One wonders if Apple truly can embrace audiophile-quality music if all it has to offer is uber-expensive rubbish headphones with a Beats logo. These piles of audiophile crap cannot compete with decent headphones, even those at lower prices. Apple is still thinking populist on audio.
Maybe I missed something. Can I bypass the rather feeble quality of an iPod's inners to deliver the higher quality music? Does an external DAC help? Or will I require a new higher-quality audio output from a new generation of iPod? I ask, because I appreciate the higher quality of SACD over CD. And my 80GB iPod Classic is almost dead, so am in the market for a new music-player. I've been looking at few alternatives including a high-end player from SONY.
higher audio quality than can be delivered through standard earphone jacks
[…]
The physical, analog headphone jack is limited to delivering roughly CD-quality sound. Using digital signals over Lightning, headphone makers can use higher quality 24-bit DAC (digital analog conversion)
This is rubbish. The 3.5 mm analogue output of the MacBooks is perfectly capable of delivering 24-bit 96 kHz audio, and has been for at least half a decade.
There is nothing inherent to the 3.5 mm analogue jack itself that limits audio quality.
Apple may not support higher sample rates than 44.1 kHz at the moment, but the chips they've used since the iPhone 6 at least very likely do. Apple just choose not to support higher sample rates (not sure about whether they do 24 bits, but that really only affects the noise floor, so it's not really relevant except in controlled environments, where the iPhone isn't going to be used).
Really, the only thing Apple needs to do is to add Apple Lossless files to the iTunes Store — in 24-bit resolution if they wish. But going higher-resolution than lossless 24-bit/44.1kHz is complete nonsense.
Both your comments can be addressed by pointing out the 3.5mm analog output on the iPhone and Mac are hardwired to rather pedestrian DACs and will likely remain that way for as long as iOS devices sport 3.5mm jacks.
While Spheric can pat himself on the back for (likely) being technically right, Mauricegold asks a better question. Apple's hardware almost certainly can deliver higher resolution than Apple enables now, but that does't mean it is high end audiophile grade hardware. So wether or not Apple enables any latent capabilities in existing hardware doesn't really address the high-end audiophile's concerns. The answer to Mauricegold's question is yes, bypassing the built-in audio hardware by using a Lightning DAC could theoretically improve the quality.
AI has been reporting that Apple is thinking of ditching the 3.5mm headphone jack and pushing typical users to Bluetooth audio gear. They have also been reporting the Lightning audio certification that is probably going to be the path to high-end audio out of iOS devices after the built-in headphone jack is abandoned. Note, the final output for most Lightning DACs will probably be 3.5mm jacks, again, Spheric is right that nothing is inherently wrong with that physical connector.
One wonders if Apple truly can embrace audiophile-quality music if all it has to offer is uber-expensive rubbish headphones with a Beats logo. These piles of audiophile crap cannot compete with decent headphones, even those at lower prices. Apple is still thinking populist on audio.
It's pretty clear that any audiophile would be buying 3rd party headphones/DACs.
iOS devices are general-purpose devices. So are Beats headphones & speakers. Not intended for the audiophile market.
The important thing isn't that Apple make audiophile-grade headphones, speakers or DACs.
The important thing is that they permit others to offer this type of equipment for iOS devices.
I spent a lot of money on an Eizo 30bit 4k hardware LUT display because I am in the graphic arts. Apple doesn't make such a capable display, not even the latest 5k iMacs. I don't feel Apple has abandoned the creative users of Macs. They just leave some of the bleeding-edge stuff to 3rd parties who's core business aligns better.
Yeah, forget about progress and improvement, better technology, better audio and video. Keep the old so I don’t have to do anything. Why did they go and get rid of that perfectly acceptable RS-232 serial port anyway. And they should have kept that Toslink port on the new ATV4 even though it doesn’t support more efficient encoding like 7.1. I hate change!
S/PDIF went away because it has no HDCP, not because HDMI is "better".
Here's one benefit:
I don't think that diagram is accurate. I went to an Apple Store and directly compared the Lightning port on my iPhone to the USB-C port on the MacBook and it was smaller than the Lighning not larger.
I hope this rumor is true, even if it's from a usually inaccurate source. As for the 3.5mm jack being limited to CD quality, that's nonsense. It's an analogue source and the quality depends on the amplification powering it. There are many external DACs available and dedicated Hi-Res audio players that use the same 3.5mm jack that sound noticeably better than the iPhone with an appropriate quality recording and headphones.
Maybe I missed something. Can I bypass the rather feeble quality of an iPod's inners to deliver the higher quality music? Does an external DAC help? Or will I require a new higher-quality audio output from a new generation of iPod? I ask, because I appreciate the higher quality of SACD over CD. And my 80GB iPod Classic is almost dead, so am in the market for a new music-player. I've been looking at few alternatives including a high-end player from SONY.
Both your comments can be addressed by pointing out the 3.5mm analog output on the iPhone and Mac are hardwired to rather pedestrian DACs and will likely remain that way for as long as iOS devices sport 3.5mm jacks.
While Spheric can pat himself on the back for (likely) being technically right, Mauricegold asks a better question. Apple's hardware almost certainly can deliver higher resolution than Apple enables now, but that does't mean it is high end audiophile grade hardware. So wether or not Apple enables any latent capabilities in existing hardware doesn't really address the high-end audiophile's concerns. The answer to Mauricegold's question is yes, bypassing the built-in audio hardware by using a Lightning DAC could theoretically improve the quality.
AI has been reporting that Apple is thinking of ditching the 3.5mm headphone jack and pushing typical users to Bluetooth audio gear. They have also been reporting the Lightning audio certification that is probably going to be the path to high-end audio out of iOS devices after the built-in headphone jack is abandoned. Note, the final output for most Lightning DACs will probably be 3.5mm jacks, again, Spheric is right that nothing is inherently wrong with that physical connector.
Thanks for the acknowledgment.
I'm not patting myself on the back. I'm chiding AppleInsider for perpetuating complete nonsense.
If anything, I'd be patting APPLE'S ENGINEERS on the back for already including hardware superior to most "audiophile"-grade hardware.
Their stuff has been top-notch since the iPhone 5. The only thing that sets apart "audiophile" hardware from Apple's built-in solutions is bigger boxes, price, and snake-oil. And possibly support for 24-bit playback.
Apple is said to be developing a new Hi-Res Audio format featuring an expanded 96kHz, 24bit sampling rate for its Apple Music subscribers, leveraging the higher fidelity audio output capabilities of Lightning ports.
...
Apple Music is planning to launch new its Hi-Res music streaming—with higher audio quality than can be delivered through standard earphone jacks
Higher capabilities than what? 'Nothing' is the correct answer.
A standard earphone jack delivers analogue audio. In the case of Apple devices that would be an analogue signal that has been converted from a digital source, so it is actually meaningless to claim it's higher audio quality. A 3.5mm headphone jack can pass an analogue audio signal that was derived from a 96khz 24bit 'digital' source just as competently as it can one from a 44.1khz 16 bit one.
From a technical standpoint that statement is also false as if you were to wire up the port to pass a digital signal then it could indeed convey a digital signal that had been encoded at 96/24.
The physical, analog headphone jack is limited to delivering roughly CD-quality sound.
Bullshit.
There are several Android and Windows phones with high quality D/A converters and amps, Samsung's S6 being an example. Claiming you will be able to get better audio quality from Apple devices because the D/A conversion and amplification is taken outboard and built into headphones is nonsense.
higher audio quality than can be delivered through standard earphone jacks
[…]
The physical, analog headphone jack is limited to delivering roughly CD-quality sound. Using digital signals over Lightning, headphone makers can use higher quality 24-bit DAC (digital analog conversion)
This is rubbish. The 3.5 mm analogue output of the MacBooks is perfectly capable of delivering 24-bit 96 kHz audio, and has been for at least half a decade.
There is nothing inherent to the 3.5 mm analogue jack itself that limits audio quality.
Apple may not support higher sample rates than 44.1 kHz at the moment, but the chips they've used since the iPhone 6 at least very likely do. Apple just choose not to support higher sample rates (not sure about whether they do 24 bits, but that really only affects the noise floor, so it's not really relevant except in controlled environments, where the iPhone isn't going to be used).
Really, the only thing Apple needs to do is to add Apple Lossless files to the iTunes Store — in 24-bit resolution if they wish. But going higher-resolution than lossless 24-bit/44.1kHz is complete nonsense.
I completely agree with the above poster. There is no good reason to use anything higher than 44.1/48 16bit for distribution of audio. The only possible business reason would be to cater to delusional audiophiles. Recording at 24bit is a good thing though since that allows more security headroom to ensure the signal does not clip.
So yes, Apple Lossless would be great, and after that, a much more interesting use of additional bandwidth (in my opinion) would be more channels for surround audio. Probably won't happen though since Apple Music's primary listener wears headphones and multichannel surround isn't very suited for that.
S/PDIF went away because it has no HDCP, not because HDMI is "better".
Here's one benefit:
I don't think that diagram is accurate. I went to an Apple Store and directly compared the Lightning port on my iPhone to the USB-C port on the MacBook and it was smaller than the Lighning not larger.
Have you tried to plug USB-C into a lightning port? It's too big buddy. This diagram seems pretty accurate
unne said: I completely agree with the above poster. There is no good reason to use anything higher than 44.1/48 16bit for distribution of audio. The only possible business reason would be to cater to delusional audiophiles. Recording at 24bit is a good thing though since that allows more security headroom to ensure the signal does not clip.
The MQA folks would disagree. Here's an article that explains the technical details better than the marketing heavy and details light main page.
So yes, Apple Lossless would be great, and after that, a much more interesting use of additional bandwidth (in my opinion) would be more channels for surround audio. Probably won't happen though since Apple Music's primary listener wears headphones and multichannel surround isn't very suited for that.
Multichannel actually is well suited for headphones. We only have two ears. Directionality is mostly about timing - when the signal hits one ear vs another. A directionally encoded source can be decoded into headphones. See Dolby Atmos.
Maybe I missed something. Can I bypass the rather feeble quality of an iPod's inners to deliver the higher quality music? Does an external DAC help? Or will I require a new higher-quality audio output from a new generation of iPod? I ask, because I appreciate the higher quality of SACD over CD. And my 80GB iPod Classic is almost dead, so am in the market for a new music-player. I've been looking at few alternatives including a high-end player from SONY.
You already can as long as you're using iOS 7 or higher if you have a DAC/amp with a USB input. You need an Apple camera connection kit. Plug the lightning cable side into your iOS device, plug the USB cable into the camera connection cable's usb end and you will bypass all internal systems and get straight digital output. With the right equipment it makes a major difference in sound quality.
1. Lightning plug is great for charging, terrible for daily/active use. I've snapped one of my plugs because I knocked my iPad of the coffee table while it was charging. The male end just bent off and got stuck in the port. Now imagine, being at the gym or something with full range of motion. Headphone jack is round and sturdy. How many times have you yanked out your headphones over the years?
2. We're all moving to Bluetooth. BT quality and bitrate is pretty comparable to being hardwired. From home speakers to headphone and in-car, BT is becoming the de facto. Maybe this could be an argument to scrap the audio jack. Either way, it makes the move to Lightning, a big meh.
Maybe I missed something. Can I bypass the rather feeble quality of an iPod's inners to deliver the higher quality music? Does an external DAC help? Or will I require a new higher-quality audio output from a new generation of iPod? I ask, because I appreciate the higher quality of SACD over CD. And my 80GB iPod Classic is almost dead, so am in the market for a new music-player. I've been looking at few alternatives including a high-end player from SONY.
Well, you could stream digital wirelessless in a lossless format off your Ipod to a new tuner that supports DLNA and the lossless format of your choice (you need a DLNA server app, which are $1-3 for that). I got a Pioneer one, the 1130 that does that. But, most recent ones do that too.
I also think airplay (for systems that support it), now streams losslessly (there were rumors in the past it didn't).
1. Lightning plug is great for charging, terrible for daily/active use. I've snapped one of my plugs because I knocked my iPad of the coffee table while it was charging. The male end just bent off and got stuck in the port. Now imagine, being at the gym or something with full range of motion. Headphone jack is round and sturdy. How many times have you yanked out your headphones over the years?
2. We're all moving to Bluetooth. BT quality and bitrate is pretty comparable to being hardwired. From home speakers to headphone and in-car, BT is becoming the de facto. Maybe this could be an argument to scrap the audio jack. Either way, it makes the move to Lightning, a big meh.
I agree, the round plus is better at redistributing stress and if the stress is too high, just popping off than the lightning port. Not a big issue in most cases, except when you're moving fast and you're arm may rip the cord out. I destroyed a cord plugged into a 3GS by catching it when gardening.
But, a lot of people these days who exercise are moving to BT anyway, so it may be a moot point. I hate cords in general when exercising and having a wireless option with good sound and inexpensive is fantastic.
I went to an external DAC (Audioengine D1) on my Mac, but an upgrade to the iPhone and iPod's internal's would be great. I know there are external DAC's that work on this devices, but it make sense that Apple would upgrade to these capabilities if they introduce a higher quality music format...
higher audio quality than can be delivered through standard earphone jacks
[…]
The physical, analog headphone jack is limited to delivering roughly CD-quality sound. Using digital signals over Lightning, headphone makers can use higher quality 24-bit DAC (digital analog conversion)
This is rubbish. The 3.5 mm analogue output of the MacBooks is perfectly capable of delivering 24-bit 96 kHz audio, and has been for at least half a decade.
There is nothing inherent to the 3.5 mm analogue jack itself that limits audio quality.
Apple may not support higher sample rates than 44.1 kHz at the moment, but the chips they've used since the iPhone 6 at least very likely do. Apple just choose not to support higher sample rates (not sure about whether they do 24 bits, but that really only affects the noise floor, so it's not really relevant except in controlled environments, where the iPhone isn't going to be used).
Really, the only thing Apple needs to do is to add Apple Lossless files to the iTunes Store — in 24-bit resolution if they wish. But going higher-resolution than lossless 24-bit/44.1kHz is complete nonsense.
The question is the quality of both the DACs and the audio amplifiers. Both are questionable for really high fidelity. They're ok, better than those on most other small digital devices, but not up to higher quality audio equipment. In addition, the output Amps don't deliver enough power for many headphones. Why amplify a signal that's already been amplified?
Apple's DACs only support 24/48, not 24/96, or higher. It's a matter of cost, I suppose. Their laptops and desktops support 24/96 from the DAC, but at least 24/192 through both USB and Toslink, and there is also no such thing as 24/44.1. There Is 24/48, 24/88.2, 24/96, 24/176.4 and 24/192. There are even higher Rez formats, but these are the mist common.
Maybe I missed something. Can I bypass the rather feeble quality of an iPod's inners to deliver the higher quality music? Does an external DAC help? Or will I require a new higher-quality audio output from a new generation of iPod? I ask, because I appreciate the higher quality of SACD over CD. And my 80GB iPod Classic is almost dead, so am in the market for a new music-player. I've been looking at few alternatives including a high-end player from SONY.
This has been possible from the beginning, when the first iPod came out. The first external DAC for the iPod that I know of, was the Krell. Way back then, that cost $3,000. There have been many since. Many components from both big box producers, and small high end manufacturers, support a cradle for an iPod or iPhone.
This eliminates not only the Crystal DACs that Apple uses, but also the audio amps that follow them.
One wonders if Apple truly can embrace audiophile-quality music if all it has to offer is uber-expensive rubbish headphones with a Beats logo. These piles of audiophile crap cannot compete with decent headphones, even those at lower prices. Apple is still thinking populist on audio.
You're actually wrong. I know that it's fun to diss Beats products. But Beats also produces some pretty good phones, and they've gotten good reviews. The main problem with Beats phones has been the elevated bass response, which is aimed at young people listening to rock and rap. But they also produce phones withput that bump that sound pretty good.
Apple is said to be developing a new Hi-Res Audio format featuring an expanded 96kHz, 24bit sampling rate for its Apple Music subscribers, leveraging the higher fidelity audio output capabilities of Lightning ports.
...
Apple Music is planning to launch new its Hi-Res music streaming—with higher audio quality than can be delivered through standard earphone jacks
Higher capabilities than what? 'Nothing' is the correct answer.
A standard earphone jack delivers analogue audio. In the case of Apple devices that would be an analogue signal that has been converted from a digital source, so it is actually meaningless to claim it's higher audio quality. A 3.5mm headphone jack can pass an analogue audio signal that was derived from a 96khz 24bit 'digital' source just as competently as it can one from a 44.1khz 16 bit one.
From a technical standpoint that statement is also false as if you were to wire up the port to pass a digital signal then it could indeed convey a digital signal that had been encoded at 96/24.
The physical, analog headphone jack is limited to delivering roughly CD-quality sound.
Bullshit.
There are several Android and Windows phones with high quality D/A converters and amps, Samsung's S6 being an example. Claiming you will be able to get better audio quality from Apple devices because the D/A conversion and amplification is taken outboard and built into headphones is nonsense.
According to some recent testing,the iPhone has better sound than anything other than a couple of much more expensive players. The Galaxy is behind. If anything, Android isn't very good for audio, either as a playback model, or particularly for recording or measuring audio.
I'm unclear what benefits the Lightning connector has over USB-C. As for a digital format, I suggest MQA. MQA goes all the way back to the mastering stage, so it's a bit more than just taking a CD and resampling it to a different format. If Apple went to a hi-res format, I'd be very likely to subscribe. I have a pretty decent home sound system, and I would invest in some true high quality headphones or earbuds for in the office. The free streaming services meet my needs for background-noise level of listening, but I know I'm not getting good fidelity.
USB anything is just a subset of the Lightning connector. The Lightning connector doesn't more, which is why it has more connections than USB-C.
Comments
Both your comments can be addressed by pointing out the 3.5mm analog output on the iPhone and Mac are hardwired to rather pedestrian DACs and will likely remain that way for as long as iOS devices sport 3.5mm jacks.
While Spheric can pat himself on the back for (likely) being technically right, Mauricegold asks a better question. Apple's hardware almost certainly can deliver higher resolution than Apple enables now, but that does't mean it is high end audiophile grade hardware. So wether or not Apple enables any latent capabilities in existing hardware doesn't really address the high-end audiophile's concerns. The answer to Mauricegold's question is yes, bypassing the built-in audio hardware by using a Lightning DAC could theoretically improve the quality.
AI has been reporting that Apple is thinking of ditching the 3.5mm headphone jack and pushing typical users to Bluetooth audio gear. They have also been reporting the Lightning audio certification that is probably going to be the path to high-end audio out of iOS devices after the built-in headphone jack is abandoned. Note, the final output for most Lightning DACs will probably be 3.5mm jacks, again, Spheric is right that nothing is inherently wrong with that physical connector.
It's pretty clear that any audiophile would be buying 3rd party headphones/DACs.
iOS devices are general-purpose devices. So are Beats headphones & speakers. Not intended for the audiophile market.
The important thing isn't that Apple make audiophile-grade headphones, speakers or DACs.
The important thing is that they permit others to offer this type of equipment for iOS devices.
I spent a lot of money on an Eizo 30bit 4k hardware LUT display because I am in the graphic arts. Apple doesn't make such a capable display, not even the latest 5k iMacs. I don't feel Apple has abandoned the creative users of Macs. They just leave some of the bleeding-edge stuff to 3rd parties who's core business aligns better.
I'm not patting myself on the back. I'm chiding AppleInsider for perpetuating complete nonsense.
If anything, I'd be patting APPLE'S ENGINEERS on the back for already including hardware superior to most "audiophile"-grade hardware.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6-plus.htm#measurements
Their stuff has been top-notch since the iPhone 5.
The only thing that sets apart "audiophile" hardware from Apple's built-in solutions is bigger boxes, price, and snake-oil. And possibly support for 24-bit playback.
Higher capabilities than what? 'Nothing' is the correct answer.
A standard earphone jack delivers analogue audio. In the case of Apple devices that would be an analogue signal that has been converted from a digital source, so it is actually meaningless to claim it's higher audio quality. A 3.5mm headphone jack can pass an analogue audio signal that was derived from a 96khz 24bit 'digital' source just as competently as it can one from a 44.1khz 16 bit one.
From a technical standpoint that statement is also false as if you were to wire up the port to pass a digital signal then it could indeed convey a digital signal that had been encoded at 96/24.
Bullshit.
There are several Android and Windows phones with high quality D/A converters and amps, Samsung's S6 being an example. Claiming you will be able to get better audio quality from Apple devices because the D/A conversion and amplification is taken outboard and built into headphones is nonsense.
So yes, Apple Lossless would be great, and after that, a much more interesting use of additional bandwidth (in my opinion) would be more channels for surround audio. Probably won't happen though since Apple Music's primary listener wears headphones and multichannel surround isn't very suited for that.
1. Lightning plug is great for charging, terrible for daily/active use. I've snapped one of my plugs because I knocked my iPad of the coffee table while it was charging. The male end just bent off and got stuck in the port. Now imagine, being at the gym or something with full range of motion. Headphone jack is round and sturdy. How many times have you yanked out your headphones over the years?
2. We're all moving to Bluetooth. BT quality and bitrate is pretty comparable to being hardwired. From home speakers to headphone and in-car, BT is becoming the de facto. Maybe this could be an argument to scrap the audio jack. Either way, it makes the move to Lightning, a big meh.
I also think airplay (for systems that support it), now streams losslessly (there were rumors in the past it didn't).
But, a lot of people these days who exercise are moving to BT anyway, so it may be a moot point.
I hate cords in general when exercising and having a wireless option with good sound and inexpensive is fantastic.
Apple's DACs only support 24/48, not 24/96, or higher. It's a matter of cost, I suppose. Their laptops and desktops support 24/96 from the DAC, but at least 24/192 through both USB and Toslink, and there is also no such thing as 24/44.1. There Is 24/48, 24/88.2, 24/96, 24/176.4 and 24/192. There are even higher Rez formats, but these are the mist common.
This eliminates not only the Crystal DACs that Apple uses, but also the audio amps that follow them.