New AirPods Pro Do Not Support Lossless Apple Music

[cbautis2]

Well you can't hear the difference between 16/44.1 and anything "higher definition" either - another scam of the audio world. But they're all the original 16bit 44.1 format, AAC 256kbps vs flac.

On another note I do slightly envy anyone who can listen to the same track "thousands" of times.

On the contrary it's actually easier to hear differences between oversampled 16/44.1 KHz files to DSD512 than the difference between 256 Kbps AAC and 16/44.1 lossless format

 

[dannys1]

On the contrary it's actually easier to hear differences between oversampled 16/44.1 KHz files to DSD512 than the difference between 256 Kbps AAC and 16/44.1 lossless format

You can't "upsample" music and have an audible difference though. Or perceived sound difference will be how you DAC handles the conversion back to analog from that high fideltiy - it's not improving the original signal, it can't create data that isn't there. It might sound better to you, but it's not how it originally sounded or how the engineer intended.

 

[Equals42]

You don't need lossless audio in £170 in ear buds - you can't hear the difference. You can't hear the difference on a £10,000 mastering studio setup with golden ears, it's been proven time and time again by the worlds best ears. No one here has the worlds best ears, despite what placebo they think - the upgrades to the drivers and processing are much much much more important and impactful.

If they tell you otherwise, they're wrong.

Edit - click disagree all you want, you're wrong - scientifically proven to be wrong, no ifs, no buts, no opinions, you're wrong, end of.

If you would simply cite a source or two for your scientifically proven argument, it would be more believable. Just mic dropping something you declare as proven science doesn’t really prove a point.

 

[cbautis2]

You can't "upsample" music and have an audible difference though. Or perceived sound difference will be how you DAC handles the conversion back to analog from that high fideltiy - it's not improving the original signal, it can't create data that isn't there. It might sound better to you, but it's not how it originally sounded or how the engineer intended.

You can improve the 16/44.1 lossless SUBJECTIVELY. It's called mathematical interpolation. It's similar to upsampling a 480p to 1080p and difference is noticeably audible.

BTW. Airpods upsample 44.1 KHz to 48 KHz before it's sent to Bluetooth

 

[dannys1]

You can improve the 16/44.1 lossless SUBJECTIVELY. It's called mathematical interpolation. It's similar to upsampling a 480p to 1080p and difference is noticeably audible.

View attachment 2084153

BTW. Airpods upsample 44.1 KHz to 48 KHz before it's sent to Bluetooth

But again, upsampling an image or a video is not adding an missing data - in fact you have to use AI to do that in which case it's genuinely changing the image.

It's not adding anything into the audio, it's pointless. I could upsample and down sample a million times and it sound the same. The only use to upsampling is during production and mixing - it helps to upsample to 96Khz to prevent anti-aliasing affect during digital recording which have no where to go in the upper sound spectrum and thus get mixed back into the audible signal - even then it's very very hard to hear and you'd need to be trained in it - but if you do it on hundreds of tracks across a mix it can have an undesirable affect.

There's no reason to ever use above 96KHz when mixing or producing a track as it solves this problem - and once it's done and processed there's no audible difference when it's back to 44.1KHz because again it's already beyond what the human ear can hear. It's fine to upsample to 48KHz, the Apple TV does it too, it's easy to set MacOS to do it, but it doesn't make any difference to the sound negative or positive.

In fact if you're not careful you have issues recording at 96khz and above with said ultrasonic frequencies mentioned above folding down - to fix this, there are filters such as this which literally hard bandpass any frequencies above 20khz - if you're interested into how and why, here's someone who's made one explaining

So yes, there really is little sense in upsampling music we've already hard bandpassed to 20khz - you're literally wasting CPU cycles and electricity.

 

[cbautis2]

But again, upsampling an image or a video is not adding an missing data - in fact you have to use AI to do that in which case it's genuinely changing the image.

It's not adding anything into the audio, it's pointless. I could upsample and down sample a million times and it sound the same. The only use to upsampling is during production and mixing - it helps to upsample to 96Khz to prevent anti-aliasing affect during digital recording which have no where to go in the upper sound spectrum and thus get mixed back into the audible signal - even then it's very very hard to hear and you'd need to be trained in it - but if you do it on hundreds of tracks across a mix it can have an undesirable affect.

There's no reason to ever use above 96KHz when mixing or producing a track as it solves this problem - and once it's done and processed there's no audible difference when it's back to 44.1KHz because again it's already beyond what the human ear can hear. It's fine to upsample to 48KHz, the Apple TV does it too, it's easy to set MacOS to do it, but it doesn't make any difference to the sound negative or positive.

In fact if you're not careful you have issues recording at 96khz and above with said ultrasonic frequencies mentioned above folding down - to fix this, there are filters such as this which literally hard bandpass any frequencies above 20khz - if you're interested into how and why, here's someone who's made one explaining

So yes, there really is little sense in upsampling music we've already hard bandpassed to 20khz - you're literally wasting CPU cycles and electricity.

You add mathematical points to have an approximation at those sample rates that is in between the original samples. The method makes an audible difference. You should really buy a non-oversampling DAC and try it out yourself even perform blind test. Then use the same DAC and have HQPlayer oversample it to DSD512 and A/B test it.

When studio downsamples for music, the original samples that is taken at 1/44.1 KHz still remain and unless the studio equipment is exactly the same as yours, you won't have the exact match as the original Hi-res files when the DAC oversamples prior to conversion.

I'm not talking about FR here, but oversampling filter differences (linear, minimum, closed-form, apodizing, etc.)

 

[dannys1]

The method makes an audible difference.

It doesn't - it's more audiophile nonsense - i'd bet half a million both files null to nothing. But that's fine, you believe whatever you want.

 

[cbautis2]

It doesn't - it's more audiophile nonsense - i'd bet half a million both files null to nothing. But that's fine, you believe whatever you want.

Same to you. You never even tried to perform an easy test that I proposed and conjure up preconceived beliefs that are NOT even objective. So much for being an "audio engineer"

 

[Devin Breeding]

Why not just use AirPlay Wi-Fi for lossless what’s the point of having Apple Music in lossless if no headphones support it

Car Audio is where I notice it. Lossless isn't exactly necessary but the difference from wired carplay audio to bluetooth audio in the same vehicle with a decent sound system is drastic.

 

[deevey]

Car Audio is where I notice it. Lossless isn't exactly necessary but the difference from wired carplay audio to bluetooth audio in the same vehicle with a decent sound system is drastic.

Is it possible the car stereo using A2DP rather than AAC codec via bluetooth?

 

[dannys1]

Same to you. You never even tried to perform an easy test that I proposed and conjure up preconceived beliefs that are NOT even objective. So much for being an "audio engineer"

You're welcome to prove to me the two files don't null. I'll wait.

 

[Devin Breeding]

Is it possible the car stereo using A2DP rather than AAC codec via bluetooth?

I’m not sure to be honest because I prefer having Carplay running anyways so didnt bother to look into what codec is being used. My response was to answer this “what’s the point of having Apple Music in lossless if no headphones support it?” that someone asked. Pointing out the use of Apple Music in lossless beyond just headphones. Quality home and car systems is where you’ll really notice higher compression.

 

[Sertrand Berlet]

Ultimately it’s not the compression quality of the audio so much as what our brains fill in for missing information. That’s why lossless or lossy, mp3 or mp4 don’t really matter. It’s all in the ear, um, the brain of the beholder.

This is a common misconception. Our brain isn't filling in blanks left behind bij psychoacoustic codecs like MP3 and AAC. Those codecs filter out stuff we can't hear anyway (because it's masked by a louder sound for example). Our brain receives a sound wave, not binary data that has to be processed first.

This is also the reason listening to lossy audio isn't more tiring for your brain than listening to lossless audio. A whole bunch of audiophiles will tell you otherwise, but they're wrong. Plain and simple. Is there a difference between lossless and lossy? Yes. Is it detectable? It sure is (for a very, very small group of trained professionals). Can the general population pass a double blind test? 99,9% of them, No.

 

[dannys1]

I’m not sure to be honest because I prefer having Carplay running anyways so didnt bother to look into what codec is being used. My response was to answer this “what’s the point of having Apple Music in lossless if no headphones support it?” that someone asked. Pointing out the use of Apple Music in lossless beyond just headphones. Quality home and car systems is where you’ll really notice higher compression.

But it'll be what he said - no car system in the world would let you hear the difference between lossy and lossless - wired could be doing all kinds of things, many of which will make a much bigger difference than if if it's a lossy codec or not (as we've established above you won't be able to hear the difference on £3000+ headphones in a perfect environment never mind on a car stereo) - wired is probably giving you a big volume boost for a start.

 

[Devin Breeding]

But it'll be what he said - no car system in the world would let you hear the difference between lossy and lossless - wired could be doing all kinds of things, many of which will make a much bigger difference than if if it's a lossy codec or not (as we've established above you won't be able to hear the difference on £3000+ headphones in a perfect environment never mind on a car stereo) - wired is probably giving you a big volume boost for a start.

Which is why I said in a previous post that “lossless isn’t exactly necessary.” Again was explaining to him an alternative use case other than headphones that don’t support it.

Personally, I would rather have lossless as an option if only so I know in my head I’m getting the best quality I can get out of it even if I can’t tell the difference. Leaves no questions

Wired is giving a volume boost yes but BT sound is clearly inferior on a good system. I’m not talking some 1990 Honda Civic with a Subwoofer. Most luxury cars 2000 or newer are engineered to be acousticly tuned audio listening spaces

 

[dannys1]

Wired is giving a volume boost yes but BT sound is clearly inferior on a good system. I’m not talking some 1990 Honda Civic with a Subwoofer. Most luxury cars 2000 or newer are engineered to be acousticly tuned audio listening spaces

But they're still cars. They sound fun, but they don't sound detailed or accurate and they can't against road and wind noise in the size they are. No matter what car you have - the sound is about as far away from "accurate' and detailed as you can possibly get.

 

[Devin Breeding]

But they're still cars. They sound fun, but they don't sound detailed or accurate and they can't against road and wind noise in the size they are. No matter what car you have - the sound is about as far away from "accurate' and detailed as you can possibly get.

Ok Danny

 

[deevey]

But they're still cars. They sound fun, but they don't sound detailed or accurate and they can't against road and wind noise in the size they are. No matter what car you have - the sound is about as far away from "accurate' and detailed as you can possibly get.

"Accurate and detailed" will not show up differences any better or worse than speakers with a frequency response that can highlight them.

Plenty of bad speakers (and headphones) can turn out the frequencies, sound like crap, but you'll still be able to tell the difference if the audible differences are in the range that those speakers can produce. In my case it's in the very top (15khz+) end I notice things either muddy or missing, in the range that most people half my age can't even hear anymore. Thats where I noticed the variations in the Daft Punk track in your A/B. Something I know pretty well played on a mediocre set of headphones, that I know well that are simply capable of highlighting those frequencies.

Now if I wasn't A/B'ing would I have noticed any difference on a normal day? Probably not. But that doesn't mean it's "good enough", we should be past "good enough" or "acceptable" and strive for best whenever possible.

It's that a bit like saying "Passenger planes don't need to be faster", but only because only a handful have ever experienced a flight on Concorde.

 

[Sertrand Berlet]

"Accurate and detailed" will not show up differences any better or worse than speakers with a frequency response that can highlight them.

Plenty of bad speakers (and headphones) can turn out the frequencies, sound like crap, but you'll still be able to tell the difference if the audible differences are in the range that those speakers can produce. In my case it's in the very top (15khz+) end I notice things either muddy or missing, in the range that most people half my age can't even hear anymore. Thats where I noticed the variations in the Daft Punk track in your A/B. Something I know pretty well played on a mediocre set of headphones, that I know well that are simply capable of highlighting those frequencies.

Now if I wasn't A/B'ing would I have noticed any difference on a normal day? Probably not. But that doesn't mean it's "good enough", we should be past "good enough" or "acceptable" and strive for best whenever possible.

It's that a bit like saying "Passenger planes don't need to be faster", but only because only a handful have ever experienced a flight on Concorde.

A/B testing proves nothing. The fact your brain knows what you're listening to makes it perceive differences that aren't really there. That's why double blind testing (ABX) is crucial in the world of audio.

 

[deevey]

A/B testing proves nothing. The fact your brain knows what you're listening to makes it perceive differences that aren't really there. That's why double blind testing (ABX) is crucial in the world of audio.

Sorry, to clarify it was with the ABX test that Danny posted earlier in the thread.

 

[bsolar]

You add mathematical points to have an approximation at those sample rates that is in between the original samples. The method makes an audible difference. You should really buy a non-oversampling DAC and try it out yourself even perform blind test. Then use the same DAC and have HQPlayer oversample it to DSD512 and A/B test it.

That's because a non-oversampling DAC typically lacks a proper reconstruction filter.

According to the sampling theorem, the correct way to restore a digitally sampled signal requires a reconstruction filter, but if the DAC forfeits it, it's not going to properly reconstruct the signal.

Upsampling the input to a NOS-DAC attempts to overcome the lack of reconstruction filter, but it's not the correct way to reconstruct a signal as per sampling theorem.

 

[Swift]

The new AirPods Pro, despite featuring an all-new H2 chip and improved audio quality,

Honestly, the wireless part of the iPods Pro work on Bluetooth. How could Lossless music be transmitted over Bluetooth? Answer, it cannot. WiFi can. Can Wifi be miniaturized? Maybe,, I’m not sure, but you’d kind of have to plug them in to listen to it for the desired six or seven hours, right? Or, buy the AirPod Max headset, with the complicated wire. That has the bandwidth you need. Also, buy another pair of ears, or don’t listen to anything over 80Db for long times, and maybe you can stop the advance of age.

Expensive wired headsets can give you an improved sound, but you know, you have to set there tethered for a long time.

I think you can hear “lossless” sound, though, with a hugely expensive Hi-Fi system. Spend away.

 

[cbautis2]

That's because a non-oversampling DAC typically lacks a proper reconstruction filter.

According to the sampling theorem, the correct way to restore a digitally sampled signal requires a reconstruction filter, but if the DAC forfeits it, it's not going to properly reconstruct the signal.

Upsampling the input to a NOS-DAC attempts to overcome the lack of reconstruction filter, but it's not the correct way to reconstruct a signal as per sampling theorem.

Subjectively, NOS doesn't sound bad or else they would've never been thriving in sea of oversampling DACs. At least with a NOS DAC, you can tweak the sound more than just parametric EQing or DSP where you can't really tweak/minimize non-linear distortions or prefer the additional non-linear aliasing/distortion sound (which again DOES NOT SOUND BAD subjectively)

 

[bsolar]

Subjectively, NOS doesn't sound bad or else they would've never been thriving in sea of oversampling DACs. At least with a NOS DAC, you can tweak the sound more than just parametric EQing or DSP where you can't really tweak/minimize non-linear distortions or prefer the additional non-linear aliasing/distortion sound (which again DOES NOT SOUND BAD subjectively)

The job of a DAC is first and foremost to accurately reconstruct the sampled signal to its original analog form. To do that properly, a reconstruction filter is required. Forfeiting that means that the signal will not be properly reconstructed.

The result might or might not sound bad, but the point is that it does not accurately represent the original analog signal anymore.

 

[Devin Breeding]

A/B testing proves nothing. The fact your brain knows what you're listening to makes it perceive differences that aren't really there. That's why double blind testing (ABX) is crucial in the world of audio.

We should strive for the best available even if nobody can tell the difference. Doesn't have to be complicated.