Sidebar Sidebar
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 on May 18

matrix07 said:
It depends. on $20,000 speaker? I'll tell you one thing, I can't tell a difference between Hi-Res music (from DVD-Audio) and CD, despite protests from my friends who's an owner of those expensive speakers. If there's difference it is barely to hear. Bass has some difference but overall I'd say in blind test I wouldn't be able to point it out which one is which. Sounds impossible, right? Takes it what you will.
Do my friend possess better ear than me? I highly doubt it. (and I have a case to prove)
On less than $1,000 speaker, am I able to tell a difference between CD and AAC from that CD? On volume that's comfortable to my ears and on an ordinary room, not listening room? No. NOT AT ALL.

I didn't reach my conclusion from reading spec, reviews. It's from my actual testing and listening. YMMV.
Click to expand...
Totally agreed. I have done blind testing, and while with a lot of concentration and in a quiet room I can locate a difference around 70% of the time, it is extremely slight and quite difficult to differentiate between 256 AAC and Lossless (ALAC, FLAC, WAV). The 'coloration' of sound which some others have mentioned being applied to AAC 256 is generally slight. That's my experience.

Nevertheless, I would love to have a high-res audio choice/improvement. Who knows, maybe with increased fidelity streaming, we'll see improvements in mass audio devices as well. Since people will then want to hear the difference between 'old' standards and the new!
 
  • Like
Reactions: matrix07
FriendlyMackle said:
Exactly. Qualcomm owns aptx. Apple is equally capable of implementing a similar standard for which they wouldn't need to pay royalties. What I'm curious to know is if there is such an alternative? I know that with Bluetooth 5.1 the datastream capacity quadrupled (approximately), but I had read that would not likely be used by music standards. Though, I don't see why that couldn't be the case. I understand that not all of the increased bandwidth is actually 'available' for streaming data due to overhead, buffering, etc. But even a conservative estimate I'd made of the capacity increase would have allowed for (possibly) lossless compressed or near-lossless music streaming over Bluetooth. And that was just using a variable rate AAC, not a hopefully improved ALAC or something similar.
Click to expand...
There’s always UWB :)
www.eetimes.eu

Startup Repositions Ultra-Wideband for More Than Positioning - EE Times Europe

The ultra-wideband technology goes back to its roots with Canadian startup Spark Microsystems.
www.eetimes.eu www.eetimes.eu
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
Lvivske said:
No I agree, just not a good look to try and push dedication to music and also blatantly abandoning music for most consumers

I dont expect a windows program ever, seems more likely they push the web app and maybe do a win10 app in the future that just emulates it. Heck, the web app is barely any different than the MacOS app anyway.
Click to expand...
How many people actually use Windows to listen to music? Stereo/audio equipment these days connects to everything; and many people will stream via their phones, tablets, streaming speakers (Sonos, etc.), or I guess...a Windows computer. I would ask why, but I don't want to start a firestorm.

I'll also say that Windows users are not missing out on anything wonderful with iTunes (the desktop program). It is AWFUL, AWFUL, and I really could go on about how useless it is. If you are on Windows and using an application to manage your music (because, of course you will), I'm sure there is much better out there.
 
Unregistered 4U said:
There’s always UWB :)
www.eetimes.eu

Startup Repositions Ultra-Wideband for More Than Positioning - EE Times Europe

The ultra-wideband technology goes back to its roots with Canadian startup Spark Microsystems.
www.eetimes.eu www.eetimes.eu
Click to expand...
This UWB tech sounds (ha) amazing! I do wonder how long it might take to get to market (mass-market) devices for audio use. I love the fact that they describe use including 'body-area-networks'! YES.

Reading this article further, it mentions the iphone U1 chip being Ultra Wideband, but at a much higher power usage than the Spark implementation. Even so, could Apple use the UWB functionality in their phones or other devices to transmit audio streams (if not now, then in a future iteration)?
 
Last edited:
FriendlyMackle said:
This UWB tech sounds (ha) amazing! I do wonder how long it might take to get to market (mass-market) devices for audio use. I love the fact that they describe use including 'body-area-networks'! YES.

Reading this article further, it mentions the iphone U1 chip being Ultra Wideband, but at a much higher power usage than the Spark implementation. Even so, could Apple use the UWB functionality in their phones or other devices to transmit audio streams (if not now, then in a future iteration)?
Click to expand...
They could, they’re only using it for positioning at this time. I’d like to see full duplex audio such that you don’t have to take a hit in sound quality just because you’re talking on the phone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
FriendlyMackle said:
How many people actually use Windows to listen to music? Stereo/audio equipment these days connects to everything; and many people will stream via their phones, tablets, streaming speakers (Sonos, etc.), or I guess...a Windows computer. I would ask why, but I don't want to start a firestorm.
Click to expand...

Is this a serious question? I'd say a lot of people, its how everyone got into music: with ipods connected to Windows computers. Now I presume most people use their Windows laptops or whatever they sync their ipads/iphones to.

FriendlyMackle said:
I'll also say that Windows users are not missing out on anything wonderful with iTunes (the desktop program). It is AWFUL, AWFUL, and I really could go on about how useless it is. If you are on Windows and using an application to manage your music (because, of course you will), I'm sure there is much better out there.
Click to expand...

And yet it's still better than anything available on MacOS ;)

(and no, there's nothing better, though I guess most people use Spotify now)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
FriendlyMackle said:
Nevertheless, I would love to have a high-res audio choice/improvement. Who knows, maybe with increased fidelity streaming, we'll see improvements in mass audio devices as well. Since people will then want to hear the difference between 'old' standards and the new!
Click to expand...
I’m quite intrigued with 24/192. Not that I think I will able to hear it but it should be fun listening to it on proper equipments/room. This is the first time I’m seriously considering building listening/home theater room in my house. Damn Apple, you really know how to lure me to spend. 😓
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
WTF where are the AirPods 3. Rumors are getting worse and worse or Apple is improving… in the meantime I am still waiting to replace my AirPods 2 with a defective mic (tried AP Pro but the do not hold in my ears and intra is kind of inconfortable) 😕
 
1621424859062.png
 
FriendlyMackle said:
Exactly. Qualcomm owns aptx. Apple is equally capable of implementing a similar standard for which they wouldn't need to pay royalties. What I'm curious to know is if there is such an alternative? I know that with Bluetooth 5.1 the datastream capacity quadrupled (approximately), but I had read that would not likely be used by music standards. Though, I don't see why that couldn't be the case. I understand that not all of the increased bandwidth is actually 'available' for streaming data due to overhead, buffering, etc. But even a conservative estimate I'd made of the capacity increase would have allowed for (possibly) lossless compressed or near-lossless music streaming over Bluetooth. And that was just using a variable rate AAC, not a hopefully improved ALAC or something similar.
Click to expand...
Just need a different codec and lossless compression algorithm. They controls the H1 chip and the A14 chip. They are very well positioned to implement a proprietary solution without using Bluetooth anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back