Audio Testing Confirms iPhone 6 Not Yet Capable of Direct HD Audio Playback

[techwhiz]

I hope you are being sarcastic but I don't see the smiley.

This is so stupid. Most articles posted this week just berate apple. I'm sick of it so let me list the things that you want but don't NEED (in no particular order just based on arguments with co-workers):

**SNIP**
* VOOC/fast charging/wireless charging: sure apple doesn't have that but I can still charge my iPhone in no time with my iPad charger. I've heard about S5 and note 3 anreven the oppo find 7 can charge 0 to 75% in 30 minutes - whatever because that's gonna wear your battery out faster than ever. Who needs wireless charging such a gimmick

Actually a recent research lab discovered that charging faster for lithium ion is better than a trickle charge. Check recent research papers. I love wireless charging on my phone. Come home drop it on a Qi Pad and it charges. Waayy Cool.

* expandable memory: i don't need that I have 64GB plenty of space.

* NFC tags: useless again. Apple iOS does everything right anyway. Don't need to tap no tag to do tasks. Silly gimmick

you don't need more than 64GB, I need 128GB or the option to expand.

* 8MP camera vs XXmp - you can argue all you want 8MP is superior. That's all you need the camera on my i6+ surpasses most canon and nikon DSLR costing thousands!

What kind of crack are you smoking????
A tiny sensor and little bitty lens outperforms Canon and Nikon?
Go look on DP Review for some real image analysis and comparison and DXO. Actually go here http://www.dxomark.com/.

* We got dual mics vs triple mics on those samsuck devices: seriously, dual mics are superior because they work great rather than having gimmicky 3 microphones like on those note and samsung s5 devices. So gimmicky

* Siri vs. other - honestly, I don't use siri much but I do know when I do use it it is much superior than that of google and even microsoft's version

You know nothing about noise cancelation.

* QHD resolution - pointless because my 1080p panel is not the same as the samsucks apple implements their own technology and it's much superior.

Apple doesn't make their own LCD panels.
Last I checked, Samsung was one of the suppliers.

* quadcore vs dual core - what a joke, my dual core rocks higher benchmarks than any doo-doo android device.

So you say.

* apple's 5GB vs 15GB google vs 30GB microsoft: 5GB is enough for my personal use. Don't need more. Apple's system is much more secure than that of google and microsoft.

* chromecast vs apple TV - $25 dollar junk vs $99 perfection. Nuff said.

Breathing the Apple fumes much?
I'm a shareholder and I don't drink that much koolaid.

 

[localman]

HD audio is silly:

https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

If you don't understand how digital audio works, and why 44.1/16* is already sonically perfect for human listening ability, you really ought to read that article. And then watch this video, it's amazingly educational:

http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

The promotion of sampling rates higher than 44.1 and depths greater than 16 bit is a gimmick. You can't hear the difference. Nobody can. You may be able to convince yourself that you can in a non-scientific test, but if you sit down with a proper ABX setup, you can't. It's just a fact. Claiming you can is no different than claiming you have ESP: nobody has been able to demonstrate the ability in a lab.

Feel free to rage against reality, though. Or pay extra for nothing. It's your life and your dime.

(Yes, 48/24 has it's purpose in recording and mastering, but only to simplify band limiting hardware and give extra headroom for mixing & mastering sloppiness. It doesn't sound better for a finished master.)

 

[milo]

Well, it's still mathematical proof.

Ironic comment considering you're misunderstanding that proof. And yes, ABX tests are an extremely valid way of determining what people can actually hear and what is placebo effect.

If I listen to compressed music, I usually have a headache by the end of the day, but not so with 24/96.

You're comparing 24/96 to lossy compression, not to 16/44.

the dynamic is clearly better than CD and feels more like vinyl

Without knowing what you are comparing, it's entirely possible the 24/96 release is a completely different mix/mastering job. Yeah, if they go back and make it sound different, it's going to sound different. The real comparison would be 24/96 versus lossless 16/44 (or whatever other format) downsample of that same file. Not to mention the common placebo effect with audio, people often think they're hearing an obvious difference when they know what they're hearing but fail to tell them apart with ABX.

we can definitively prove mathematically (ironically, using the same sampling theorem you cited) that bit depths / sampling rates above 16/44.1 are useless for playback and simply waste space.

I agree with you about sample rate but saying the theorem proves more bits are useless is going a little far. Bit depth is separate from the theorem. And more bits isn't completely useless for playback, I'd say it's only useful for a vanishingly small number of listeners with equipment and environment where 96db of dynamic range is audible. But I guess I'm splitting hairs between "useless" and "virtually useless".

There are overtones above 20khz that many people can perceive (or feel) and which give certain sounds (like a cymbal crash) more presence.

People claim that all the time (along with many other things). And yet they fail to prove it with an ABX test.

Placebo effect is VERY strong for audio. It's extremely easy for people to be tricked into thinking something sounds better when it actually doesn't.

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.

If the lower quality format is louder, they're doing the test wrong. When the test is done right, if the "differences" can't be picked out, they're not differences that are audible. And if they're not audible, might as well go with the smaller file size, at least in the case of a listening format.

Not true, most people would hear the difference, especially going from 128k mp3s to 24bit, 96khz AIFs.

Well, duh. But the big difference is on the 128k mp3 end. Many people would hear the difference going from 128k mp3 to lossless 16/44 considering that 128 is a fairly low bitrate and mp3 doesn't sound as good as AAC at the same bitrate. I'm not sure why for your example you picked a format half the quality of the iTunes store if that. But going from 16/44 to 24/96 few if any will hear the difference. Heck, most people won't hear a difference between the iTunes store 256 lossless AAC and any higher format.

 

[teslo]

this is why i ALWAYS buy the "S" model. it has the goods you expected the first time around.

 

[CurtisCalderon]

hmm

What difference does it make to have HD audio when calls are compressed and everyone (most average users) are using MP3 as their audio format. If you can't tell the difference between an MP3 and the full wav file of a cd, you definitely won't notice the difference between regular audio and HD, in my humble opinion. Maybe I'm missing something, but seems like putting really expensive rims and racing tires on a Prius, simply unneeded. Now, get some giant storage on phones and have music at it's full wave file, then we might be getting somewhere.

 

[Rog210]

Delta/Sigma oversampling A/D conquered the LP filter issue years ago.
Gradual filter way above the listing badwidth then use decimation filters to get it back in range.

You then end up with something that performs all the way out to almost 22.05kHz without a lot of phase delay and distortion.

I suspect you've made my point for me. None of that is necessary with a higher sample rate and 'traditional' LP filter.

 

[Blorzoga]

Most companies would love to have an Apple "flop"

All companies

 

[milo]

I suspect you've made my point for me. None of that is necessary with a higher sample rate and 'traditional' LP filter.

Not really. It really just boils down to this:

Him: With good filters, you don't need a higher sample rate.
You: Let's use a higher sample rate so we can stick with crappy filters.

 

[Mr. Gates]

I saw pretty obvious.
They will allow it with beats music.

 

[satcomer]

It's about so audiofiles can tell if a song is in Auto-Tune because the auto-tune music world is spreading into Rock & Metal.

 

[chasemac]

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.

I'll vouch for that! P7's with the iPhone 6 are the best sounding I have ever heard through an iPhone. I upgraded from the iPhone 5 as well and although I'm not an audiofile i noticed the difference as soon as I played a track on Spotify with high quality streaming. Very pleased with the overall sound quality.

 

[scottsjack]

There is no noticeable difference between the 44.1kHz (we mostly listen to now) and 96kHz.
The human ear can't even hear above 20kHz, and the rest is just for filter purposes.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I buy my hi-def music from HDTracks. If it's not available there I get a CD. Typically I'll try a song out by buying a download from iTunes.

As an example I bought "We Can't Stop" from iTunes because I liked the song. After listening to it I bought the CD. It sounds way better even on an iPhone and Bose headphones.

I have some old Aerosmith CDs. I decided to update them with 192/24 files from HDTracks. Even when those are downgraded to 48/24 so they will even play on an iPhone there is a noticeable difference in sound quality.

The Apple Lossless versions made from the purchased FLACs sound even better on my Mac via the same headphones.

Those who say they cannot tell the difference maybe really can not. In that case get iTunes downloads and enjoy. Apple has done a lot with getting good sound out of small files but there is only so much that can be done.

I have not found what you are saying to be true.

 

[Lictor]

Nope. And most likely they won't be able to support HD playback for a long time. This HD stuff will be a new digital format labels use to try and get people buying music again.

You're making a confusion there, you don't need any special format for HD Audio, you can do that in an open source format, like FLAC. Maybe you're thinking about HD-DVD and SACD?

Besides, I don't know about Spotify, but some companies in the audio streaming business are ready for HD. For instance, I used Qobuz instead of Spotify. They already stream in full CD quality (lossless) but they sell DRM-free HD music for download (24/96, 24/192 and some multi-channel).
We high bandwidth becoming more and more common (cable, 4G...), they could perfectly switch to HD.

 

[Rog210]

Not really. It really just boils down to this:

Him: With good filters, you don't need a higher sample rate.
You: Let's use a higher sample rate so we can stick with crappy filters.

Lol. Ok, why are they "crappy"?

 

[kemal]

All that great digital still has to go through the analog section before your headphones. I can't imagine how Apple could fit a quality analog section in such a thin iPhone. Look at how thick the Pono player is.

 

[R3k]

There is no noticeable difference between the 44.1kHz (we mostly listen to now) and 96kHz.
The human ear can't even hear above 20kHz, and the rest is just for filter purposes.

I would fix this too:

For the large majority of people there people there is barely any percievable difference between the average song mix at 44.1kHz (we mostly listen to now) and 96kHz.
Even though the human ear can't even hear above 20kHz, The benefits of even 44.1k still filter down (pun intended) into the audible hearing range.

There are also benefits for the music to be initially recorded at 96k, especially if there are multiple tracks involved. It then makes sense to listen in 96k as the engineer intended and not force them to convert it down to a lower quality rate

 

[sickducker]

I don't see why we need more than 16bit/44.1 kHz for audio playback. You have enough information to perfectly reconstruct up to 22 kHz with a dynamic range of 96dB. Rarely if ever do recordings use the full dynamic range. Even if they would and you set your volume 96 dB above your room noise floor of let say 50 dB, than that would cause permanent hearing damage.

 

[i4m]

most of what he said is true even if he does sound like a fanboy.

What he said was a matter of opinion, not true vs false.

(Oh... and he definitely sounds like fanboy so I'd take his opinion with a grain of salt)

 

[petsounds]

The promotion of sampling rates higher than 44.1 and depths greater than 16 bit is a gimmick. You can't hear the difference. Nobody can. You may be able to convince yourself that you can in a non-scientific test, but if you sit down with a proper ABX setup, you can't. It's just a fact. Claiming you can is no different than claiming you have ESP: nobody has been able to demonstrate the ability in a lab.

Feel free to rage against reality, though. Or pay extra for nothing. It's your life and your dime.

LOL. Buddy, the only people "raging" are the Nyquist Science Police that come out of the woodwork every time this subject is discussed. The rest of us are enjoying the music.

 

[iBug2]

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.

You seem to forget that there's more than one person on these boards.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

One shouldn't be shocked at artificial limitations of Apple hardware. For example, Apple TV Generations 2 & 3 are capable of 44.1kHz playback in hardware, but due to the "garbage" iOS drivers, they simply cannot output anything but 48kHz. Internally, 44.1 is preserved (I can redirect 44.1kHz to my Gen 1 ATV and get a DTS CD signal out of it just fine, but if I send it t to the local receiver, I get garble because the output driver converts everything to 48kHz before outputting it). This is PURELY a driver limitation and I've given Apple feedback on it. However, Apple only ever responds to feedback if a *LOT* of people complain about the same thing. There seems to be very little interest in audio formats of any type with AppleTV and other Apple devices so one should hardly be "shocked" that Apple's lame-arse drivers for the iPhone don't support its own hardware worth a damn and it WON'T until either enough people demand the feature or they magically decide to sell HD Audio through their store at which point the feature will magically appear in an iOS update.

Look how long it took Apple to add support for iTunes Plus information to iOS. Gen 1 ATV has had it for many YEARS along with the album plus information iOS still doesn't support. Apple doesn't appear to be in a hurry to support ITS OWN FREAKING FORMATS IN ITUNES let alone anything like DTS or DTS HD, let alone Dolby Atmos or even basic 24/96 audio. I'm shocked that a Mac can output it, to tell you the truth. I'm guessing if it weren't for Logic Pro, they wouldn't bother with the Mac either.

 

[iBug2]

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.

I can't but I know people in the recording industry that can.

 

[MRI3T]

The S version is usually when the real iPhone comes out

Tru Dat! All this guys research, couldn't he have just went to Apple's webpage and look at the spec sheet for audio output capabilities ?? I don't think that they would've hidden it from us

 

[rGiskard]

So... you're telling us the iPhone doesn't have a feature that they never claimed it to have?

No, it lacks a feature supported by the hardware they use. In other words, Apple are too lazy to take advantage of features built into their own phone.

----------

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.

Bull. Compressed audio doesn't sound as good to me as CD audio. I don't care about blind tests, I care about listening to music for hours, and I can tell the difference.

Not everyone's hearing is as selective, so maybe some people cannot.

 

[milo]

As an example I bought "We Can't Stop" from iTunes because I liked the song. After listening to it I bought the CD. It sounds way better even on an iPhone and Bose headphones.

Music files from different sources aren't necessarily the same mix. If you really want to compare, take the CD, rip the song to 256 AAC and see if you can hear the difference in an ABX app.

I have some old Aerosmith CDs. I decided to update them with 192/24 files from HDTracks. Even when those are downgraded to 48/24 so they will even play on an iPhone there is a noticeable difference in sound quality.

If you converted down to 48 and they still sound good, the improvement isn't from 192, it's from a newer remaster.

In any case of comparing lower and higher data rates, the best way to know if you're really hearing a difference is to ABX two files, one down sampled from the higher format.

Ok, why are they "crappy"?

They just don't work as well. A filter that can do it between 22k and 20k is better than a filter that has to do it between 60k and 20k. It's not shocking that the best available filters in 2014 are better than the best available in 1984. "Inferior" would have been a better word than "crappy" but it's the same point.

For the large majority of people there people there is barely any percievable difference between the average song mix at 44.1kHz (we mostly listen to now) and 96kHz.

No, it was right the first time. Barely any implies people can tell a difference but it's small. In actual listening tests, the vast majority of people can't even pick out which is which.

----------

Bull. Compressed audio doesn't sound as good to me as CD audio. I don't care about blind tests, I care about listening to music for hours, and I can tell the difference.

No, you think you can tell the difference.

Whether you care about blind tests, they are what will tell you if you are actually hearing the difference or if it's placebo effect.

It's possible you can hear the difference but until you actually test it, there's no way of knowing for sure. Just use an uncompressed rip for one file and that same one converted to 256 AAC (or whatever format you want to compare) for the other.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/abxtester/id427554135?mt=12


People who drank the snake oil thought it made them feel better too. Should we all avoid testing if it actually gave results and just drink it?