Good point. Might be why it’s WWDC as it’s software. Quite a move by Apple if this is true. Makes sense though as they sell hardware that can make better use of higher qualities.
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.
Rumor: Apple to Announce Third-Generation AirPods and HiFi Apple Music Tier in 'Coming Weeks'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can we talk about these upcoming AirPods? I was about to buy a pair of AirPods Pro from Amazon while they're $197. Would this be a mistake?
"The third-generation AirPods are expected to feature a design that's similar to the design language of the AirPods Pro but lack certain "Pro" features such as Active Noise Cancelation."
I can't tell if that means the new AirPods will be better than the the current AirPods Pro? I'm mainly concerned about sound quality.
"The third-generation AirPods are expected to feature a design that's similar to the design language of the AirPods Pro but lack certain "Pro" features such as Active Noise Cancelation."
I can't tell if that means the new AirPods will be better than the the current AirPods Pro? I'm mainly concerned about sound quality.
Not disputing your experience, but mine is very different. I have the Music App running permanently on my Mac and have never had the reliability problems you do. It gets rebooted on those rare occasions that my Mac does.
The UI may not be the best. I tend to not particularly notice these things (just get on and use it without giving too much thought to how it is done).
As others have said, mainly due to file size. I can't tell the difference in the audio quality, but as I like to keep copies of the files local I would actually pay more for the compressed versions if that was the choice. File size is far more important to me than audio quality that I/my equipment can't benefit from.
If the new AirPods don't have NC, I would recommend getting the current Pro. AirPods with NC can also be used as basic ear plugs.
Perhaps so. We’ll have to see what they mean by “Hi-Fi” service first. But I’d assume it will make an apparent improvement since Max is really an audio processor in and of itself.
I hope I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that Apple Music's new "Hi Fi" tier will stream audio at the equivalent of 44.1kHz/16 bits. Bascically, the same audio quality that anyone with a CD player has experienced for roughly 40 years. How forward looking of Apple.
Just how ridiculous would this be? Imagine if the best video quality available on Apple TV was 720x480i (the approximate resolution of 1980s NTSC broadcasts). Yes, it's that bad.
Is it too much to ask Apple to strive for better than CD quality? They've been stockpiling hi resolution digital masters for years. And it's not just resolution. I'd like Apple to make a real commitment to developing its spatial audio technology. It's possible to create truly convincing surround sound imaging through headphones. I know this for a fact - I've demo'd the Smyth Research line of headphone surround processors. I found the surround imaging utterly convincing. But those processors are very expensive, and have no portable application. There's enough technology in the iPhone and the Airpods Max that I think Apple could make hi quality surround sound music through headpones a reality. But it's hard for me to imagine Apple doing this - after all, they're several years late to the lossless audio party.
Just how ridiculous would this be? Imagine if the best video quality available on Apple TV was 720x480i (the approximate resolution of 1980s NTSC broadcasts). Yes, it's that bad.
Is it too much to ask Apple to strive for better than CD quality? They've been stockpiling hi resolution digital masters for years. And it's not just resolution. I'd like Apple to make a real commitment to developing its spatial audio technology. It's possible to create truly convincing surround sound imaging through headphones. I know this for a fact - I've demo'd the Smyth Research line of headphone surround processors. I found the surround imaging utterly convincing. But those processors are very expensive, and have no portable application. There's enough technology in the iPhone and the Airpods Max that I think Apple could make hi quality surround sound music through headpones a reality. But it's hard for me to imagine Apple doing this - after all, they're several years late to the lossless audio party.
Interesting if they just upgrade to CD/lossless quality at same price...
I can tell the difference between Apple Music and lossless/CD's even in my car.
I can hear the difference between CD's/lossless and SACD's/Hi-Res files ONLY if I'm using my hi-fi setup or sennheiser headphones with headphone amp.
I pretty much only listen to classical music. I currently use qobuz but I've tried tidal and deezer hi-fi. I'm also in an apple one premier plan with family.
I can tell the difference between Apple Music and lossless/CD's even in my car.
I can hear the difference between CD's/lossless and SACD's/Hi-Res files ONLY if I'm using my hi-fi setup or sennheiser headphones with headphone amp.
I pretty much only listen to classical music. I currently use qobuz but I've tried tidal and deezer hi-fi. I'm also in an apple one premier plan with family.
24bit / 192kHz / whatever gets even more useless than going up from 256 AAC to lossless. Trust me, you wouldn't be able to pass a blind listen test, even on five figure great equipment, let alone AirPods Max or Homepods. We're simply entering the psychological "I'm such an audiophile" dimension here.
EDIT: Sorry, I missed that you mainly talked about surround here. This may contribute an improvement indeed, I don't have enough knowledge about this technology to judge.
Last edited:
@ian87w totally agree that what mixing studios do to music is appalling. Like what industrial farming has done to fruit and veg: the difference being it's easy to remember what music should sound like by listening to a live acoustic performance. There is even modulation in rhythm and pitch!!
Yep, I would expect sales to be dropping off. I'm sure I'm not the only one holding off buying to see what the AirPods 3 offer. I love the fit and function of the originals (love the tap function) and am currently using the AirPods Pro - which are frankly uncomfortable. And the squeezing of the stem for stop and play is pretty awful. Would prefer that the Pros had tap to play as well. If the stems weren't so long on the regular AirPods they'd be perfect. So waiting to see what the next version is like. But damn, these things are expensive for a disposable product.
Thanks, but I prefer to trust my own ears. I listen to streaming music on a headphone system consisting of a Meridian Prime Headphone Amplifier (with Meridian Prime power supply) and a pair of Sennheiser 800S headphones. I've certainly heard 96/24 files that sounded better than their 44.1/16 versions. I can't tell the difference between 192/24 and 96/24. And of course I've heard 44.1/16 that sound fantasic. My opinion, and it's one I'm sticking by, is that the difference between CD quality and 96/24 is noticeable with good equipment and material that was well recorded and mixed - particularly acoustic material. It's also my opinion that the difference isn't so great that a poorly mastered hi res audio file will necessarily sound better than a well mastered Redbook file. But at the end of the day, Apple and other streaming music services ought to strive to make sound quality as good as possible. And there's simply no reason to limit music streaming to mp3 quality, or even CD quality, when there's plenty of bandwidth and storage is cheap.
And if Apple didn't think that hi res audio sounded better, why would they ask the record lablels to supply them with hi res digital masters? They've been doing that since the "mastered for iTunes" program began. Apple knows that getting the best sounding mp3 file means starting with the best sounding master. But I don't think Apple can credibly claim that the mp3 files are indistinguishable from the master. Personally, I'd like to hear the master rather than an mp3 approximation.
You just need an SACD player: provides a vinyl-like natural analog sound (with suitably recorded source) without the deterioration of vinyl with repetitive use (+ much wider dynamic range, of course)
When listening to crappy mp3s in the car, the lossy distorted digital nature of mp3 is very obvious indeed - even in a car with road noise, wind and the rest.
Awesome. A Hifi tier might be what finally gets me to use Apple Music (currently using Qobuz).
Sound reasonable, especially as you're talking as a Sennheiser HD800S user (fantastic headphones, I owned the "normal" HD 800s a few years ago) and differentiating between 44/16 to 96/24 where you still can tell the difference, but not anymore above that. Maybe there really still is a significant difference for normal ears on such an high-end equipment when it comes to 44/16 and 96/24. People believing that 192 sounds even more better, are definitely wrong though and victims for 5.000$ cables and 900$ "clean audiophile power" sockets ...
As to your other point: I consider hi-res and "mastered for iTunes" two different things. I'm willing to believe much more easily that a recording with a new / different master can sound significantly better than when it only comes to a bitrate difference 256 AAC vs. Lossless. Never really compared those "mastered for iTunes" albums, though, so I don't know what really is different to the "normal" version on Spotify or CD for example.
Lots of companies have quit pressing SACDs. Sony discontinued producing the decoding chip a few years ago; Sony Classical quit releasing SACD versions. Vinyl is also more popular right now than SACD ever was. I have about 50 SACD discs of classical music. Hi-Res downloads are better nowadays anyway.
As others have stated, a large number of controlled tests have determined beyond any reasonable doubt that high bitrate AAC, MP3, and Ogg Vorbis files are indistinguishable from lossless when listening blind without knowledge of what is being listened to. Here’s one recent study conducted by the BBC:
And a test done by a popular internet audio authority:
archimago.blogspot.com
And one more:
cdvsmp3.wordpress.com
Confirmation bias and placebo is very strong my friends:
nwavguy.blogspot.com
All of this is to say that this move to ”hi-fi” is likely more about marketing and responding to Amazon HD and the upcoming Spotify HiFi than sound quality (Tidal and Qobuz are rounding errors in the larger streaming wars).
And a test done by a popular internet audio authority:
High Bitrate MP3 Internet Blind Test: Part 2 - RESULTS
A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.
archimago.blogspot.com
And one more:
Blind Test Results
The file size of an iTunes song is only a fraction of its CD counterpart because it has been compressed discarding data in the process. Is the audio quality degraded? More than a year ago I devised…
cdvsmp3.wordpress.com
Confirmation bias and placebo is very strong my friends:
What We Hear
FIRST SOME UPDATES: This is a promising sign. I’ve managed to publish another article in less than a week and it’s a big one! Since last wee...
nwavguy.blogspot.com
All of this is to say that this move to ”hi-fi” is likely more about marketing and responding to Amazon HD and the upcoming Spotify HiFi than sound quality (Tidal and Qobuz are rounding errors in the larger streaming wars).
Last edited:
Although I don’t use any of the subscription services, i welcome this development. Never understood how one could pay for music from iTunes and received a compressed version. My digital collection consists of my rips in FLAC and few high-res purchases. The rest is on vinyl, mostly sourcing original releases or re-releases originating from original analogue masters (Zappa for example).
To my ears and with my equipment, compressed music just doesn’t cut it.
To my ears and with my equipment, compressed music just doesn’t cut it.
There is no way Apple won't re-introduce a high end speaker. I mostly believe this because of how much effort they put into the original HomePod, and also the fact that they came out with the HomePod mini...
The name alone implies that there will be more full-featured speakers like the original HomePod.