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

B&W's headphones are a bit of a disappointment, but I find their loudspeakers are excellent and well worth their price. However, every speaker has their own unique sound, so they may not be your cup of tea.
Speakers, headphones, earbuds any transducer really has its own unique sound. What you prefer is very subjective and personal and may not reflect what others like. None of these devices really reproduces what is heard live.
I doubt Apple is going to release HD audio soon. Nobody can hear the difference between CD and HD audio, and very few believe they can. It's not a large market.
It is about marketing. As to hearing the differences that is in the engineering of the recording. A carefully mastered recording can sound better and if you offer it up as an HD recording people will pay extra for it.

As an aside I have to have annual hearing exams for work, where they plot the hearing response of both ears. Even my left and right ears show remarkable differences in response over the audible spectrum. In other words one ear shows more hearing loss over the norm than the other. No two people hear the same sounds in exactly the same way. This is why all this nonsense about what headphone is best just irritates me. What is good depends upon your expectations, your physical make up and what you are listening too.
I know that comment is going to generate some :rolleyes: but until anyone can provide evidence that any human can hear the difference between 16/44.1 and HD audio, there's no point. The science is here: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
He is at times correct and then contradicts himself.

For example the idea behind higher sampling rates isn't so much to acquire higher frequencies but rather to capture more data in the frequency range humans can hear.

As for data size he is right that 16 bits is enough in a perfect world. However the recording industry is far from a perfect world. 16 bits is feasible if you assume that the recording studio does a good job of mastering the recording into that range. Much is released that is just plain sloppy in its mastering.
Refute it if you like.
There are something's he has presented that I consider a bit bogus or maybe just not clearly presented. For example 16 bits should be plenty of dynamic range in an ideal world. The problem is the recording studio isn't the ideal world and as such you are dependent upon the audio engineer properly mastering the recording to 16 bits. He actually alludes to this several times but seems to mis the dots so to speak.

In a nut shell it is the quality of the engineering that makes or breaks 16 bit audio for playback. There is more than enough dynamic range to handle the music if mastered properly.
I must admit, I'd be happy if they released ALAC files at 16/44.1, but I'm not expecting it. I'd actually start buying from iTunes if they did that.

I usually turn on a radio! Sorry to disappoint! I do have some iTunes music in my possession and frankly I prefer it to vinyl by a large margin. My hearing isn't that good but there is considerable noise in vinyl that I can easily hear. As to CDs in comparison to iTunes again not a huge difference, at least not in the way I usually listen to music. The normal way I listen to music is in the background while doing other things, as such the source doesn't have much impact.

----------

Not sure why you putting B&W in same sentence with Beats and Bose. B&WMakes audiophile quality products.

Maybe because he is under the influence of somebodies marketing? The problem with headphones, earbuds and the like is that you really can't do blind testing of the products. As such people respond to the logo or known shape of the devices.

Beyond that every transducer ever manufactured offers up its own coloring of the music. It makes one look like a fool to categorically say one brand is better than all others for every use.
 
Youre missing the point. Why is it necessary for Apple to make a new (and you can bet your behinds more expensive, too) cable when:
-Standard USB cables have been in use for years with 24/96 audio equipment
-apogee can already handle 24/96 over lightning.
-Apple's whole pitch of ditching the 30-pin dock ecosystem in favor of lightning because "its more versatile for the future" yet here we are two years later and theyre saying they have to make new, different ones (which will only be compatible with the new hardware, of course)

Whats happening here is the user community smelling something that isnt flowers...
Read the article it says they will offer a upgraded cable. Not do away with the existing ones. This may be a $49 cable
 
I just had this idea flash in my head, why doesn't Apple make a pro iPod. Here I mean an iPod that can plug right into studio equipment via the use of the most common studio connectors (probably XLR). Sure it wouldn't fulfill mainstream needs but a device that played "HD Audio" and supported good D/A conversion would be very interesting.
Apple's iDevices already offer digital output for use with external DACs. And have for many years, that's why they have been popular with the audiophile type.

And that's why this rumor with hardly any details makes no sense. What upgrade is needed in the Lightning system for HD audio? There just needs to be external devices that do this. Apple even makes at least one external DAC, although it isn't exactly convenient, the Lightning to 30-pin adapter.
 
The internal DAC and amplifier in a small device such as an iPhone or iPod Touch will never meet the quality of a good DAC and amplifier seen in a home system.
There is no reason at all as to why a Touch or other iPod can't have a high quality DAC. All it requires is Apple being willing to design in the right DAC. Physical size is no longer a limitation as DAC technology has benefitted from the same process improvements that have driven the rest of the industry.
I personally do not care if the mobile devices support the hi-res. I am fine with iTune Match using a 256k version when I stream to my device. I do not plan on using my mobile device for "critical" listening. I will save that for my home system with higher end equipment.

I will also never store my hi-res library on my mobile device. However, the concept of Lightening to an external DAC is interesting and with the right storage size could produce decent audio to an external system.
As mentioned before I'd like to see Apple offer a "professional" grade iPod, that is one with lots of storage and a high grade output system. I say system here because people often focus on the abbreviation "DAC". The quality of the output depends upon the whole digital and analog chain.
So, with all that said, a pair of high quality, high-end headphones (in-ear or over the ear) really makes no sense if the device cannot produce a decent quality output. Although I occasionally use a higher end Denon in-ear headphones with my phone, it is not so I can listen to hi-res music. They feel better and provide a better dynamic, IMO, than some of the others I have used.
I have to disagree a bit here. The output transducers can have a significant impact on sound quality from any device.
I do use the new Apple earbuds, but usually just when I am taking a call.

I actually hate most earbuds I've tired and don't normally wear them. However I had to laugh here because I do use Apples ear buds for just this reason. I far prefer taking a call this way than with the results I get holding the iPhone to my head. Those old iPhone bids are good for something after all.
It can also play 24/176 and 24/192 ALAC files. I use Max to convert my FLAC files to ALAC. I purchase my HD music from HDTracks. I would use iTunes if the price and quality was comparable. Not all HD music is created the same. Also, iTunes Match is early able to match my 96/176/192 files. If I want them available by the cloud, I need to manually create a AAC version for the cloud to "match."

Although the native Mac CoreAudio will not change sampling rates per song, you can bypass the CoreAudio and allow a third party software to do it. I run both Amarra and Audiarvana as my software. It changes sampling rates which are validated on my DAC's interface.

----------



I know, right.
I will never understand the audiophile mentality.
I don't have B&W headphones, but I do have a 5.1 B&W setup at home using their 800 Series speaker line. :cool:

----------



It is not always the speakers fault. It is sometimes the pairing of the speaker an an amplifier. The digital amps, IMO, produce a harsher sound than the AB amps. I prefer a bit of a warmer sound. It give off a more pleasing bottom end.

When I was growing up in the 70's a neighbor woman still had an old tube based console stereo, not high end at all. So one day I asked (stupid kid) why don't you get something modern. Her response was she liked how it sounded.

It took awhile, a long while actually, to realize two things. One is that each persons hearing is unique. The second is that preferences play a huge part in what is acceptable. Before this I spent many years reading audio articles in magazines and more than a few of the higher end publications. Eventually I realized these people are nuts!!!

Why nuts? Because much of what they promoted was baloney, in the end it is more psychology than anything. Non of the systems is the same as listening to live music even though the claim is to achieve a similar experience. The nuts part comes into play when you spend more time fidgeting over minute details than actually enjoying the music. It is an obsession with features, statistics and technical jargon more than a positive experience of getting lost in the music.

By the way I'm not saying all audio hardware is the same, it isn't, but rather personal preference is a big factor in choosing what is right for you.
 
Not necessarily. I run a high end system off iPod/iPhone with portable DAC/amp/headphones. The DAC makes the least amount of difference when taken out of the chain. The quality of the head/earphones has the most effect followed by the amp.

Fair enough but you have got back this up with some proof. My iPhone sounds completely different when I use just the audio jack input and my Shure's. However, the moment I connect the Sony, sonic bliss arrives. It might be okay in your setup but in mine the DAC plays an integral roll in listening pleasure.
 
Apple's iDevices already offer digital output for use with external DACs. And have for many years, that's why they have been popular with the audiophile type.
Yeah that is my whole point, I'd rather not have to add such stuff and would rather Apple offer up a high end iPod with an excellent audio system.
And that's why this rumor with hardly any details makes no sense. What upgrade is needed in the Lightning system for HD audio? There just needs to be external devices that do this. Apple even makes at least one external DAC, although it isn't exactly convenient, the Lightning to 30-pin adapter.

It makes all the sense in the world if you discount the terrible writing in this article. The way I see it, what is being described here is an external DAC, possibly built into a cable. It makes sense as a potential device, but makes no sense from the standpoint of a product I would want. If Apple wants to go after the high quality market then just make an iPod with the chops to enter that market, the last thing I want is a bunch of adapters to add to those I already have.
 
He is at times correct and then contradicts himself.

For example the idea behind higher sampling rates isn't so much to acquire higher frequencies but rather to capture more data in the frequency range humans can hear.

That doesn't even make any sense. There is no need to sample 20kHz at higher frequency than 20 x 2 (Nyquist). The only reason to do that is to sample higher frequencies (duh), beyond what humans can hear.
 
SONY PHA-2 plus Shure SE 846 equals sublime auditory experience; if you want an optimal setup, you could do far worse.

I tried like hell to get a PHA-2 while in Japan a few weeks ago. They only had the PHA-1 and I grabbed it. I like it very much. A nice rich sound when using the warm filters in the 846's.
 

Attachments

  • photo.JPG
    photo.JPG
    1.4 MB · Views: 88
Yeah I was/am. Love them.

Wow, those look terrible/ly uncomfortable.

Then, you've never had custom inserts made for your headphones. While sound is subjective, I see not point in debating how much better my Shure's sound over the stock Apple in-ears. But I can debate that custom fitted inserts are comfortable enough for me to wear them all the way to Japan and back from Helsinki Finland.
 

Attachments

  • photo.JPG
    photo.JPG
    1.4 MB · Views: 96
Of course, Apple would have to do new ear buds to actually listen...

Is that actually saying these earbuds will have a lightning connector.

Of cause, this would close the Apple eco-system, if you want to listen to this ew audio you must by these earbuds...

Thus. i think i can already see where this is going. People may want to use third earbuds/phones.

Maybie i got it all wrong. But that;'s how i understood the article.
 
Please remember that just about everything here is a rumor. Some more logical than others. Updates to the headphones, probable. Update to the lightning cable, not likely. But read anything you want into what's been posted, nothing is verified until Apple announces it on the stage.
 
I like all this focus on Music. Something I really love and use all my Apple products for every day, anything that increases the audio fidelity is great by me.

Apple is in a good position to be a real leader in music, so I hope they do as much as they can.
 
Apple need to change the sheathing on the cables they make, I hope this rumour has something to do with them switching to a sturdier plastic or compound instead of the fray-o-matic pants they call a cable right now.

Maybe beats can teach them a thing or two about that?
 
Worst people don't realize how personal the behavior of earbuds are. Slight repositioning, twisting or depth adjustments have a huge impact on sound quality. Often the difference comes down to fit.

Totally agree with IEMs. Ive spent a lot of money on many different IEMs and a well fitting mid range can sound better than a less than well fitting high end one - if sound starts leaking then its all over. Also depending on where you live, weather and season can impact fit in that your body can swell or contract in hot or cold. Walking home in a winter chill can start out with good fit and end with a lousy fit. There is also difference between brands, even accounting for swapping out or customizing the tips.

And this is why IEMs are not for everyone, nor should they be included as the standard earphone. Optional upgrade for those who like the experience, and that Apple's versin fit is great placement.
 
There is no reason at all as to why a Touch or other iPod can't have a high quality DAC. All it requires is Apple being willing to design in the right DAC. Physical size is no longer a limitation as DAC technology has benefitted from the same process improvements that have driven the rest of the industry.

As mentioned before I'd like to see Apple offer a "professional" grade iPod, that is one with lots of storage and a high grade output system. I say system here because people often focus on the abbreviation "DAC". The quality of the output depends upon the whole digital and analog chain.
They probably aren't ever going to do this. You should just look at Pono.

----------

For years Apple just let iPod die with NO innovation whatsoever. Stereo is last century. We should be listening to at least 5.1 surround, 192/24 uncompressed (turn of the century Blu-ray standard).
Bluray does not have 192/24 uncompressed. It has lossless compression. And like the other guy said, how is 5.1 useful with headphones? I know, they exist. Bah. Pretty pointless when you are putting the drivers millimeters from your eardrum. Unless you have 6 eardrums. Much better to go the route of multiple drivers for tweeter/mid/bass rather than more than 2 channels.

----------

Just use ALAC? It's still lossless.

Point is that people sell audio in FLAC, they don't in ALAC. It's annoying.
 
I have the current Apple In-Ear headphone. It's actually not bad, especially listening to spoken word podcasts. And it's very efficient, so you don't need to crank up the volume level to get decent volume.

I do agree that it could use more bass and treble, and a redesign of the In-Ear headphone could happen in September to correct these deficiencies.
 
sounds good.

HD Audio always 'sounds' good :)

I do wish, though, that Apple would remove all ports, physical buttons, and switches from the iPhone (and iPad) to create a wireless/waterproof design. This way, the entire device can be sealed so it is totally waterproof and can be used by divers in underwater photo and video shoots. This would be AWESOME! The devices would also be able to survive a drop in the toilet, which does happen from time to time :p
 
Still doesn't make sense, because the cable has nothing to do with ability to transfer HD audio.

I use a Sony PHA-1 device over USB lightning cable to produce the sound output to headphones, which supports 96/24 format. So it definitely make sense when you're talking about an offboard DAC+amplifier.

Nothing says that the current iDevices have an onboard DAC that supports 96/24. I have not been able to find the specs for them at least.

----------

That doesn't even make any sense. There is no need to sample 20kHz at higher frequency than 20 x 2 (Nyquist). The only reason to do that is to sample higher frequencies (duh), beyond what humans can hear.

Nyquist frequency is theoretical and assumes that your electronics are perfect which is far from true; I can clearly hear the difference between 44.1khz and 96k, despite my ears supposedly having only 20kHz range.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.