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
This is a terribly-written article. Why are you "confirming" the iPhone 6 isn't capable of hi-res audio? The rumor was about iOS 8, not the iPhone 6. If memory serves, every iPod and iPhone Apple has released has been capable of 24/96 playback because their audio chips have always supported it. It's just iOS that has never supported it.
So I don't understand why you're mentioning the iPhone 6 at all. Oh, I see, the Mashable article also does, so you just parroted what they said. I suppose that's much more sensational and clickbaity to try to blame the new phone. I wish there was an Apple news site that was more responsible with its reporting.
So I don't understand why you're mentioning the iPhone 6 at all. Oh, I see, the Mashable article also does, so you just parroted what they said. I suppose that's much more sensational and clickbaity to try to blame the new phone. I wish there was an Apple news site that was more responsible with its reporting.
I disagree. It really depends on the equipment you're using to reproduce the sound. There are overtones above 20khz that many people can perceive (or feel) and which give certain sounds (like a cymbal crash) more presence.
But even more important that the frequency is the bit rate. Higher bit rates are capable of much more clarity in the sound. It's hard to describe, but once you've heard it the difference is pretty obvious.
Holy****! Someone who knows what they're talking about! So rare on this board. (At in least the top-rated comments section.)
but but but the salesman at best buy said i needed a $600 power cord and gold plated mosnter cables
In all seriousness I think about the only format change that would be a noticeable improvement would be multi-channel digital audio for those of us that listen on 5.1 systems, and even I'm not sure that would be a significant improvement over DTS Neo X.
There is such a huge difference in production quality among what's available on iTunes and elsewhere that the best place to focus efforts is on getting quality remasters out there (and I think sometimes when people listen to an "HD" track and think it sounds better than normal is because it's been remastered, not because it's "HD").
In most blind tests the discernible differences never materielize. In fact the technically lower quality audio format will be regarded as better with a slight advantage in decibels alone.
This is old... but had to post it... love the rumor mill./
http://www.cultofmac.com/143777/art...plans-to-launch-high-definition-music-format/
http://www.cultofmac.com/143777/art...plans-to-launch-high-definition-music-format/
The thing is, by far the largest problem with music reproduction is the original mastering. A well mastered CD quality file with proper dynamic range is more than good enough - the problem is the ever-increasing rarity of good mastering with engineers just aiming for "loud" in most instances. The dynamic range of CD covers all that can be heard so any tiny perceptible difference "HD" audio may bring is largely irrelevant when the source is likely to be compromised in the first place.
I've wondered about this.. No offence to Bono, but what would he really have to offer with respect to a new audio format? I doubt he's writing the algorithms or anything. or is it simply that U2 will be recording music for release in the new format to have some music ready at launch?
Every time this subject comes up, there's misinformation from both sides.
44.1 kHz doesn't equal a maximum frequency of 22500 Hz as there is a low pass filter up there. LP filters don't act like brick wall where, for example, 20000 Hz gets passed and 20001 Hz is removed completely.
Instead, they work on a curve, progressively rolling off more amplitude through the higher frequencies.
In an ideal world, you'd want a well-designed LP filter to operate WAY out of the range of human hearing and a sample rate of 44.1 kHz isn't going to give you that. 96kHz is overkill and 60 kHz would be ample bandwidth but that ship has sailed.
It's a subtle argument and not one someone listening through Apple's crappy earbuds and their cheap DAC is ever likely to benefit from.
24 bit is a different, and even more compelling argument.
The biggest problem is that people don't know what constitutes 'good' sound quality because they've never heard it. They'll spend $2,000 on a TV and pick up some god-awful stereo bar thing or some Bose monstrosity and believe they're listening to high quality audio. Similarly, people hide speakers in weird places, put them in corners, and have living rooms that bounce sound around like crazy, leading to phase issues. In those kinds of situations, 44.1 vs. 96 is the least of their problems and HD audio is really just going to drive up sales of 4TB hard drives with next to no benefit.
I would get a new iPhone immediately if there was a noticeable improvement in the DAC or the headphone jack output. It's such a pain to bypass the iPhone DAC now.
It's strange to see people arguing over how many more PPI are necessary for the 5" phone screen when we already have retina, but then see arguments that the average user can't hear the difference between 256kbps and lossless.
It's strange to see people arguing over how many more PPI are necessary for the 5" phone screen when we already have retina, but then see arguments that the average user can't hear the difference between 256kbps and lossless.
It sounds like BS to me. There's zero need for a new format audio-wise. Maybe it's some kind of multimedia monstrosity.
I hope they're not asking him for feedback on audio quality. After 30 years of standing behind stage monitors, warbling away while a drummer smashes cymbals behind him, I doubt he can hear much over 14 kHz anyway.
Exactly.
The main difference in quality these days vs the 70s, 80s and early 90s is due to The Loudness War.
There has been no peer-reviewed scientific proof that 96/24 "HD Audio" supplies any more audio information to the listener than 44/16 when actually mix/mastered in a way that doesn't eliminate a wide dynamic range far before it gets to the listener (and, in fact, it has been shown mathematically to be true that 44/16 pr 48/16 covers the entire human range of hearing).
The *only* place that 96/24 (or higher) helps is in the studio, where it allows an engineer to use digital effects on a raw recording without hitting the "ceiling" that would cause clipping (undesired distortion). This can happen because effects and other manipulation can introduce "noise" or other artifacting (either intentionally or due to flakey design). But if the effects fit into the "data space" of a 44.1/16 it doesn't matter. A properly engineered mixdown/mastering from 44.1/16 or 96/24(or 192/24) will sound the same when its sitting in a FLAC file or any other "lossless" medium.
There is no discernible difference on the listener end from simply encoding/outputting higher than 44/16.
Last edited:
Haha.
Besides the rumors, there are facts though. The phone bends in the front pocket. Some of its big new features are things Android users have already been enjoying. It doesn't help that iOS8 cut off so many people's cellular activity in the wake of iPhone 6's release.
Apple just saw a 3.8% drop in shares.
iPhone 6 kind of is a flop.
Better ears
Not true, most people would hear the difference, especially going from 128k mp3s to 24bit, 96khz AIFs. More and more people are streaming music from higher quality music sites, and more HD sites are popping up all over the web.
Apple is not outwardly supporting higher audio arts right now. Mac Pros don't have PCIe slots for digital audio cards, as an example. With their focus going for an update to Photo and photo editing, an improved camera on the iPhone 6/6+, it's only a matter of time before their higher quality audio comes into focus (pun attempted). The entire iTunes store has small bitrate AAC files to download. When they start to offer 24bit/96khz AIFs for download in the iTunes store, that will be reflected in the iPhones, iPads, and iPods.
Hopefully, buying Beats was a start in that direction.
Not true, most people would hear the difference, especially going from 128k mp3s to 24bit, 96khz AIFs. More and more people are streaming music from higher quality music sites, and more HD sites are popping up all over the web.
Apple is not outwardly supporting higher audio arts right now. Mac Pros don't have PCIe slots for digital audio cards, as an example. With their focus going for an update to Photo and photo editing, an improved camera on the iPhone 6/6+, it's only a matter of time before their higher quality audio comes into focus (pun attempted). The entire iTunes store has small bitrate AAC files to download. When they start to offer 24bit/96khz AIFs for download in the iTunes store, that will be reflected in the iPhones, iPads, and iPods.
Hopefully, buying Beats was a start in that direction.
Agreed on all points. Well, I don't agree 96 is "overkill" -- with high-quality source material I can pick out 96 from 48, but I have trained "golden" ears. 192 is definitely overkill though. But as you say, 24-bit resolution should be the real focus here. Going from 16 to 24 makes a huge difference because of the extra resolution afforded per sample. Well, assuming the source material is mastered at 24-bit or good bandwidth audio tape.
I agree with the earbuds, and I now wonder if the acquisition of Beats, along with the rumor of a new format, is part of an overall rollout of HD Audio. So that Apple can push Apple-branded headphones that are "HD Audio" ready.
There is nothing to agree/disagree about; it's just math. I challenge you to find a reliable study demonstrating human perception of frequencies meaningfully about 20khz. If anything, higher sampling rates may actually reduce the fidelity of the recording due to intermodulation distortation caused by ultraphonics.
Really? Bit depth has nothing to do with "clarity" or "resolution" of the audio. Bit depth is merely a measure of the dynamic range the format is capable of encoding. 16-bit is enough to encode 120dB of dynamic range, or roughly the difference between an empty soundproof room and a sound loud enough to permanently destroy your hearing in seconds. I'm not sure you need any more than that.----------
This is wrong. Please read the linked article before responding.
Do you have statistically significant results from an ABX test to back up your claim? Because what you are claiming to be able to do is a mathematical impossibility...
On a positive note, audiophiles over at HeadFi.org are reporting that the new DAC in the iPhone 6 gives a warmer and more detailed sound through quality headphones than previous models.
In other words, iPhone 6 is the best sounding iPhone to date! I just bought the B&W P7 headphones and this is actually a big selling point for me. Will definitely upgrade from my iPhone 5 now.
In other words, iPhone 6 is the best sounding iPhone to date! I just bought the B&W P7 headphones and this is actually a big selling point for me. Will definitely upgrade from my iPhone 5 now.
