Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wait for the .999 silver USB-C to 3.5mm $500 cables from the high end audio companies and people say how they sound so much better! 😂
I remember my first experience with 96 kHz sound. I was convinced that it sounded so much better than boring old 44.1. Then later I found that my computer was downsampling it to 44.1 during playback.
 
Honestly I can’t tell the difference on any mp3 encoding rate that’s higher than 128kbps, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ok... I've got a fairly good sized music collection encoded in MP3 in various bitrates, and I have to admit there's probably no one answer for what sounds "good enough".

MP3s can be encoded with a dynamic bitrate or with a fixed one, which further complicates matters. (Dynamic bitrate encoding always seemed to me like a bit of a "can of worms" too, because I'd imagine the quality of playback on those depends more on the software decoding them. EG. Are there artifacts or even stutters getting introduced to the playback because it can't smoothly transition up and down between wildly different bitrates as it plays through the song?)

But all in all, I find anything encoded in only 128kbps to sound "muddy". It lacks clarity. At 160kbps, it's much better. But if I encode the same content at 192kbps and compare them head-to-head? 192kbps is audibly better, but only with the right speakers and the right sounds happening in the music. It's usually your details like fading cymbal crashes where you're more likely to hear the difference between the two.

Where I'd say I can't really hear a difference is when I go to 256kbps encoding from 192kbps. At that point, discerning listeners MIGHT be able to pick out some very slight places where something sounded a bit different to them, but I'd say they'd never hear anything detrimental to enjoyment of the music from the 192kbps encoded version.
 
If lossless audio offers no major improvement over AAC, according to Apple, then calling it an "ultimate" upgrade is unjustified marketing hype.

“Ultimate” = “The best achievable”
With regard to fidelity to the recorded material, Lossless is the best that can be achieved, technically making it the “Ultimate upgrade”.
The fact that it is virtually indistinguishable from AAC is irrelevant.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1748.jpeg
    IMG_1748.jpeg
    52.8 KB · Views: 23
“Ultimate” = “The best achievable”
With regard to fidelity to the recorded material, Lossless is the best that can be achieved, technically making it the “Ultimate upgrade”.
The fact that it is virtually indistinguishable from AAC is irrelevant.

Yes, precisely. "Ultimate" doesn't imply a particular amount of improvement – moving from the second-best to the best of 1000 things could be fairly described as moving to the "ultimate" one.

(Meanwhile, yes: probably nothing to get too hyped about, unless you just love knowing that it's lossless…?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcru21
Most people don’t know what it is. Of those who do, most lie about being able to tell the difference. Put ten self-professed audiophiles in a blind test with AirPods Max in ideal listening conditions and 8 or 9 of them will fail in telling a difference.
 
Most people don’t know what it is. Of those who do, most lie about being able to tell the difference. Put ten self-professed audiophiles in a blind test with AirPods Max in ideal listening conditions and 8 or 9 of them will fail in telling a difference.
Those are not the headphones that I would choose for critical listening. Folks wouldn't know “what” to listen for, and it isn’t highs and lows”
 
So updating to the 18.4 RC should do this tonight?

And no update of the firmware on the AirPods Max is necessary?

Lastly, will this "improvement" will also be enjoyed by the Lightning port AirPods Max?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.