apple removes the 3.5mm jack.

I'm gad you pointed out how small a high quality DAC can be, since size seems to be one of the biggest complaints for those objecting to removing the 3.5mm jack.

 

[JamesPDX]

it irks me how you say amen and agree with magnus and then:

"The sound is great, but I wonder whether a DAC wouldn't open up the sound sometimes with the strings in symphony orchestras."

you wanna know the answer? NO!

you can buy a dac...and listen to it and u will say wow! why? cause u turned up the volume and u'll actively listen for details.
and don´t start with bs like jitter and high bit rate and all that.
at best u get less noise.

expensive DAC's are not worth it. they are a scam.
DAC's sound the same. don't pay more than 200 at max.
most usb dacs will do if u really need to spend money to soothe your audiophile needs. i know you have no choice.

I totally agree with the focused listening aspect. I think it depends on one's listening style. Some of us are musicians and recording artists, some are just really into music, and some people just like "wallpaper" music and they don't care as long as whatever it is they use works. My kid has a physically greater capacity to hear higher frequencies than me, but she can't/won't hear certain details because she isn't trained to hear them. To her it's just a different version of the same thing. Musicians know what I'm talking about; Temperament, the tone of an Acrosonic spinet vs. a Fazioli F278, etc.

Yes, crushingly expensive AD/DA converters are silly if you don't have a treated room and you're not using real monitors, even powered "nearfield" monitors -(there are some great ones from JBL, KRK, Genelec, etc.)

If you "can't get it done" with the DAC's on something like and RME, Apogee, Cranesong, or Burl interface, and you can't get it through a recording supply store, then you may not want to bother. People unload perfectly great gear all the time. Try to find used gear that hasn't been abused.

I love it when people come into my studio, sit in the mix position, and hear detail in commercial CDs that they've never heard before. YMMV.

You might not think Jitter is real, but it is. But generally DACs are getting better and better, so you may have never heard anything really bad. But denying the existence of Jitter is like denying the existence of Wow and Flutter. I'm here to help:

http://www.cranesong.com/jitter_1.html

If you're getting your audio out of your computer, pick up an Apogee interface. http://www.apogeedigital.com/products A lot of source material was recorded using those converters. They're really nice. If you want something fancy and your device puts out S/PDIF, TOSlink, AES 1 or 2, or Dante, you can't go wrong here: http://burlaudio.com/products/b2-bomber-dac

But that last link? Those aren't disposable products. You'd keep that unit for life. But HD streaming is still a waste of internet bandwidth. Try FM radio.

 

[JamesPDX]

And as has been pointed out, you also need to match levels (IIRC to within 0.1dB being the preferred standard) to which you'll need proper test equipment. Without it, the natural preference is to the louder of the two.

Well said MagnusVonMagnum, I'd extend it to say that in addition to many people not understanding digital audio, they also do not understand analogue audio, or the basic physics of sound in the air, or even a basic understanding of the human ear and brain.



The numbers can define, or describe, audio quality, or better accuracy, just as chemical analysis can describe the content of a fine wine. Your preference for music and wine is your business, but the arrogance to say your preference invalidates the science is breathtaking. If you prefer vinyl, stupid rate digital, or streaming over cd then fine but the science stays the same, and that science includes the fact that your brain can easily trick you in so many ways.

Audiophile quote of the week:

 

[cycledance]

Yes, crushingly expensive AD/DA converters are silly if you don't have a treated room and you're not using real monitors, even powered "nearfield" monitors -(there are some great ones from JBL, KRK, Genelec, etc.)

blablabla...

i can't hear it anymore. stop talking like A) u know anything about audio B) any of what you mentioned matters

you don´t need all that fancy high end gear to enjoy sound and music.

you don't need flat monitors. you don´t need a treated room. there is no perfect sound and there is no perfect beard.
what you need is a therapist.

no seriously think about it. what other area of your life dictates your behaviour and spending as much? probably no other.

let me tell you why you need all the audio gear. you are unhappy with your music. try a new genre. don't give a f about jitter etc.

youtube>tidal

 

[grahamtriggs]

Not sure if there is a clamoring for high resolution audio formats though. SACD and whatever didn't exactly catch fire with consumers.

And nor should they have done. There isn't a practical benefit to playback from a digital format of higher resolution than CD, when the recording/production is done right.

Which means you are selling to do a dead market - people that have accepted digital formats aren't going to see a benefit, and those that rigidly stick to an analog preference aren't going to find anything that will change their minds.

MP3s in higher resolution don't sell that well I don't believe. Seems convenience is king these days. Earbuds plugged into your phone or iPod touch works for most people.

High bitrate lossy compression is a bit pointless. On the go, earbud listening doesn't demand high quality sources, and storage space / mobile bandwidth can be a premium. If you have the space / bandwidth for high bitrates, then you might as well have FLAC / ALAC lossless.

 

[milo]

If I tell you they showed me the whole chain, like they usually do when they have new gear?

No.

And "showing you the whole chain" doesn't guarantee that levels are matched.

I realise

absolutely nothing I tell you will convince you of what I've heard.

Well not when you don't even give any details about that listening test. Bogus listening tests happen all the time, some flawed by accident and others on purpose.

 

[Kilmister]

No.

And "showing you the whole chain" doesn't guarantee that levels are matched.

Well not when you don't even give any details about that listening test. Bogus listening tests happen all the time, some flawed by accident and others on purpose.

Since you are so sure everything is wrong, bogus and lies and you are dead right, and since you are not interested to listen yourself, I've realised I will not spend any more of my time on you. The dealer will let you look at the whole chain, use the equipment yourself including you setting matching levels (and every other argument you might find after this just to ”prove” you're right). He/she wouldn't be a serious dealer otherwise. Try it. Until then ... bye, bye!

 

[grahamtriggs]

Since you are so sure everything is wrong, bogus and lies and you are dead right, and since you are not interested to listen yourself, I've realised I will not spend any more of my time on you.

So what was the whole chain? You may well have heard a difference, but it may not have been quite the apples to apples comparison you thought that you were making.

 

[milo]

since you are not interested to listen yourself

Not really, no amount of listening is going to make a difference if the comparison is bogus. And without knowing more details there's no way of knowing it was legit. Not sure why you're so reluctant to describe the test or equipment used.

So you're saying you were able to match levels between the two devices yourself? What signal and what equipment did you use to calibrate that? And what was their ABX switching device?

As Graham said, nobody doubts you heard a difference. And I'm sure a dealer could easily set up a listening "test" with an obvious difference.

 

[richard_cooper]

Since you are so sure everything is wrong, bogus and lies and you are dead right, and since you are not interested to listen yourself, I've realised I will not spend any more of my time on you. The dealer will let you look at the whole chain, use the equipment yourself including you setting matching levels (and every other argument you might find after this just to ”prove” you're right). He/she wouldn't be a serious dealer otherwise. Try it. Until then ... bye, bye!

So having seen the "whole chain" what type of ABX switch was being used. How was the level matching achieved and what type of test equipment was used. Where in the signal chain was the level measured and how were adjustments made? YOU cannot make the level adjustments in any other way than by measurements.

I have tried these types of tests and always heard a difference until the conditions were properly controlled, then magically the difference went away, or they were of equipment like speakers where you would reasonably expect to hear a difference.

I think you'd do well to realise how easily your perception of what you hear can be influenced by many different factors, and also to what lengths people will go to sell their wares.

Once, on a stand at a small trade show, I was asked to help diagnose an intermittent issue with one of these demonstrations as the booth staff were sales, not technical, people. Punters were allowed to inspect the "whole chain". One thing I was not allowed to do in troubleshooting was to switch the cables connecting source A and B which were clearly labelled as to which source they were to be used on. The booth staff did however let me check the wiring in the connectors for loose connections, which there were in one connector where a bodged low pass filter had been crammed into the plugs. The staff on the booth were not aware of its existence and the retailer organising the show pulled the plug on the demo as a result....

 

[Kilmister]

So what was the whole chain? You may well have heard a difference, but it may not have been quite the apples to apples comparison you thought that you were making.

It was quite a while. And since I'm not convincing anyone but trying to remember, I'm not going to. But of course it was as fair a comparison as it could be, though even apples from the same tree have small differences.

But I repeat; everyone should visit a serious dealer for themselves. If they're not more interested in being rude on forums (like ”cycledance”), of course. But anyone interested in music should visit a dealer (Linn or otherwise) to listen. Including checking the whole setup.

That's it for me. Thanks. It's been enlightening. But not on the good side when it comes to how people treat strangers on the internet.

 

[grahamtriggs]

But I repeat; everyone should visit a serious dealer for themselves. If they're not more interested in being rude on forums (like ”cycledance”), of course. But anyone interested in music should visit a dealer (Linn or otherwise) to listen. Including checking the whole setup.

Which is fine when you are building a system, because the point is to have something you enjoy listening to, not that it has to be the most accurate.

But when we talk about digital audio, there are quite a few facts that we can establish, and myths that can be completely disproven, by *comparing the numbers*.

That doesn't mean having a preference or experience that doesn't correlate with the facts is wrong, it's just subjective.

No-one has in the eight years I've listened to, and read loads about, suggested that streaming audio could be better because some audio changing algorithm or circuit.

Which is funny, because on the very page that you linked to - http://docs.linn.co.uk/wiki/index.p...y_CDs#Up-sampling_and_Quality_of_the_DAC_chip

"In the Linn DS products we are using a custom up-sampling system that has been developed"

What exactly is a custom up-sampler if it isn't an audio changing algorithm/circuit?

Not that there is anything wrong with that - after all, whilst there are standards for the binary representation, there aren't really any for the recording process (e.g. what equipment is being used, who is recording). So the "best" equipment is not going to equally play back everything to it's best sound quality.

That's it for me. Thanks. It's been enlightening. But not on the good side when it comes to how people treat strangers on the internet.

Oh please, you gave up any right to complain about other people when you posted "Interesting tin foil hat view of the world with a touch of condescending aggression."