Civilization doesn't do anything anymore because it HAS to, but just because it can.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Audio Testing Confirms iPhone 6 Not Yet Capable of Direct HD Audio Playback
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Civilization doesn't do anything anymore because it HAS to, but just because it can.
When the PONO Kickstarter campaign was in the news here, hi resolution music was mocked and anything better than CD quality was a gimmick. I'm guessing that will change when Apple supports it.
Funny. When I first saw that device, the first thing I thought of was "that's the ugliest thing I've ever seen, I wouldn't be caught dead using it." Despite $6m+ raised on Kickstarter, I think even those committed to hi-res audio formats are looking for an all-in-one device that, frankly, doesn't look like a Toblerone. Cite an "audio purist" argument all day - I could, too - but the physical form (buttons), overall design, and small screen might be enough to make many shy away from a device like that. And I still can't believe you used Macrumors as an example of the current environment for hi-res audio appreciation/adoption. There will always be two sides, but the hi-res one will always be right
Hey now.... Logic has no place on an Internet forum. Go away so we can continue to rant.
Is telling us in the first place the rumor?
Or is telling that it's not yet capable of the non-feature the rumor?
Gary
Funny. When I first saw that device, the first thing I thought of was "that's the ugliest thing I've ever seen, I wouldn't be caught dead using it." Despite $6m+ raised on Kickstarter, I think even those committed to hi-res audio formats are looking for an all-in-one device that, frankly, doesn't look like a Toblerone. Cite an "audio purist" argument all day - I could, too - but the physical form (buttons), overall design, and small screen might be enough to make many shy away from a device like that. And I still can't believe you used Macrumors as an example of the current environment for hi-res audio appreciation/adoption. There will always be two sides, but the hi-res one will always be right
The device had nothing to do with my comment. I followed the PONO thread and I remember a lot of comments against hi-res. But if Apple does hi-res it will be a must have.
Nyquist Rate
20-Bit or 24-Bit word lengths are likely more important than sampling frequency.
That's not what Shannon's theorem says. It doesn't state that sampling at twice the frequency is enough to be able to reproduce a perfect signal. What it states is that if you sample under twice the frequency, there is no way you will be able to reproduce a signal at that frequency... It's a minimum, not a maximum.
For instance, a young person will hear a signal at 20kHz. To capture that signal, you need to sample at at least 40kHz. Then, that young person will be able to hear something, but you will have lost a lot of characteristics of the signal - for instance, you will not be able to know if the original signal was a sawtooth, a square or a sinusoid. So, significant information will have been lost.
That's why CD recordings sounded metallic at first. The solution, which is applied on all CDs, was to cut the frequency around 16kHz to avoid the destruction of the characteristics of the signal around Shannon frequencies.
That's why 96kHz is interesting, because it keeps quality in the upper part of the spectrum.
Moreover, 24-96 is not only about 96kHz, it's also 24 bit. And there, you gain a lot. The problem with CD and digital capture in general is that the scale is linear while most of our senses use a logarithmic scale.
The result is that when you go at the bottom of your intensity, you have a very very low resolution in your sample, while the human ear (or eye) still have a good resolution. This is especially visible in photography: if you brighten the shadows, you will see a lot of banding, because the sample resolution is very low in the shadows. It's the same problem with audio: CD killed the dynamic range (hence the loudness war), because it's not that good when you have a lot of dynamic during the low volume ports.
It's not about catching up. 24-bit 96Khz audio is of little value to the vast majority of consumers who would never consider purchasing an external DAC and spending lots of money on their audio signal chain and amplification.
Why speak from the point of view of other companies? We are customers. Who cares what other companies would want? As customers we have a right to be dissatisfied.
I'm sorry but 44khz/16 bit AAC with 256kbps compression is "good enough." I challenge audiofreaks to legitimately tell the difference between AAC 256k and uncompressed in a blind test. You can't do it.
Look at the 3.5mm hole in the iPhone 6. It's the largest limiting factor for making the phone thinner. Everyone says that Apple shouldn't concentrate so much on thinness but 5 years from now, we will look at the iPhone 6 as a thick device.
Well, it's true that most consumers think that listening to music on their smartphone speaker or on DrDre headphones is hifi, so...
But it's not true that 24/96 or even 24/192 is expensive... All in all, I spent less on hifi than on smartphones. Because, contrary to smartphones, hifi doesn't expire. My speakers still work 15 years after I bought them. My amplifier from 15 years ago still works too - I just had to buy a good soundcard for my HTPC, and that's less than 200, and plug it into it to upgrade to 24/192...
Honestly, hifi is not that expensive, you can have something very decent for less than an iPhone 6...
But it's not true that 24/96 or even 24/192 is expensive... All in all, I spent less on hifi than on smartphones. Because, contrary to smartphones, hifi doesn't expire. My speakers still work 15 years after I bought them. My amplifier from 15 years ago still works too - I just had to buy a good soundcard for my HTPC, and that's less than 200, and plug it into it to upgrade to 24/192...
Honestly, hifi is not that expensive, you can have something very decent for less than an iPhone 6...
A theorem is no match for real testing. I've never seen any double-blind tests where people can consistently pick out 44kHz vs. 96kHz or 16 bit vs. 24 bit. Now that doesn't mean these HD audio devices and media won't be produced and sold. But in the end it's just marketing to make people feel better about spending more money.
Right. Wether 24bit/96kHz makes an audible different with several-thousand-dollar audiophile equipment is still debated. Now you're telling me Apple could magically have made equivalent EarPods that are so cheap they could be bundled with a $700 phone?
Seems like those rumors are propagated by people who don't realize how extreme this audio quality is. We'd be lucky enough if the included EarPods were good enough to allow a significant amount of people to tell the difference between 320kbps MP3s and 16-bit/44.1kHz ALAC.
This rumor could have been realistic if the iPhone was a $7000, 2-inch thick device targeted at audiophiles. Now people who have no clue how much of an (non)impact such a high sample rate/bit depth have and how unlikely this was to happen will only see this as "yet another negative Apple news".
Last edited:
I had the 4, 4s, 5, & 5s....the 6 is actually a huge step up but I'm sure the 6s will have some special feature that will be great as well.
I just finished the article summarizing the results of my investigation. I am sorry to say that the iPhone 6 does not support 3DTV. It is still possible that the iPhone 6+ does or that Apple has had to delay activating this never before mentioned feature. We will continue to investigate.
Meanwhile, Wall Street analysts are very disappointed in the lack of this key feature in what was hoped to be Apple's comeback product. Many are now predicting Tim Cooks's imminent departure.
Meanwhile, Wall Street analysts are very disappointed in the lack of this key feature in what was hoped to be Apple's comeback product. Many are now predicting Tim Cooks's imminent departure.
Well, it's still mathematical proof.
Picking it out is not real testing either...
We have some research showing that unconscious hints can actually inform the brain about the experience. For instance, I read a japanese research about more than retina display. Even if you can't consciously see the pixel at retina resolution, your brain still records the information that it's not reality.
It's the same for sound. I listen to music all day. If I listen to compressed music, I usually have a headache by the end of the day, but not so with 24/96. Moreover, the dynamic is clearly better than CD and feels more like vinyl (without the degradation over time).
Of course, it depends on the kind of music. If you listen mostly to DrDre productions, to classical music, lyrical chant or to synthpop, there is little benefics to HD Audio. But if you listen to electronica, techno or jazz, there really is.
Like there is also some benefits to go beyond stereo - Pink Floyd is just too trippy in quadraphony.
For the general public, there is also the benefit that a better signal will accept more post-processing before sounding horrible. It's like in photography. You don't see the difference between 12 and 14 bits (and your monitor can't display it anyway), but if you post-process, there is a real difference. HD Audio might let Apple do a lot more post-processing on the sound to try to make DrDre things sound like proper headphones