Apple TV Won't Support Hi-Res Lossless at Launch, AirPods Max Wired Playback 'Will Not Be Completely Lossless'

[bsolar]

So is there anything at all that can actually utilize the lossless music or is this just PR. Seriously seems like you can't use it for anything practical.

Lossless up to 48kHz is not an issue, the document lists a lot of configurations where it works. Most setups except with Bluetooth headphones should have no problem with it.

The problem is with "Hi-Resolution" lossless with higher sampling-rates, but that kind of audio makes no sense for playback purposes anyway.

 

[chabig]

if they had a whole new pro line of speakers, headphones and a high res DAC ready to launch with AM Lossless, it would have been a completely different story.

It would be a waste of resources for Apple to do that.

 

[Altis]

Yes. With the 3,5mm to lightning adapter.


Unfortunately the app EQ does not work when wired...


Edit: Not sure about hifi lossless, but 24/48 lossless for sure. You may need and external DAC for play 192/24.

Be cautioned -- I've found the audio quality to be quite noticeably poor using the Lightning-3.5mm adapter. It's a tiny little audio card that I think was just meant to get people by until they committed to wireless. I find the Bluetooth audio sounds better on my Sony WH1000XM3 than with that adapter, though best with an external audio interface.

If you want to hear lossless quality, I recommend getting a setup that can make use of it. Any weakness in the signal chain can ruin it.

 

[ksgant]

I'm on the public 14.7 Beta on AppleTV and I just noticed that an audio option on it is Dolby Atmos...not sure if it had always been there or not.

 

[Luba]

ALAC 24/48 IS HQ Lossless. Lossless starts a 16/44 (CD quality).

To enjoy 192/24 Apple Music on Macs and IOS devices you will need an external usb DAC anyway. Is mandatory, as the native built in DAC doesn´t support it.

So ALAC is all the way up to 24 bit/48kHz, I initially thought it was 16/44 or up to 16/48?

Btw, when you write about Hi Res Lossless you flip it to 192/24 (192 kHz/ 24 bit) instead of 24/192, is that the convention when talking about Hi Res?

 

[B/D]

Be cautioned -- I've found the audio quality to be quite noticeably poor using the Lightning-3.5mm adapter. It's a tiny little audio card that I think was just meant to get people by until they committed to wireless. I find the Bluetooth audio sounds better on my Sony WH1000XM3 than with that adapter, though best with an external audio interface.

If you want to hear lossless quality, I recommend getting a setup that can make use of it. Any weakness in the signal chain can ruin it.

I see, thank you.


What would the experience be if I just connect my Sony´s XM4 to the audio jack output of my 2019 MBA and play some lossless files (with the XM4 powered on to enjoy ANC?. The only time I tried it the app EQ didnt seems to work, and for me these headphones need to be EQ´d to be enjoyable.

 

[bsolar]

Be cautioned -- I've found the audio quality to be quite noticeably poor using the Lightning-3.5mm adapter. It's a tiny little audio card that I think was just meant to get people by until they committed to wireless. I find the Bluetooth audio sounds better on my Sony WH1000XM3 than with that adapter, though best with an external audio interface.

This test shows that Apple's adapter is actually very high quality and no way that Bluetooth is better than that. Are you maybe using some third-party adapter instead?

 

[DblHelix]

Apple today shared a new support document confirming that the HomePod and HomePod mini will gain lossless audio support for Apple Music in a future software update, and the document also reveals some other tidbits.

First, the document indicates that the Apple TV 4K "currently doesn't support Hi-Res Lossless," with only the standard Lossless tier ranging from 16-bit at 44.1 kHz to 24-bit at 48 kHz to be available on the Apple TV 4K at launch. Apple's use of the word "currently" leaves the door open to a future software update with Hi-Res Lossless support for the device, but Apple has not confirmed this at this time.

Second, the document says that Apple Music "will not be completely lossless" during wired playback with the AirPods Max:Lossless audio refers to a form of compression that preserves all of the original data, which can result in an improved listening experience, although to what extent is debated. Apple's support document acknowledges that the difference between Apple Music's standard audio and lossless audio will be "virtually indistinguishable."

Lossless audio will be available in June for all Apple Music subscribers at no additional cost on devices running iOS 14.6, iPadOS 14.6, macOS 11.4, and tvOS 14.6 or later, according to Apple. Apple Music will have 20 million tracks available with lossless audio at launch, and Apple said 75 million tracks will be supported by the end of the year.

Apple Music will also be gaining support for Spatial Audio in June. Based on Dolby Atmos, this feature will provide an immersive three-dimensional audio experience that will make music sound like it is coming from all around you. Thousands of Apple Music tracks will support Spatial Audio at launch, with more added regularly.

Article Link: Apple TV Won't Support Hi-Res Lossless at Launch, AirPods Max Wired Playback 'Will Not Be Completely Lossless'

Makes no sense on the Apple TV. All they have to do is pass the bitstream over hdmi.

guess my only choice is my dac. Not a big deal just would be much easier direct from my Apple TV to receiver.

 

[B/D]

So ALAC is all the way up to 24 bit/48kHz, I initially thought it was 16/44 or up to 16/48?

Btw, when you write about Hi Res Lossless you flip it to 192/24 (192 kHz/ 24 bit) instead of 24/192, is that the convention when talking about Hi Res?

I flip them all the time, sorry.

 

[B/D]

This test shows that Apple's adapter is actually very high quality and no way that Bluetooth is better than that. Are you maybe using some third-party adapter instead?

Perhaps the Sonys are tuned to sound better over bluetooth than wired (DSP+EQ+ their internal DAC)

 

[DevNull0]

The devil is in the details. The point is not that you can exactly recreate the entirety of the original analog: it is that you can capture the complete signal limited to a given frequency, which is half of the sampling-rate frequency used to capture. Emphasis mine:



The theorem is used in conjunction with the known limitations of human hearing, e.g. being unable to hear anything above 20kHz, to perfectly capture the entirety of an analogue signal within the frequency range perceivable by a human.

For the first part, there's the sampling rate and there's the number of bits you use to digitize the sample. With 16-bit 44.1kHz, you're taking 44,100 samples per second and each time you take a sample that is limited to one of 65,536 possible values. The original analog isn't limited to those discrete levels so you're losing data. If you start with a smooth curve, convert it to CD audio and back to analog, it will look like a staircase. You may well be right that that's too small a step for the human ear, but human senses are very sensitive to digital artifacting.

 

[Altis]

I see, thank you.


What would the experience be if I just connect my Sony´s XM4 to the audio jack output of my 2019 MBA and play some lossless files (with the XM4 powered on to enjoy ANC?. The only time I tried it the app EQ didnt seems to work, and for me these headphones need to be EQ´d to be enjoyable.

I don't really know, but the DAC/amp is such a crucial part of the signal chain that it cannot be ignored.

Unfortunately, the price and size goes up quite a bit. I've had good luck using USB audio interfaces from brands like Focusrite.

 

[bsolar]

So ALAC is all the way up to 24 bit/48kHz, I initially thought it was 16/44 or up to 16/48?

The ALAC format itself can technically go up to 32 bits and 384kHz.

 

[DevNull0]

Hmm, OK maybe you know more about the maths side than me then. But I studied computing at undergraduate level and music to an advanced level. and thought that Nyquist-Shannon proved you could reconstruct the original waveform from a discrete sample given a sufficient sample rate, this was in a networking context and maybe I’m missing some detail?

“Also, it is not a purely mathematical algorithm. They use psychoacoustical modelling of human hearing to remove nuances that people are very bad at hearing”.

Yeah I agree, hence why I mentioned information being removed by the codecs, and some of what’s removed isn’t just hard to hear it’s impossible. But my larger point, is that it’s ultimately futile anyway because you first have to define what’s true. IF you define that as the master, then 256kbps AAC at 44100KHz is good enough that hardly anyone can reliably and repeatedly tell the difference. BUT even if you could tell the difference, are you really listening to what the musicians really sounded like? Almost certainly not because there‘s a bunch of other stuff between you and the musicians that you can’t take out of the equation. From microphones to the decisions of recording engineers.

To be fair, the Nyquist-Shannon theorem is what bsolar was talking about in his reply. It makes certain assumptions which are perfectly valid for audio applications, so I was probably being too pedantic.

Basically it assumes you have finite bandwidth, so you're mapping between finite spaces. I was too caught up on theoretically "infinite" analog values.

 

[Altis]

This test shows that Apple's adapter is actually very high quality and no way that Bluetooth is better than that. Are you maybe using some third-party adapter instead?

I have 3 test units (all from iPhone 8 boxes) and they all sound the same to me, and they all sound quite poor. In fact, at times they sound like a 128 kb/s MP3.

When I A/B even between iPhone 8 with the supplied dongles and iPhone 6 headphone jack, there's a pretty significant and consistent difference, whether using my WH1000XM3 or even just half-decent earbuds.

I did see that test previously and they either got a miraculously good sample, I have 3x bad samples, or there is something up with their test setup. YMMV but to seek out lossless playback via a tiny little dongle adapter doesn't seem worthwhile to me.

 

[tkermit]

There is virtually no practical use for lossless at all.

As a user on another forum put it, it's a psychological warm blanket. I do find that I can relax more and really get into the music if I think I'm listening to something that hasn't had lossy compression applied to it. That alone makes it worth it to me. Plus, I've never heard anyone complain that the audio quality on CDs is too high to be of any use.

 

[bsolar]

For the first part, there's the sampling rate and there's the number of bits you use to digitize the sample. With 16-bit 44.1kHz, you're taking 44,100 samples per second and each time you take a sample that is limited to one of 65,536 possible values. The original analog isn't limited to those discrete levels so you're losing data. If you start with a smooth curve, convert it to CD audio and back to analog, it will look like a staircase. You may well be right that that's too small a step for the human ear, but human senses are very sensitive to digital artifacting.

The number of bits limits the dynamic range of the sampled signal, but again the human hearing has well known limitations in how much dynamic range it can cover.

I suggest to read this article which ironically was written back in the day when Apple first hinted at the idea of "higher-res music" and debunks a lot of fallacies and misconceptions. Some selected quotes:

Unfortunately, there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space.

All signals with content entirely below the Nyquist frequency (half the sampling rate) are captured perfectly and completely by sampling; an infinite sampling rate is not required. Sampling doesn't affect frequency response or phase. The analog signal can be reconstructed losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing of the original analog signal.

It's true that 16 bit linear PCM audio does not quite cover the entire theoretical dynamic range of the human ear in ideal conditions. Also, there are (and always will be) reasons to use more than 16 bits in recording and production.

None of that is relevant to playback; here 24 bit audio is as useless as 192kHz sampling. The good news is that at least 24 bit depth doesn't harm fidelity. It just doesn't help, and also wastes space.

 

[hagar]

It would be a waste of resources for Apple to do that.

Yet everyone is complaining their Apple toys don’t support lossless. That’s my entire point.

 

[Anthony Sullivan]

What a bizarre, humiliating cluster****. Sadly, another case of "if Steve Jobs was around..."

 

[bn-7bc]

3.5 mm to lightning cable will lower quality for airpods max, but what about lightning to lightning?

Sorry for deraiing this a bit, but shouldn't it be ighningto 3.5 mm direction of signal ), yes i know it's a cirquit but it deffinetly not an input

 

[Unregistered 4U]

What a bizarre, humiliating cluster****. Sadly, another case of "if Steve Jobs was around..."

The same Steve Jobs that approved the first iPhone that had a 3.5mm headphone jack that most headphones couldn’t be used in without a 3.5mm to 3.5mm dongle? Sure, ok

 

[mikethemartian]

What? All that modern 21st Century digital-to-analog technology can’t keep up with the bandwidth of that old fashioned ”obsolete“ ancient 3.5mm analog connector?

 

[_Refurbished_]

Apple misfired here big time. Who releases a $500 + set of high-end headphones without the ability to playback the high-end audio format you’re about to release. This isn’t about planned obsolescence, this is just a complete misfire.

 

[_Refurbished_]

The same Steve Jobs that approved the first iPhone that had a 3.5mm headphone jack that most headphones couldn’t be used in without a 3.5mm to 3.5mm dongle? Sure, ok

That was on purpose to get people to use Apple headphones, it backfired, it changed.
There’s no rhyme or reason to this mess.

 

[Surfer13134]

I'm saying it now. I bet money there is going to be a AirPod Max Pro that can support the new standard. Yours for $799 🤣🤣🤣🤣