HomePod and HomePod mini to Gain Support For Apple Music Lossless Audio in Future Software Update

[cnnyy20p]

Repeat after me: Dolby Atmos is NOT the same as Spatial Audio!

Dolby Atmos is an audio format from Dolby that allows sound to be positioned around the listener. The producer needs only to define where in space a particular sound should be, and the listener’s compatible hardware works out how to recreate that intent either through multiple surround speakers, a sound bar, or earphones.

Spatial Audio is different: it uses sensors (gyroscope, accelerometer, and U1 chip) in the earphones to track the listener’s head movements. The position of the listener’s head when the audio starts to play is fixed as the ‘forward’ point. If the listener then turns their head to the right, the audio ‘pans’ to the left earphone to make it seem as though the sound is still coming from the same place.

A piece of audio can be both Dolby Atmos AND Spatial Audio. But Dolby Atmos is NOT Spatial Audio.

No,
yes, Dolby Atmos ≠ Spatial Audio.
But Spatial Audio is not about using sensors to track headphone and listen movements and provide real-world position audio. It's just means 3D audio using only stereo output. Even iPhone 11 and 12 stereo speakers support virtual spatial audio without any headphone.

You just got the meaning wrong that's all. Spatial Audio is not Apple's specific term.

 

[ErikGrim]

Guess I was right all along ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[ouimetnick]

That isn't what Apple says. https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2017/509/

View attachment 1779584

It supports streaming CD quality lossless, not high res. It’s important to note the small by key difference (as you just did) hopefully they update the AirPlay 2 standard or introduce AirPlay 3 with high resolution audio support.

 

[ErikGrim]

Why not? Fact is, the HomePod Mini sounds like crap compared to the full-sized HomePod.

The HomePod Minis are absolute beasts for their size, so they do not sound like crap - even compared to a full-sized HomePod. But do they sound even a third as good as a HomePod? The answer is no.

 

[H-B0mb]

Until someone makes one and apple enables support for lighting to lighting. This is how I will try to get some sort of near lossless (cd quality) audio from my iPhone to APM in June

#ridiculous

digital > analogue > digital > analogue
🤯

 

[jmw1480]

It's not a high end speaker but even marginally improving its performance seems like a good thing.

For 👏 no 👏 extra 👏 cost 👏

 

[neander]

Its strange that they where this unprepared..surely they could have done this a month earlier. They must have panicked and launched it early, Or they have few communications between departments..

 

[Xak444]

Glad I bought those two homepods. Just like 3D Touch, they failed on the marketing. The HomePod sucks when compared to Alexa and all that other stuff for smarts. But it does the basic stuff I need that google home did.

But, it’s a freakishly incredible sounding device and adding this functionality pushes ir closer to soundbar/home audio space.

there’s no way a HomePod successor isn’t inbound. While discontinued, new features are still inbound.

I gotta disagree here. Alexa maybe can do more but doesn’t do it well.

 

[caryrae73]

I would really love an update where you can add 2 minis as rear speakers to work along side 2 HomePods for actual surround sound.

 

[citysnaps]

Its strange that they where this unprepared..surely they could have done this a month earlier. They must have panicked and launched it early, Or they have few communications between departments..

Or... like many other businesses, were adversely impacted by the year-long pandemic, and allocated priorities differently as a result.

 

[RamGuy]

Funny that a discontinued Apple product is getting support for a new feature, but I am not one to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Just because the HomePod is end-of-sales doesn’t mean it’s end-of-support. Apple would be stupid to not maintain the original HomePod when it comes to software updates considering people could have purchased brand-new ones less that 6 months back and one of Apple’s major arguments is their tight ecosystem and great software support.

Apple should be fully supporting the original HomePod for at least the next 3-5 years. Anything else is dropping the ball and spitting in the face of their customers.

Take the iPad Air 2 as a comparison. It was released back in 2014. When end-of-sales in 2017 and is still getting full software support to this day. Four years after it going end-of-sales. Why should we expect the HomePod to be any different?

Apple would tell anyone to avoid getting their speakers if they prove themselves to drop the dead when it comes to software support as soon as they go end-of-sales.

 

[RamGuy]

To me, that's a bit like saying “Oh, this 3 megapixel camera is fine. Most people won't notice the difference between this and 20 megapixels anyway.” “This oxcart is fine for going to the market. It's not that much slower than a Toyota Camry for such a trip anyway.” Is that really a litmus we want? Advance the technology and see what happens.

Not really compareable at all. Human hearing has it's limitations. Going beyond our limitations is a waste. 3 MP vs 20 MP is not the same. 20 MP is and will always be superior to 3 MP as long as the sensor is getting improved and the aperture is capable of letting in enough light to compensate for the additional pixels in use. Your car example is even worse.

All studies and ABX double-blind test shows that 44.1kHz@16-bit, 1411 ALAC versus 44.1kHz@16-bit 256 AAC is transparent. Meaning the lossy encoding does not alter the end result. Even on expensive equipment, there exists no proof that shows it providing any perceivable improvement to the end-user. And going 192kHz@24-bit doesn't make any sense considering how adults are only able to hear up to 12-16kHz frequencies. What's the point of extending further beyond what human hearing is capable of hearing?

Are we making this music for aliens to enjoy and we are hoping aliens have better hearing so they can enjoy these frequencies that humans can't perceive?

 

[ghanwani]

Just a reminder, for the "right" price, my mint condition space gray HomePod is available for sale.

 

[hooptyuber]

Not really compareable at all. Human hearing has it's limitations. Going beyond our limitations is a waste. 3 MP vs 20 MP is not the same. 20 MP is and will always be superior to 3 MP as long as the sensor is getting improved and the aperture is capable of letting in enough light to compensate for the additional pixels in use. Your car example is even worse.

All studies and ABX double-blind test shows that 44.1kHz@16-bit, 1411 ALAC versus 44.1kHz@16-bit 256 AAC is transparent. Meaning the lossy encoding does not alter the end result. Even on expensive equipment, there exists no proof that shows it providing any perceivable improvement to the end-user. And going 192kHz@24-bit doesn't make any sense considering how adults are only able to hear up to 12-16kHz frequencies. What's the point of extending further beyond what human hearing is capable of hearing?

Are we making this music for aliens to enjoy and we are hoping aliens have better hearing so they can enjoy these frequencies that humans can't perceive?

A few posts up the thread someone posted their gotcha “scientific proof” that ABX double-blind tests show people can't differentiate between lossy and non-lossy. The linked study says, in part:

“Listeners significantly preferred CD quality to mp3 files up to 192 kb/s for all musical genres....Regarding higher bitrates (256 and 320 kbits/s), they could not discriminate CD quality over mp3 while expert listeners, with more years of studio experience, could in the same listening conditions in Sutherland’s study [8].”

In other words, yes, many listeners can tell the difference between lossy and non-lossy in double blind tests!!!

Are you going to be able to tell the difference when you're listening to Dua Lipa or whatever through a soundbar down by the pool? No, probably not but by all means have at it.

Do you understand why professional engineers don't record and mix in lossy formats? If they were to do so, the sound would degenerate during the mixing process until it sounded undeniably bad. What does that tell you about lossy formats? A twelve-year-old rap fan might not be able to pinpoint why it sounded awful, they would just think “I don't like this music.”

Also, frequency response is not the ultimate or even necessarily the primary determinant of sound quality with digital files. I don't know why people can't get this through their heads. It's not like a weight lifting competition or a footrace where 10Hz - 25kHz wins the race and is “better.” Most music happens between those frequency extremes. When a DAC has more digital info to work with, when it's fed a more detailed non-lossy music file, the music can sound better.

And it doesn't even take bazillion dollar equipment to get better sound. A company called Schiit makes great-sounding DACs from a few hundred dollars on up. https://www.schiit.com

A lot of people who don't seem to know much about sound or have any experience with better systems than a clock-radio seem annoyed that some of us like to maximize sound quality when we're listening to music at home.

 

[goobot]

Until someone makes one and apple enables support for lighting to lighting. This is how I will try to get some sort of near lossless (cd quality) audio from my iPhone to APM in June

#ridiculous

digital > analogue > digital > analogue
🤯
View attachment 1779954

I don’t know if it would work but the og Apple Pencil came with a lightning to lightning adapter

 

[justperry]

I said “now we’re talking”, which is an expression used for good news. The good news in this case was the HomePod supporting lossless.

Me...Duh...
Clearly, I needed coffee.

 

[Donar]

Until someone makes one and apple enables support for lighting to lighting. This is how I will try to get some sort of near lossless (cd quality) audio from my iPhone to APM in June

#ridiculous

digital > analogue > digital > analogue
🤯

Yes i think that is how you could wire up the Airpods Max according to Apple.
And i think this is how it works with my Sony XM 3 while powered up also.
digital > analogue > digital > analogue
Phone > Lightning to 3,5 > Sony DAC > Analogue AMP/Drivers

#ComputationalAudio

 

[Td1970]

bravo Apple. Stop the haters

Ahh that’s not hating that’s using common sense. Both HPs should support this. Apple would have dropped then all huge. Almost looks like they realized that people would be upset if they didn’t.

 

[Td1970]

Only White, no?

Still new?

 

[DonutHands]

Why even bother on the mini, that tiny 2" speaker isn't able to reproduce music accurately as it is now.
Heck the larger homepod probably wont have a noticeable difference either.

 

[AEWest]

So I’m confused. Will the lightning to 3.5mm cable allow Airpods Max to play lossless? What does not “completely lossless” mean?

No. The DAC in the airpod max canot fully support lossless. There will be some degradation. Whether people can hear it is another matter.

 

[ntlman]

I still can't believe that Apple announced this lossless feature and currently the only headphones they sell that can support it are the $20 lightning (for iPhones/iPad Pros) or 3.5 mm wired earpods (Macs, iPad). 🤦🏻‍♂️

That said: if you're looking for an affordable pair of audiophile-level wired headphones, I personally recommend the Status Audio CB-1s. They are under $80 before tax. Earpads are replaceable, and the flat tuning is perfect for studio work. I have been using one pair since 2016 and while some of the pleather has peeled off, the overall frame is still sturdy after a lot of everyday use.

 

[Donar]

So I’m confused. Will the lightning to 3.5mm cable allow Airpods Max to play lossless? What does not “completely lossless” mean?

It probably means that you can make use of "Apple Music standard Lossless", which starts at 16 bit 44.1 kHz, and goes up to 24 bit at 48 kHz.

But not "Apple Music Hi-Res Lossless", which is up to 24 bit at 192 kHz.

And its not "completely lossless" because of re- digitalisation & Computational Audio inside the AirPods Max (H1 Chip) which "alters" the "signal".

Simplified "signal path" from my understanding:
iPhone > Lightning to 3,5 adapter > 3,5 to Lightning Adapter + Apple Airpods H1 Chip > Driver
digital > analogue > digital > analogue

=> This Computational Audio is (imo) the reason AirPods Max sound like they sound and can do what they do. And why people bought them in the fist place instead of other wireless Headphones. I do not have a pair of AirPods Max but a pair of Sony XM 3, you can use them wired even when powered down, but I really like them more when they are wired & powered up (But usually I use them powered up & wireless).

So people will get the ability to play “Apple Music standard Lossless“ (up to 24-bit/48 kHz) to their wired up AirPods Max, instead of 16-bit/44.1kHz AAC 256 (current Apple Music standard).

That is at least how i read it.

I still can't believe that Apple announced this lossless feature and currently the only headphones they sell that can support it are the $20 lightning (for iPhones/iPad Pros) or 3.5 mm wired earpods (Macs, iPad). 🤦🏻‍♂️

I assume the AirPods Max, even while being not “completely lossless”, will sound better than the Lightning & Wired Earpods to most People.

 

[DeepIn2U]

What’s your point? My point is that I’m fairly confident the H1 chip (used for wireless communication in the AirPods line) does *not* have Wi-Fi, just Bluetooth. Ergo no wireless “over Wi-Fi” lossless on AirPods Max. There will apparently be an option to listen to lossless via a cable, however. Just not wirelessly. Edit: no new information here about listening to lossless over a cable. Maybe it’s just being officially published in a support doc the same as Apple has reported to various outlets. Cabled listening is just with Apple’s 3.5mm to lightning cable which, because its designed to convert an analog signal to digital, doesn’t provide identical audio to the source.

Wi-Fi & Lossless applies to the HomePod. Which I am also happy to hear is not somehow tragically lacking necessary hardware to handle lossless, as others have claimed.

update:

musing apples own lightning to USB-C adapter WiLL allow pure lossless in 2-bit 48hz. This is an existing adapter

 

[4491275]

There are always battery implications to consider. So you want semi-lossless? How much tangible benefits in sound quality do you expect and at what cost? You may trade 20% better sound for 20% less battery life (all hypothetical), but most wouldn't when it's so paltry already.

Well I’ll tell you this… when listening to FLAC files in VLC iPhone over my AirPod Pros compared to the same tracks from Apple Music, it’s literally MILES BETTER and I don’t even have the best hearing with my right ear. So no one can tell me there’s no way to do better and that “we couldn’t tell the difference anyway” when that example’s still just using Apple’s puny AAC. Sony’s LDAC Bluetooth codec uses a lot more bandwidth, sounds better, and Apple is more than capable of competing with it—I wish they would.

As far as battery implications, LDAC works on small battery devices just fine and Apple could very easily mention battery life but offer a toggle like with Spatial Audio & Transparency—which also use more battery life but you still have those options though don’t you? Apple could very easily have offered better options on the Airpods Max even if only on those($550 hello?) and they didn’t even do that. What gives? This “changing music forever” gimmick was either rushed out too quickly before finished to beat/match other companies or they’ve truly just missed the mark completely on such a pivotal product category for them. Either way I’m disappointed in them.