Most of the music recorded in the past decade or so, simply doesn't have the recording artistry build into it, that was common in the 1970's. There is a reason why artists like Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" was legendary, why people sought after SACD material from certain sources and not across the market. Simply stated, while some bands worked for the "perfect sound" and recording engineers like Alan Parsons made great strides in this - there was a segment that said "who cares", groups like Hall and Oates for example believed that the regular person played their music on a cheap radio, or in a cheap car stereo - so they recorded their music to sound good for that segment. It was fast, it was easier, it was cheaper; and it was the truth. Not many people will spend thousands on their speakers, and thousands on an Amp/Pre-Amp, and then add in a DAC, power conditioner, and pay for Master Recordings. And those recordings were both rare, and expensive.
So, this becomes much ado about nothing.
I would suggest that everyone at least visit a high end audio store, and listen to an expensive headset, or set of speakers, and audition a SACD or Master Recording of something in your taste, that has had the effort and love put into it that is unveiled with lossless audio. There are many bands that made the effort, and once you experience what you have missed; you will never again be satisfied with what passed for "good" now. For decades, the public has dealt with "good enough", but now the bandwidth and technology are allowing truly lossless music to again be available to the masses, at a cost that is comparable to what the regular recording costs.
Nonsense. There are always higher and lower-quality recordings being made, before, during and after the 1970s, right up to the current day.
Also, as I've posted elsewhere on this subject, it's folly to compare audiophile gear and playback media from days of yore to consumer-grade audio gear and playback media today and then lament how everything is crap now. The correct comparison is consumer-grade gear and content before to the same for present day. When you do that, an iPhone with AirPods playing Apple Music AAC files is orders of magnitude better than old mini earphones, boom boxes, walkmans, cassettes, mass-produced, dirty vinyl and K-mart rack stereo systems. The consumer baseline now is way better than it's ever been. Improving on that with lossless and Dolby Atmos, etc., makes now the golden age, not the 1970s.
For that matter, even consumer-grade recordings can be fantastically better than 'the good old days.' Not too long ago, musicians who couldn't get a record deal to give them access to Abbey Road or Capitol Records in L.A. would have to save up and rent time in a cheap studio, or record on something like a Fostex 4-track machine that used cassette tapes. Now every Mac comes with Garage Band, or for $200, you can upgrade to Logic Pro and have a professional-grade recording suite. Add to that, you can buy fully-licensed plug-ins that model Abbey Road studio's classic recording gear, and for a reasonable fee, you can even send your tracks to Abbey Road to have one of their engineers do the mastering. So again, now is the golden age for this stuff, not some idealized time back in the day.
That is what I've been trying to explain to certain people. The response I'm getting is akin to "damn the torpedos!" I'm not a HiFi person, but I am picky about audio quality, particularly with the instrumental and classical genres. That said, I think conditions would have to be nearly ideal for me to hear the difference between 256/320kpbs AAC and lossless audio. They would include:
--High end DAC --High end speakers or wired headphones --A quiet environment --The correct genre of music --Great source recording (what is the quality of the original?
Basically, lossless is a waste on any equipment the vast majority of consumers use. You can forget about earbuds, most headphones, car stereos, smart speakers, integrated A/V receivers, and speakers that cost less than $2500 a pop. We're talking systems that cost at least $10,000. All else being equal, one might hear the difference.
I don’t think that my hearing is anything special but I can easily tell the difference between 256kbps AAC and the versions offered on HDtracks with a $300 pair of Bowers & Wilkins headphones connected over USB to my Mac.
I agree with you that the quality of the original recording is crucial though. Some recordings really don’t benefit from higher bitrates in the slightest.
Thousands and thousands of $$$ of ultra HiFi gear aren't necessarily needed to hear an improvement of lossless over mp3 files. To get the most out of lossless files, sure.
As far as earbuds not resolving audio improvements of lossless files, that's ridiculous. There are many brands of actual audiophile grade earbuds that can — Shure, Etymotic, 64 Audio, Kaz, B&W, Final Audio, RHA, and others. These are all wired, starting around $400 and going ballistic from there. There are sales from time to time.
Needing thou$and$ and thou$and$ do hear improvements of Lossless over mp3 is also ridiculous. A lot of midrange gear and some on ear Grado 60s or 80s can get the job done.
High-end gear like headphone amps and DACs or exotic speakers will help get the most out of Lossless files, but that doesn't guarantee a good ROI.
Hearing damage is accumulative and will leave many people unable to appreciate the nuance of Lossless. Others just may not know what to listen for. One of the best ways to see if you can resolve the improvement is to listen to better gear for an extended period of time — days or weeks, not a an hour or two in even a good audio store. That's why many of them offer a 30-day or more return policy.
Living with improved (on paper) sound for a week or weeks and then going back to your stuff should give you an idea your ability to appreciate Lossless. Doing yard work with the leaf blower or riding your John Deere 0-Turn isn't conducive to critical listening.
BT limits bandwidth and even "mere" CD quality is unobtainable. But there are other aspects of audio that good wireless buds (or phones) will improve upon even with reduced bandwidth. That said, BT is still a limiting factor to The Ultimate Sound, if we know it when we hear it.
There becomes a point at which no matter how much money you through at gear, you just won't hear an improvement. You've reached your limit, and/or you're paying for design specs that only Rex the Wonder Dog can appreciate.
As much as I like my AirPods, and as good as they are for what they do, I'm under no illusions they'll competed with some Shure 530s or Etys. The AirPods Max may offer some sonic superiority that IEMs can't provide, maybe - I dunno.
I want some Max to check out the ATMOS feature, the Spatial Awareness, maybe. There's no doubt in my mind they aren't WiFi. Some one would have found it in a dissection, and somebody already mentioned FCC-certification.
Years ago, when looking for WiFi headphones, I found one pair that had been discontinued and not available. Even mere mid-range WiFi headphones would get my money, just for moving around in the homestead. I get pretty good range with AirPods, but not as much as I'd want.
A new audio codec from Apple that could deliver lossless would be incredible, say – BT11. That Apple might be able to sneak into the Max and activate via a firmware upgrade. Of course bring it out and then requiring new gear would suck big time. Maybe WWDC will bring me something I can use.
"Technically, it is impossible to broadcast a truly lossless audio file over the APTX Bluetooth connection that Apple uses. Furthermore, the limitations of a USB to Lightning cable for AirPods Max preclude it on that platform as well". oopsie, should say AAC
I wonder, if aptX HD (briefly known as aptX Lossless) would come into play in a new Version of AirPods / Beats & Apple would finally introduce Bluetooth 5.2 with new iPhones in Q3?
As far as earbuds not resolving audio improvements of lossless files, that's ridiculous. There are many brands of actual audiophile grade earbuds that can — Shure, Etymotic, 64 Audio, Kaz, B&W, Final Audio, RHA, and others. These are all wired, starting around $400 and going ballistic from there. There are sales from time to time.
...
I want some Max to check out the ATMOS feature, the Spatial Awareness, maybe. There's no doubt in my mind they aren't WiFi. Some one would have found it in a dissection, and somebody already mentioned FCC-certification.
Years ago, when looking for WiFi headphones, I found one pair that had been discontinued and not available. Even mere mid-range WiFi headphones would get my money, just for moving around in the homestead. I get pretty good range with AirPods, but not as much as I'd want.
A new audio codec from Apple that could deliver lossless would be incredible, say – BT11. That Apple might be able to sneak into the Max and activate via a firmware upgrade. Of course bring it out and then requiring new gear would suck big time. Maybe WWDC will bring me something I can use.
Good point about those earbuds--I haven't listened to them myself, but I know that they have a very high reputation. I should have said no Apple earbuds would make lossless noticeable.
I know that the current AirPods are not WiFi, and I'll concede that it is not likely that a software/firmware update would enable it. But look at the link to the chip I posted. There are combo BT/WiFi chips out there, so it is technically feasible. As I understand it, FCC is mainly concerned about at what frequency the device operates, and whether it might cause interference or other harm. Since both BT and WiFi operate at the same frequency (and certainly if one of those combo chips are used), the device may already be FCC certified for either application.
Comments
Also, as I've posted elsewhere on this subject, it's folly to compare audiophile gear and playback media from days of yore to consumer-grade audio gear and playback media today and then lament how everything is crap now. The correct comparison is consumer-grade gear and content before to the same for present day. When you do that, an iPhone with AirPods playing Apple Music AAC files is orders of magnitude better than old mini earphones, boom boxes, walkmans, cassettes, mass-produced, dirty vinyl and K-mart rack stereo systems. The consumer baseline now is way better than it's ever been. Improving on that with lossless and Dolby Atmos, etc., makes now the golden age, not the 1970s.
For that matter, even consumer-grade recordings can be fantastically better than 'the good old days.' Not too long ago, musicians who couldn't get a record deal to give them access to Abbey Road or Capitol Records in L.A. would have to save up and rent time in a cheap studio, or record on something like a Fostex 4-track machine that used cassette tapes. Now every Mac comes with Garage Band, or for $200, you can upgrade to Logic Pro and have a professional-grade recording suite. Add to that, you can buy fully-licensed plug-ins that model Abbey Road studio's classic recording gear, and for a reasonable fee, you can even send your tracks to Abbey Road to have one of their engineers do the mastering. So again, now is the golden age for this stuff, not some idealized time back in the day.
I agree with you that the quality of the original recording is crucial though. Some recordings really don’t benefit from higher bitrates in the slightest.
As far as earbuds not resolving audio improvements of lossless files, that's ridiculous. There are many brands of actual audiophile grade earbuds that can — Shure, Etymotic, 64 Audio, Kaz, B&W, Final Audio, RHA, and others. These are all wired, starting around $400 and going ballistic from there. There are sales from time to time.
Needing thou$and$ and thou$and$ do hear improvements of Lossless over mp3 is also ridiculous. A lot of midrange gear and some on ear Grado 60s or 80s can get the job done.
High-end gear like headphone amps and DACs or exotic speakers will help get the most out of Lossless files, but that doesn't guarantee a good ROI.
Hearing damage is accumulative and will leave many people unable to appreciate the nuance of Lossless. Others just may not know what to listen for. One of the best ways to see if you can resolve the improvement is to listen to better gear for an extended period of time — days or weeks, not a an hour or two in even a good audio store. That's why many of them offer a 30-day or more return policy.
Living with improved (on paper) sound for a week or weeks and then going back to your stuff should give you an idea your ability to appreciate Lossless. Doing yard work with the leaf blower or riding your John Deere 0-Turn isn't conducive to critical listening.
BT limits bandwidth and even "mere" CD quality is unobtainable. But there are other aspects of audio that good wireless buds (or phones) will improve upon even with reduced bandwidth. That said, BT is still a limiting factor to The Ultimate Sound, if we know it when we hear it.
There becomes a point at which no matter how much money you through at gear, you just won't hear an improvement. You've reached your limit, and/or you're paying for design specs that only Rex the Wonder Dog can appreciate.
As much as I like my AirPods, and as good as they are for what they do, I'm under no illusions they'll competed with some Shure 530s or Etys. The AirPods Max may offer some sonic superiority that IEMs can't provide, maybe - I dunno.
I want some Max to check out the ATMOS feature, the Spatial Awareness, maybe. There's no doubt in my mind they aren't WiFi. Some one would have found it in a dissection, and somebody already mentioned FCC-certification.
Years ago, when looking for WiFi headphones, I found one pair that had been discontinued and not available. Even mere mid-range WiFi headphones would get my money, just for moving around in the homestead. I get pretty good range with AirPods, but not as much as I'd want.
A new audio codec from Apple that could deliver lossless would be incredible, say – BT11. That Apple might be able to sneak into the Max and activate via a firmware upgrade. Of course bring it out and then requiring new gear would suck big time. Maybe WWDC will bring me something I can use.
in a new Version of AirPods / Beats
&
Apple would finally introduce Bluetooth 5.2 with new iPhones in Q3?
I know that the current AirPods are not WiFi, and I'll concede that it is not likely that a software/firmware update would enable it. But look at the link to the chip I posted. There are combo BT/WiFi chips out there, so it is technically feasible. As I understand it, FCC is mainly concerned about at what frequency the device operates, and whether it might cause interference or other harm. Since both BT and WiFi operate at the same frequency (and certainly if one of those combo chips are used), the device may already be FCC certified for either application.