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.
Lightning to 3.5mm -any point to buy?
- Thread starter tripleh3lix
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In my line of work I get to hear the original music before any post processing is done. I know exactly what all the codecs do as that’s one of the things my clients expect of me. I can obviously tell what the codecs are doing to the original sounds as the sounds are shaped (mixed and mastered) to get the best possible results based on the final output media be it vinyl, CD or live installation which is the majority of my work. If a mix or master is not up to scratch, it gets rejected. There are tests that allow you to see if levels, phase and dynamic range are within spec before the green light is given on any release. In
current times, the levels have gone up and the dynamic range of music has gone down. This is clearly visualised in the samples above. Yes you have to level match etc for direct comparison but there will be differences in the sonic elements of the music if you know what to listen out for.
ntlman
macrumors regular
For me, the differences that stick out when comparing iTunes AAC files with full rips are easily found in the cymbals and the natural reverb for any heavy bass elements like bass guitar, floor toms or kick drums. In AAC or MP3, any intricate cymbal or hi hat work tends to become very distorted, and the natural "whomp"-iness of those heavy bass elements get drowned out by the louder "attack" for those elements brought up into the mix.
bigshot
macrumors 6502
I'm a producer and I've supervised more mixes than I can count too. When you talk about mastering, yes there are significant differences. But if you take a bounce down from 24/96 to 16/44.1 and then encode it at AAC 256 VBR, you aren't going to hear any differences between those three files. If you do, you have your dithering set wrong. All of those formats are audibly transparent to the human ear. For the purposes of listening to music in the home, they are all identical.
I've found the common denominator between people who claim to hear differences between lossless and high data rate lossy is that they have never done a line level matched, direct A/B switched blind listening test. The second you apply controls to eliminate the effects of bias and perceptual error, all differences dissolve.
I have a test that compares three codecs at three different data rates along with lossless. If anyone would like me to share the test with them so they can find out for themselves where their threshold of perception lies, I'd be happy to do that.
Yup that’s right but is also obvious. We’re not comparing AAC files however right? Listen to a 24/96, 16/24 and AAC and they will sound different. Isn’t that what we’re discussing?
bigshot
macrumors 6502
There's no such thing as 16/24. In your line of work you know that, right?
By definition, any file that reaches audible transparency sounds the same as the original signal. AAC 256 VBR is audibly transparent, so yes, it sounds the same as 24/96 or 16/44.1.
I'm not convinced that this is true. All I've seen is people conjecturing, but for there to be a DAC, ADC *and* AAC encoder all inside the lightning plug, and none of those generating any noticeable heat, would be quite a feat. There is also effectively no delay when using the cable which an encoder would usually introduce.
Yup made a mistake it should be 16/44.1. What I’m saying is there is a difference in formats like we’re talking about here. FLAC compared to AAC for example. There is a discernible difference between the 2. Lossless vs Lossy. I can easily hear the difference and if you’re telling me there isn’t that’s simply not true.
bigshot
macrumors 6502
As I said before, it is pointless to generalize about lossy formats without specifying data rates. AAC 128 might be discernible from lossless, but AAC 320 VBR definitely isn't. It's easy to make impossible claims in internet forums where you're anonymous but I would like to see you try to "easily hear the difference" in a blind test with level matching. Anyone who has actually done a listening test like this knows it isn't "easy" to discern high data rate AAC from lossless. I think you're talking through your hat.
Ok, you yourself just said that it isn’t “easy” to discern the difference. Implying there is a difference. Whatever. I’ll stop talking through my hat.
Julien
macrumors G4
How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?
A hi-def test for your ears (and your audio equipment): Listen to these songs and see if you can tell the difference between an MP3 and an uncompressed audio file.
www.npr.org
ntlman
macrumors regular
Apple's own support pages acknowledge that if one wants to listen to songs "on audiophile-quality sound systems without losing audio quality", then lossless or AIFF encoding should be used.
support.apple.com
The songs sold on iTunes are 256 Constant Bit Rate, not 320 Variable BR.
Choose import settings in iTunes on PC
In iTunes on PC, choose import settings for greater control over file size or quality when importing files into your library.
The songs sold on iTunes are 256 Constant Bit Rate, not 320 Variable BR.
bigshot
macrumors 6502
The exec in charge of Apple Music says there is no audible difference, so Apple is focusing on supporting and developing spatial audio, not lossless.
Lossless definitely has more data. If you go by the numbers it is "higher quality". But human hearing is finite. There are things we can hear, and things we can't. For the purposes of listening to music in your home, high data rate lossy is all you really need. High bit rates and sampling rates and lossless FLACs are there to assuage the OCD of collectors. They lay in bed and worry about losing sound they can't hear and convince themselves they can hear the unhearable. Sure, it's nice to have nice big chunky files of your favorite album, but the truth is that all humans have the same limits on hearing. We're all subject to an upper frequency limit. We all have a limited ability to hear broad dynamics. And we all are subject to the effects of masking. Audio compression codecs have advanced a lot in the past decade. They've now gotten to the point where they are compact, universally supported and they're completely transparent. It doesn't matter any more if a file is lossless or not. It all sounds just as good, regardless of how expensive your stereo is or how golden your ears are.
Lossless definitely has more data. If you go by the numbers it is "higher quality". But human hearing is finite. There are things we can hear, and things we can't. For the purposes of listening to music in your home, high data rate lossy is all you really need. High bit rates and sampling rates and lossless FLACs are there to assuage the OCD of collectors. They lay in bed and worry about losing sound they can't hear and convince themselves they can hear the unhearable. Sure, it's nice to have nice big chunky files of your favorite album, but the truth is that all humans have the same limits on hearing. We're all subject to an upper frequency limit. We all have a limited ability to hear broad dynamics. And we all are subject to the effects of masking. Audio compression codecs have advanced a lot in the past decade. They've now gotten to the point where they are compact, universally supported and they're completely transparent. It doesn't matter any more if a file is lossless or not. It all sounds just as good, regardless of how expensive your stereo is or how golden your ears are.
Last edited:
ntlman
macrumors regular
@bigshot
Sigh. To take this to your logical end,
Sigh. To take this to your logical end,
- Apple AAC 320 VBR files are just as good as lossless; unfortunately Apple doesn't agree because they don't offer music files in AAC 320 VBR format in iTunes or Apple Music
- Apple "lossless" has no discernible advantage in audio quality vs standard AAC files, which is why Apple went to the trouble of putting the "lossless" option in iOS under Settings > Music > Audio Quality
- We should ignore Apple's own support documents touting the benefits of lossless audio, and view Apple Music's very public promise to provide 20 million lossless files by the end of the year as empty posturing, and instead rely on the word of the Apple executive who was in charge of the HomePod
- Apple is going through all of this effort to host larger files for users to stream despite the lack of real audio benefit because they believe in giving users the final say in choice when it comes to listening to music (just like the headphone jack on their smartphones), and not because their competitors like Spotify and Amazon Music have already pivoted to it as their next subscriber growth opportunity
Last edited:
bigshot
macrumors 6502
1) AAC 320 VBR sound just the same as lossless. So does AAC 256 VBR, which is the standard setting for Apple Music. For 99% of recordings, AAC 192 VBR sounds the same as lossless. AAC is a modern codec that is capable of achieving audible transparency at moderate data rates.
2) We should not take the word of marketing copy touting features. We should listen to the overwhelming evidence from controlled listening tests showing that moderate to high data rate lossy is indistinguishable from lossless. Better yet, we should conduct controlled listening tests ourselves to know using our own ears. I would be happy to help you do that if you are interested in finding out the truth.
3) Apple is introducing lossless audio because all the other services are doing it, not because it offers a benefit in sound quality. The head of Apple Music has said publicly that they are not focused on supporting lossless. They are focused on developing spatial audio, which has the potential to make actual improvements in perceived sound quality, not just placebo.
Quoted from a forum on audio science...
Eddy Cue is Apple’s senior vice president of services and the person who oversees Apple Music. He didn’t mince words when he told Billboard that the sudden proliferation of lossless audio isn’t going to significantly evolve or change how we listen to music. “There’s no question it’s not going to be lossless,” he said when asked what technologies will bring about the “next-gen” of music streaming. Cue firmly stands on the side of the crowd that argues most people can’t hear any difference between CD-quality or hi-res tracks and the AAC or MP3 files that’ve been filling their ears for so long now. He did acknowledge that the higher-bit rate tracks might matter to music lovers with particularly sharp hearing or premium audio equipment, but he was also direct about how niche that group is.
“The reality of lossless is: if you take 100 people and you take a stereo song in lossless and you take a song that’s been in Apple Music that’s compressed, I don’t know if it’s 99 or 98 can’t tell the difference.” Cue revealed that he has regularly done blind tests with the Apple Music team, and they confirm how rare it is for anyone to be able to consistently recognize lossless audio. “You can tell somebody, ‘Oh, you’re listening to a lossless [song],’ and they tell you, ‘Oh, wow. That sounds incredible.’ They’re just saying it because you told them it’s lossless and it sounds like the right thing to say, but you just can’t tell.”
End quote
I have done tests myself on professional recording equipment (a Pro Tools workstation in a recording studio). I couldn't detect any difference between lossy and lossless at rates above AAC 192 VBR with a level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison. I have administered listening tests to dozens of people, and not one of them has been able to discern a difference at those data rates. I would like to meet someone who can discern a difference. I've had people tell me they can, but they won't put their claims to the test with a controlled test. Anecdotal claims are as useless as people who claim to see ghosts or communicate with the dead without proving it.
2) We should not take the word of marketing copy touting features. We should listen to the overwhelming evidence from controlled listening tests showing that moderate to high data rate lossy is indistinguishable from lossless. Better yet, we should conduct controlled listening tests ourselves to know using our own ears. I would be happy to help you do that if you are interested in finding out the truth.
3) Apple is introducing lossless audio because all the other services are doing it, not because it offers a benefit in sound quality. The head of Apple Music has said publicly that they are not focused on supporting lossless. They are focused on developing spatial audio, which has the potential to make actual improvements in perceived sound quality, not just placebo.
Quoted from a forum on audio science...
Eddy Cue is Apple’s senior vice president of services and the person who oversees Apple Music. He didn’t mince words when he told Billboard that the sudden proliferation of lossless audio isn’t going to significantly evolve or change how we listen to music. “There’s no question it’s not going to be lossless,” he said when asked what technologies will bring about the “next-gen” of music streaming. Cue firmly stands on the side of the crowd that argues most people can’t hear any difference between CD-quality or hi-res tracks and the AAC or MP3 files that’ve been filling their ears for so long now. He did acknowledge that the higher-bit rate tracks might matter to music lovers with particularly sharp hearing or premium audio equipment, but he was also direct about how niche that group is.
“The reality of lossless is: if you take 100 people and you take a stereo song in lossless and you take a song that’s been in Apple Music that’s compressed, I don’t know if it’s 99 or 98 can’t tell the difference.” Cue revealed that he has regularly done blind tests with the Apple Music team, and they confirm how rare it is for anyone to be able to consistently recognize lossless audio. “You can tell somebody, ‘Oh, you’re listening to a lossless [song],’ and they tell you, ‘Oh, wow. That sounds incredible.’ They’re just saying it because you told them it’s lossless and it sounds like the right thing to say, but you just can’t tell.”
End quote
I have done tests myself on professional recording equipment (a Pro Tools workstation in a recording studio). I couldn't detect any difference between lossy and lossless at rates above AAC 192 VBR with a level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison. I have administered listening tests to dozens of people, and not one of them has been able to discern a difference at those data rates. I would like to meet someone who can discern a difference. I've had people tell me they can, but they won't put their claims to the test with a controlled test. Anecdotal claims are as useless as people who claim to see ghosts or communicate with the dead without proving it.
Last edited:
bigshot
macrumors 6502
The answer to the original poster's question in this thread is simple. The only reason to use Apple's cable is if you are using a source without bluetooth. The cable adds nothing to the sound quality. It is just for compatibility with older equipment with standard headphone output.
I think you’re mistaken. An iPhone without Bluetooth? Compatibility with standard output? It’s for phones without a standard 3.5mm output, so standard headphones with a cable can be used.
Why is the OP asking about the dongle and wireless earpods? They’re not compatible anyway?
bigshot
macrumors 6502
I'm talking about plugging the AirPods into a standard amp with a headphone jack. It's a $35 cable with ADC built in to convert analog headphone output to AAC so you can plug a standard amp into the AirPods. It's a bidirectional ADC and DAC. You can use it to play your iPhone on wired speakers too.
The Apple DAC dongle doesn't apply to AirPods. That is for standard wired headphones.
The Apple DAC dongle doesn't apply to AirPods. That is for standard wired headphones.
Last edited:
ntlman
macrumors regular
The massive quote dump of Eddy Cue talking about lossless didn't provide anything but his own assertions. And even if he's right, what does that say about Apple: the head of the AM division is cynically waving off a feature that is simultaneously being heavily marketed by his own company on their website? I don't think suggesting Apple's just being cynically disingenuous to their own customers is the great defense you think it is.
As for Eddy Cue, this is the same Eddy Cue who
As for Eddy Cue, this is the same Eddy Cue who
- Released the HomePod with no Bluetooth or 3.5mm connectivity for external services/devices, unlike every competing product on the market
- Also thinks NFTs are a thing
Apple's Eddy Cue Reportedly Advising Tom Brady's New NFT Company
NFL star quarterback Tom Brady is teaming up with entrepreneur Richard Rosenblatt to launch a new NFT company called Autograph this spring, and Apple executive Eddy Cue will serve as an advisor to the company, according to CNN. As a Senior Vice President at Apple, Cue oversees many of the...
www.macrumors.com
Last edited:
rosegoldoli
macrumors 6502a
theres still a point in buying it. as the music you hear will be the lossless bit rate but a digital recreation of it which apple cant call “completely lossless” cause its not a 1 to 1 faithful conversion
“Apple tells The Verge that when you play a 24-bit / 48 kHz Apple Music lossless track from an iPhone into the AirPods Max using both the cable and Lightning dongle, the audio is converted to analog and then re-digitized to 24-bit / 48 kHz. That re-digitization step is the reason that Apple can’t say you’re hearing pure lossless audio; it’s not an identical match to the source”
“Apple tells The Verge that when you play a 24-bit / 48 kHz Apple Music lossless track from an iPhone into the AirPods Max using both the cable and Lightning dongle, the audio is converted to analog and then re-digitized to 24-bit / 48 kHz. That re-digitization step is the reason that Apple can’t say you’re hearing pure lossless audio; it’s not an identical match to the source”
bigshot
macrumors 6502
That's interesting. That says that the native data rate for the AirPods Max is 24/48. If that is the case, would it be possible to convert to that in the phone and pass it to the AirPods Max through a cable directly as a file without using the ADC? There must be some reason they came up with the ADC/DAC 2 way cable. Maybe the cache isn't big enough to hold a lossless file. Or maybe the chip that processes the audio is the bottleneck. It's curious. I would have thought that the problem is that the AirPods Max can't handle any other codec but bluetooth codecs. But there are no bluetooth codecs that are 24/48.
That article also says that Apple has no intention of supporting lossless with the AirPods. They're focusing on spatial audio. That's smart. There's more room for improvement using DSPs than there is by just shoveling in more inaudible zeros and ones.
That article also says that Apple has no intention of supporting lossless with the AirPods. They're focusing on spatial audio. That's smart. There's more room for improvement using DSPs than there is by just shoveling in more inaudible zeros and ones.
rumz
macrumors 65816
Yeah. I’ve noted previously that the AirPods Max show up as capable of 24/48 in the audio midi app on the Mac.
the cache suggestion is interesting— iFixit’s tear down identified 256mb of flash memory on the logic board in each ear cup. Should be plenty for your average music track, no?
To me it boils down to weather these have been engineered in such a way that feeding the DSP/DAC/amp in the AirPods max directly is not possible. I compare the design of the Max to the B&O H95 which function very similarly— cannot be passively driven— signal has to go through B&O’s in-headphone processor and amp for you to get sound. No doubt employs an ADC between its 3.5mm input and that signal path. It does, however, function as a usb DAC/amp if i connect it directly to my MacBook Pro with a usb-c cable (to the usb-c input on the h95).
Even if it’s technically possible, I don’t expect Apple would make that change. But who knows. They’re missing out on an opportunity to sell an obscenely overpriced lightning > lightning cable or even usb-c > lightning “Audio” cable 😝
Last edited: