Apple’s Missed Audio Opportunity

Apple has a long, rich history in the fields of music and audio and its complex and highly influential relationship with those fields was on display once again at the company’s recent iPhone 7 launch event.

The biggest audio-related news of the event was, of course, the removal of the traditional 3.5 mm headphone jack from the iPhone 7. The impact of that one decision will be rippling through the audio industry for years to come. Why? Because of the level of influence Apple and the iPhone have, both with other smartphone makers and with audio accessory and component makers.

The problem is the implications of the move on audio quality are not likely to be good for most people. For all of its convenience, wireless audio connections are generally lower quality than wired connections because of the need to compress the file over the available wireless bandwidth. Given most people are starting with highly compressed MP3 or AAC-encoded music files to begin with, that essentially means you’re degrading an already degraded signal. Not good.

Now, admittedly, there is debate on how much of a difference many people can hear across different levels of audio encoding algorithms as well as wireless transmission compression methods, but common sense tells you mixing the two together can’t be good. (And to be clear, yes, I think most everyone would be able to hear the difference between a wired connection of an uncompressed file and a wireless connection of a compressed file.)

Plus, you don’t see anyone saying, “Oh well, HD video is good enough because that’s the maximum resolution of the iPhone’s screen, so why bother with 4K video? Why should audio be treated differently?” The ability to deliver the highest possible raw media quality—regardless of the device upon which it is played back—should be the goal of any media playback device, but particularly one that’s so incredibly influential.

Of course, some of this harkens back to Apple’s largest impact on music: the creation of the iPod/iTunes combination that completely rewrote the rules on music distribution. The iPod created an amazing level of convenience, flexibility and portability for music that is hard to imagine not having on all our devices today.

However, the iPod also sacrificed audio quality for convenience and the implications of its focus on highly compressed music extend to today. The big problem in the early days of digital music was sound files were very large and took up too much storage capacity in uncompressed, CD-quality form. Audio encoding techniques like MP3 and AAC offered 10x reductions in file size, while leveraging a variety of psychoacoustic techniques to keep the music still sounding reasonably good. It was just too tempting a tradeoff to pass up.

Today, however, storage costs are significantly lower and network bandwidth speeds are significantly higher, so there’s no longer a really viable technical reason to stick with compressed audio. Yet, compressed audio still dominates the landscape, primarily because of Apple’s initial and ongoing influence.

With the company’s efforts and investments in growing their Apple Music service—which they mentioned has now reached 17 million subscribers at the beginning of the iPhone 7 launch event—there is a clear opportunity to once again set a new standard for audio file formats. By choosing to offer uncompressed CD-quality (16-bit, 44 kHz) digital audio files—or even better, high-resolution 24-bit, 96 or 192 kHz—as standard, they could single-handedly and dramatically improve the state of digital audio quality around the world. Now, that would take courage.

Of course, there’s also the possibility that the rumors of Apple purchasing Tidal—a music streaming service that offers uncompressed and high-res audio streaming—could come to pass and Apple would “inherit” the capability.

In addition to improving the quality of the audio files, Apple could have used the announcement of the headphone jack removal to highlight the second part of the audio quality equation—the quality of the connection to headphones and speakers. Though few know it, Apple’s proprietary Lightning connector supports the ability to transmit uncompressed and even high-resolution audio in digital format to external devices. Essentially, it provides raw access to the files before they’re converted from digital into audible analog format. In addition, Lightning can provide power for enabling features like noise cancellation without a battery in connected headphones, and access to additional controls, such as triggering Siri. Frankly, it’s a powerful though underutilized interface. Part of the problem is using Lightning requires paying a royalty to Apple, whereas using the 3.5mm audio jack never did.

While Apple kept an audio DAC (digital-to-analog convertor) in the iPhone 7 for the built-in speakers, with Lightning-based headphones, that digital-to-analog conversion needs to be done by headphones or other speakers directly connected to the Lightning jack.

While that does add costs to these devices, the good news is, this allows peripheral companies like Sony, Philips, JBL, Audeze and others to build headphones that leverage high-quality DACs and produce really great sound—depending, of course, on the original resolution of the file being converted—hence my earlier comments. Though details remain unclear, the new Apple Lightning-based earbuds included with the iPhone 7s have none of these extended features and likely use the same more generic-quality DAC that Apple uses in the iPhone.

What’s odd, and perhaps telling, about Apple’s commitment to higher-quality audio is they now own one of the best-selling headphone makers in the world in Beats and yet, they don’t currently offer a single set of Beats headphones with a Lightning connector and external DAC. Even if Apple wanted to somehow keep the removal of the headphone jack a secret from Beats staffers, there’s no reason they couldn’t have encouraged the development of a set of high-quality, Lightning-based Beats headphones. Yet none exist, nor did Apple even announce one.

Instead, they focused their efforts on announcing wireless Beats headphones based on Bluetooth and some proprietary extensions enabled by their new W1 chip. While there’s obviously nothing wrong with that, the new Solo3 and other Beats headphones seem once again to be focused on convenience over audio quality. In theory, later versions of Bluetooth could support wireless transmission of uncompressed audio, which takes 1.41 Mbits per second, but most Bluetooth audio leverages 128K-256 kbits per second compressed audio. Apple also chose not to support Qualcomm’s AptX technology (originally developed by Bluetooth silicon maker CSR that Qualcomm acquired), which offers support for high-quality audio streamed over Bluetooth.[pullquote]For a company that talks a lot about how much they love music, Apple sure doesn’t seem to care that much about audio quality, and that’s frustrating.[/pullquote]

The new Apple AirPods offer similar capabilities, limitations, and likely, audio quality (though much shorter battery life). Again, the focus is on convenience over quality. If Apple had developed some new higher-quality, lossless methods of transmitting audio to these W1-equipped devices, they clearly would have touted it, yet they didn’t. Instead, much of the focus and concerns around the AirPods were on the possibility of losing them. For the record, I believe this is a big issue but not as much of one when you’re wearing them as when you’re not. Just ask anyone who’s ever misplaced a Bluetooth headset. It happens all the time.

Given how much time Apple spent justifying the removal of the headphone jack at their event, they’re clearly cognizant of what a momentous impact their decision represented and how poorly some might perceive the move. Yet, instead of turning that negative into a positive—as they clearly could have done—they added insult to injury by calling the development courageous. Frankly, it was a missed opportunity of potentially enormous proportions.

The bottom line is, for a company that talks a lot about how much they love music, Apple sure doesn’t seem to care that much about audio quality, and that’s frustrating.

Published by

Bob O'Donnell

Bob O’Donnell is the president and chief analyst of TECHnalysis Research, LLC a technology consulting and market research firm that provides strategic consulting and market research services to the technology industry and professional financial community. You can follow him on Twitter @bobodtech.

1,315 thoughts on “Apple’s Missed Audio Opportunity”

  1. “When Apple removes the headphone jack, they will also, by default, remove the audio DAC (digital-to-analog convertor) from the iPhone because it’s no longer necessary. ”

    Mmmm, won’t we still want sound on the loudspeaker ? That does requires a DAC, so even jack-less phones do need an internal DAC.

    I’m wondering how Apple are actually implementing their embrace-extend of BT audio. BT allows for any format as long as both sender and receiver agree on it, so in theory the iPhone could send out straight AAC bitstreams, assuming the headphones can decode that. That would help tremendously with quality by avoiding re-compression.

    As for emphasizing convenience over quality, Apple is probably right. I’m fairly sure the most limiting factor is the headphone’s acoustic/analog parts, not the file, not the DAC. It’s not black or white but shades or grey and would require objective double-blind validation, but still.

    What’s sadder is Apple choosing lock-in and licensing revenue over an open interface that could at least have gained widespread acceptance, support, and economies of scale. As it is, Apple are choosing to milk their user base and ecosystem “partners” (I’m using the term loosely) instead of moving the whole sound chain forward.

    PS: if you care about audio quality, get an Android that supports an external DAC over USB ^^

    1. THANK YOU.

      Apple will never remove the DAC from the iPhone because a loudspeaker and handsfree are non-optional.

      Having said this, iPhones today already support external DACs in case you want to use your own.

      1. Which is why I contend that the iPhone gained nothing, but lost something.
        There are those who believe that the space was needed for other features.

        No! The space was needed to make things unnecessarily thin or for other agendas. When the iMac was last refreshed for form factor it got made thinner. Same footprint, but thinner. On a desktop computer! Who cares? But it was at the cost of upgradability. Who did that suit?

        1. “If you don’t want an iPhone 7, don’t buy one. If you bought one and don’t like it, bring it back.”

          Suits me fine. I have literally never plugged anything into the headphone jack on either my previous iPhone 6 nor my iPhone 6s.

          Your needs don’t match everyone else. You should not ever buy anything from Apple, their products don’t suit your needs. No need to post on every Apple article here that they don’t suit your needs, we already know. It gets very old.

          1. Just discussing technical merit, and forced technical obedience, which impact my personal purchase intent. Others may agree. You don’t, good for you.

          2. How could it possibly impact your purchase intent? You will never buy an iPhone. You make it very clear by your comments here. So, we get it, iPhones don’t meet your needs. What more needs to be said?

          3. The removal of the headphone jack has added exactly zero audio capability to the iPhone, regardless of how many arguments are made in support. This is about the technical merit of it’s removal, or lack thereof.

          4. No it’s not. It is about whether or not you believe that Apple should move to a completely digital platform by removing the last vestige of analog audio connections from the iPhone. I support this move. Goodby to analog connections forever and good riddance.

            You don’t think Apple should make this move, so that means you shouldn’t buy an iPhone 7 but since you are not ever going to be in the market to buy an iPhone anyway, why should we care about your opinion?

          5. It has also removed zero audio capability – you can still listen to music with all the exact same headphones or speakers you could before, and the quality is every bit as good, if not better than all previous iPhone models. The whole controversy about the “missing” 3.5mm jack is about giving journalists an excuse to write articles that will get more readers.

          6. Apple has been doing this kind of thing for a couple decades, ditching older tech for new and providing accessories and dongles to bridge the gap. I’m not sure where you got the idea this was a new trend at Apple.

          7. Look, you still believe in Apple. That’s cool. Apple has added complexity in their mobile devices and iOS for quite sometime now, yes. But this is a recent trend over the last 4- 5 years as they try to keep up with everyone else, instead of leading everyone else. You don’t have to believe that if you don’t want. That’s cool. Carry on.

            Joe

          8. I don’t believe in Apple, how silly. I derive value from the products they make, their roadmap is obvious to me, and I agree with it. This idea that Apple is becoming more complex or scrambling to keep up, not leading, not innovating, and so on, this is not new. People have said these kinds of things about Apple for at least a couple decades.

            If you want to convince me otherwise you’ll have to form a cogent argument that demonstrates why this time is different from all the other times Apple added complexity or bridged the gap with a dongle, or had problems with internal software, or wasn’t first with some feature, etc. None of this is new. It seems like you don’t remember all the times this has already happened.

            Simply saying Apple no longer opposes complexity isn’t an argument, it’s an opinion, and the evidence doesn’t support your opinion. You seem to also forget that having Steve Jobs as Customer Zero led to a few mistakes which were corrected by the larger team around Jobs.

            Another example of opinion vs argument, you’ve said the removal of the headphone jack was purely aesthetic. How so? I’d be interested in the argument you’ve formed around that statement.

          9. You know, I think I was wrong about what you’re mad at. You do seem a tad pissed off at Apple, but I think you are much more angry that I’ve pointed out how flimsy your opinion on this issue is. Whatever indeed.

        2. “No! The space was needed to make things unnecessarily thin or for other agendas.”

          This is pure nonsense. Even some cursory research reveals how the headphone jack removal made room for new features. You’re free to disagree that those features add value of course but it is a fantasy to say the removal was simply an agenda or to make the device thinner, since the iPhone 7 did not get thinner (although it did get 5 grams lighter along with a larger battery) and Apple added very real features by reworking the device internals.

          The inside of any device like this is not a liquid blob that can flow to use up all available volume, it is made up of components which have fixed dimensions. Design is about compromise and trade offs. If Apple’s decisions with the iPhone 7 don’t meet your needs, don’t buy it. But it’s quite selfish of you to attempt to impose your needs on others. You contend the iPhone gained nothing. That’s fine, but that is only true for you. For many others the iPhone 7 gained much. Why is it so hard for you to accept that your needs are not universally true?

          1. If only Apple was known for investing in suppliers to help them re-fabricate and customize parts for their needs. That would be truly innovative if they could do that. Apple is at such the mercy of OEMs.

            Joe

          2. Your response has nothing to do with the reality of the physical constraints Apple has to work with. While Apple does customize their internals that does not magically turn the internal components into liquid which can flow around and fill the volume inside the device. Trade offs had to be made, the jack had to go.

            Would it have been possible for Apple to keep the headphone jack if that was a top priority? I would say yes (although the device size would probably have increased, and it’s possible some other feature would have not been added, there isn’t a lot of room). But it is not a priority for Apple. The market will decide if this was a mistake or not. You still get wired earbuds as well as a free simple adapter to keep using your 3.5mm headphones.

            I think something many people are missing is that the wireless Airpods (and the W1 chip) are the beginning of an Apple Network of Things, an expansion of a wearable platform Apple is building. Wired headphones don’t work for this future, and Apple is thinking far ahead.

            As an exercise why don’t you tell me how you would keep the headphone jack in the iPhone 7 while at the same time keeping all the new internal components and features.

          3. It has everything to do with Apple’s constraints, especially considering they are self-imposed. Now they just painted themselves into a corner and chose to save design face instead of technology face.

            What I would do inside the iPhone is not the point and not my job. What Apple has chosen to do and my thoughts on that as an Apple customer are.

            Joe

          4. You are correct that the constraints are self-imposed, but it does not follow that these constraints are bad, whimsical, hostile, arrogant, and so on. Apple has a plan and a vision, and I’m quite sure they’ll be proven correct within a couple years. If that vision no longer aligns with your needs then you have other options (although it seems silly to me why you’d ditch the iPhone just because you have to plug a simple adapter into your current headphones). I’m sure some OEMs will keep the headphone jack for quite a while. But many will follow Apple, especially when it becomes clear what Apple is really doing with wireless earbuds/headphones.

    2. “PS: if you care about audio quality, get an Android that supports an external DAC over USB. Or an LG V20.”

      Interesting. Apogee Digital makes the finest quality DAC/ADC products available for the high-end pro audio market. This is a fact.

      They have products for Macs, Windows, and iPad. They offer no Android support of any kind.

      Since iPads have shipped with Garage Band software from day one, ALL the major brands in pro audio support iOS devices. ALL of them. The products for Android are few and far between. They are at the consumer level of quality.

      So where do you get the idea that Android is the place to be “if you care about audio quality?

      More Android fan fiction.

      1. step 1: select an Apple-only vendor: “Apogee Electronics – Audio Interfaces for iPad, iPhone and Mac”
        step 2: “see, they don’t sell stuff for android”
        step 3: Mmmm…. you win ?

        edit: also, yes, the whole artcile+discussion is about consuming audio, not creating it. Do I have to point that out to you ?

        1. “…also, yes, the whole artcile+discussion is about consuming audio, not creating it. Do I have to point that out to you ?”

          Yes. You do. Because what you wrote is B.S in either case.

          You can’t write this tripe: “Apple are choosing to milk their user base and ecosystem “partners” (I’m using the term loosely) instead of moving the whole sound chain forward…” and “if you care about audio quality get an Android” and be taken seriously.

          Garage Band IS a consumer product. The sheer number of consumer, hobbiest, AND professional audio products available for iOS dwarfs Android by orders of magnitude.

          I used Apogee to show that “if you care about audio quality” the best quality isn’t even an option to an Android settler. Apogee products aren’t Apple-only; they could be adapted to work with Android via software if there was actually an Android market for quality. But, there is no demand for quality audio in Androidland.

          So your comments weren’t about “consuming audio,” They were a ridiculous counterfactual spew of anti-reality. The iPhone IS an iPod (see product introduction video), so the iPhone has consumer audio cred that none of your Android fan fiction will ever be able to overcome.

          Try this experiment in consumer audio: search Amazon for receivers and powered-speakers that support AirPlay. Then try to find something/anything remotely similar supporting a Google/Android audio technology. IF you actually cared about audio quality, you’d buy a used iOS device and steer clear of Android.

          1. ?? Android supports Airplay too, no need to buy overpriced Apple gear. AirPlay is mostly a proprietarized version of dlna, easy to hack. https://play.google.com/store/search?q=airplay&c=apps&hl=en You didn’t know ? What a surprise !

            Or you could go with standard dlna, and avoid being locked into an expensive/overpriced ecosystem devoid of choice.

            Also, to spell it very clearly since you don’t seem to understand, Garageband is used to *produce* audio, not to consume it. I’m flabbergasted I have to clarify that for you ?

          2. Garage Band is used to produce music the same way a notebook and pencil is used to produce a novel. Garage Band is not a professional product.

            You claimed that Apple hasn’t “moved the whole sound chain forward.” And yet, you are able to use AirPlay on your Android junk.

            Kinda sounds like you are utterly clueless?

            Oh, and your analysis of AirPlay being derivative and easy to hack- more fan fiction, ignoramous.

          3. indeed, but you do understand the difference between producing music even as an amateur, and just consuming it ? It still doesn’t seem you do.

            My Android isn’t junk thank you . Why do you feel the need to insult others ? Unsure about your own choices ?

            Apple has fragmented the dlna experience by making an incompatible variant. That’s not moving the sound chain forward, that’s fragmenting it. They’re doing it again by using proprietary protocols and ports again, that add no visible value over using standards (USB-C, BT) wrapped in intelligent software. But that would provide much lower lock-in and license fees, so Apple isn’t interested.

            BTW, that’s “ignoramus”, not “ignoramous”. which kinda says it all :-)) Don’t try to use long words.

    3. I wouldn’t say the analog parts per se. The analog connection is only limited by the audio being sent to it. In that regard, from the analog connection back, it is limited by the Source/DSP/DAC/amp. Currently the analog connection is capable of passing the highest quality audio available today. Bluetooth’s limitations are pretty well documented.

      Certainly the drivers/speakers in the headphones, themselves, can be a limiting factor, too. Apple has historically used a fairly superior DAC, all the same. Most of the time, the limiting factor on iPhones has been the headphones people use. Even when people couldn’t use Apple’s supplied earpods, for physical reasons like me, I doubt people purchased much better. I happen to love my Etyomics and didn’t realize how much audio I was missing until then. But people still heard the music even without the fidelity. You really don’t think there is a difference until you hear it for yourself. And it takes quite a bit to get people to bother.

      Joe

      1. What are those Bluetooth limitations that you’re referring to? The only real limitation I know of (that could affect audio quality) is bandwidth, and that’s not really an issue with modern Bluetooth options (it can handle an uncompressed audio stream if need be).

    4. I’m wondering how Apple are actually implementing their embrace-extend of BT audio. BT allows for any format as long as both sender and receiver agree on it, so in theory the iPhone could send out straight AAC bitstreams, assuming the headphones can decode that and negotiate it w/ the iPhone.

      Right, and my reading of Apple’s marketing materials is that the AirPods do in fact work with an AAC stream (which is a normal option in the A2DP profile). (In theory they could even send an uncompressed stream, using a proprietary profile, but that’s apparently not what they do.)

      What’s sadder is Apple choosing lock-in and licensing revenue over open interfaces/protocols (both wired and wireless) that could at least have gained widespread acceptance, support, and economies of scale. As it is, Apple are choosing to milk their user base and ecosystem “partners” (I’m using the term loosely) instead of moving the whole sound chain forward.

      I suspect it’s not “milking” as much as it is setting themselves apart wrt. to the usability story. I.e., their approach reinforces the notion that if you stay in Apple’s ecosystem you’ll get a UX that’s more pleasant than that you’d find with the competition. (That’s why I don’t expect them to share the tech with “ecosystem partners” at all.) I cannot blame them for sticking to that strategy.

  2. Jobs is gone along with the commitment to quality. This Apple is worried only about how much money they can make..period.

    1. The new iPhone 7 seems to be selling well. Both Sprint and T-mobile are reporting record sales. I guess actual iPhone customers don’t agree.

  3. “Plus, you don’t see anyone saying, “Oh well, HD video is good enough…”

    I say it all the time. HD Video is already overkill on a device as small as a phone. In fact it’s often overkill at typical viewing distances, TV sizes in most homes. 4K is mainly useful on giant screens and dedicated home theaters, so mostly it is just marketing.

    Though I am not a fan of removing the Analog jack for many of the stated reasons. Mainly inconvenience, and interoperability.

    I see wireless audio as an almost separate issue. It existed long before they removed the jack and they are shipping wired headphones with the iPhone.

    I have been interested in hearing reviews of how the new wired headphones sound compared to the old, and how the included dongle makes headphones sound vs using the analog jack on older iPhones.

    1. I agree that 4K playback is overkill on small devices. It’s not even all that distinguishable on a large (say, 75″) television screen.

      However, it can be useful to give some leeway during the digital editing of footage. That argument doesn’t exist when discussing audio delivery to a headset, no matter how good the headset. In principle, digital delivery can be superior to analog delivery, because of the smaller interference target. Once you’re in the realm of short-range digital delivery (i.e., a headset wire or Bluetooth), wired vs. wireless is irrelevant to audio quality.

  4. Bob, you say “Apple doesn’t currently offer a single set of Beats headphones with a Lightning connector and external DAC.” So how do you know they won’t offer one in the near future?

    dmw2001 points out that there is a headphone jack shipped with every iPhone 7 via a provided Lightning to 1/8″ jack.

    Defender says “I have been interested in hearing reviews of how the new wired headphones sound compared to the old, and how the included dongle makes headphones sound vs using the analog jack on older iPhones.”

    Your article doesn’t mention the above considerations. It seems to have a strong negative slant, and I don’t view it as objective reporting.

    1. In fact, it appears AirPods work from an AAC stream. So they must include a DAC, and my guess is that it’s integrated in that mysterious W1 chip (which means that the W1-featuring Beats headsets should have the same tech).

  5. “wireless audio connections are generally lower quality than wired
    connections because of the need to compress the file over the available
    wireless bandwidth. Given most people are starting with highly
    compressed MP3 or AAC-encoded music files to begin with, that
    essentially means you’re degrading an already degraded signal.”

    Bluetooth is a steaming gumbo of standards and protocols. They keep bolting on new additions with each revision, so I don’t blame you for being confused. Since bluetooth 2, it’s been able to transmit compressed audio without further loss, as long as both the transmitting and receiving device support the codec in question. IOS devices support lossless transmission of AAC audio, which is what everything in the music store (and Apple’s streaming music service) is encoded in, and what non-ancient versions of Itunes automatically use when ripping CDs. They also support VBR encoded AAC*. As long as the headphones or speakers being used support Bluetooth 2 or later and support AAC playback over A2DP, there’s no degradation of audio quality.

    “By choosing to offer uncompressed CD-quality (16-bit, 44 kHz) digital
    audio files—or even better, high-resolution 24-bit, 96 or 192 kHz—as
    standard, they could single-handedly and dramatically improve the state
    of digital audio quality around the world.”

    I guess I have to tilt at this windmill again. Repeated double blind tests have conclusively shown that it is impossible for human ears to hear the difference between good quality, VBR encoded MP3 or AAC compressed audio and lossless audio. everything you read on the internet saying otherwise is unadulterated woo being peddled by grifters to easily gulled audiophiles who have fooled themselves into hearing differences that are not there. And that’s when the music is played on high end good quality speakers. On a typical set of headphones that don’t cost the world, it is even more true and true at lower bitrates.

    And now, sadly, there’s a new generation of grifters and con artists peddling “better than CD” audio. Audio is recorded in the studio at higher than CD sampling rates because the studio recordings are processed, diced, spliced, etc, in the creation of the final master recording, and the musicians want to avoid any loss of quality during all that processing. Once the master is created, however, higher than CD sampling rates are completely redundant and unneeded for creating music to be listened to by human beings.

    * Footnote, because I keep seeing people make this mistake: With AAC, the first A stands for Advanced, not Apple. AAC is not a proprietary Apple format, it’s just the fancy new name for audio MP4. AAC sounds better than MP3 at the same bitrate, and there’s no reason to continue using MP3 unless you’re dealing with an ancient device that doesn’t know how to play anything else.

    1. Thanks for all that info. Just because Bluetooth now supports uncompressed audio doesn’t mean that it produces a high quality output. My experience is otherwise.

      1. It *can*. Whether it does or not depends on the implementation and quality of the sending and receiving devices. If both devices don’t support the exact codec in which the music is encoded, then it gets re-encoded on the fly and quality suffers.

        Complete crap devices are allowed to call themselves bluetooth. AAC and MP3 support, for example, is optional. You have to read the fine print and look up what the alphabet soup means. Sadly it’s a very user-unfriendly standard.

        1. plus bluetooth headsets must integrate a processor and a battery, making them much more expensive than wired headphones of similar acoustic quality. Reciprocally, people with a set “headphones” budget/target price end up with significantly worse sound on wireless headphones than on wired.

          1. IME, they’re not really that much more expensive these days. Especially when you get move up to the mid-range options.

          2. Exactly. No way can wireless earbuds be seen as an improvement. Cost, quality, charging, breakages, losses. They can’t be the way forward. Just wait till Apple start selling iString to tie them onto the phone so you can’t lose them anymore.

    2. “Repeated double blind tests have conclusively shown that it is impossible for human ears to hear the difference between good quality, VBR encoded MP3 or AAC compressed audio and lossless audio.”
      Must disagree based on my experience and that of many others. MP3 has 5% of the data as uncompressed hi res. It’s more than frequency response, and is also about depth, separation and staging.

      1. “MP3” by itself doesn’t mean much: at what bitrate ? with which settings ? and AAC is significantly better.
        Then you got to factor in the hardware. When Tidal (I think it was Tidal, pre-rapper buyout) released their listening test, I got 4/5 right (and I was unsure about the failed one) on my $300 desktop speakers, 3/5 right on my $70 in-ear headphones (and I was mostly unsure about all of them).
        Also, sadly, The Young I just chased off my lawn are so used to crappy compression that they now actually *prefer* music with compression artifacts (and that’s on top of autotune).

    3. I appreciate the info about the BT formats – thanks.

      However, and mastering engineer here, it is possible to tell between lossless and mp3 – in fact it’s wholly obvious. You many need a good system to appreciate this but it’s true. For a start mp3 chucks off a load of low-end information that is easy to hear of a big system. There are also phase shifts and loss of stereo information too. I appreciate that mp3 is a reasonable format for most applications but I couldn’t let that word ‘impossible’ stand like that. Having said all this, for me 256k AAC is acceptable and I find it hard to distinguish that so easily from source. mp3 really is bad for the bottom end, AAC much less so.

      1. Again you will notice the nuances of recorded music where Joe six-pack probably won’t, or even won’t care. There are very few music listeners who are as knowledgeable of the recording process that you engineers, and are not wiling to have the ability to listen to unencumbered music.

  6. Thanks Bob! SO rare these days to see an article written by someone who actually knows something (and a real human too!)

    I agree completely with your points. Thanks for your work.

  7. Hi Bob,
    BOSE is about to release the Quiet Control 30, wireless Bluetooth ANC in ear buds.
    Given the audio quality limitations of all wireless headsets, would receiving increased file size, as provided by some specialty streaming services, increase the audiophile experience on these wireless headsets? Or would the wireless transmission protocol limit the use of additional streamed file size such that there would be no perceived improvement in audio quality on wireless ANC earbuds ?
    Thanks so much.
    Barry

    1. It depends on 2 things:
      1- the quality of the acoustics parts of the headphones. A good file can’t make lousy headphones sound good.
      2- what format+bitrate is negotiated between the headphones and the phone. If there’s recompression and/or if the negotiated bitrate is lower than the source file, there’s no point in the source file being better. I haven’t seen any info on specifically what formats and bitrate Apple’s new wireless audio setup actually supports. It’s probably magic ^^

    2. Given the audio quality limitations of all wireless headsets…

      As others noted in this thread, there are no intrinsic audio quality limitations for wireless headsets. Such limitations do exist for analog transport media (e.g., wired 3.5mm jack lines).

      1. That’s BS. The analog transport has no intrinsic limitations. None. That’s why it has lasted as long as it has. And you don’t get away from analog even if you do go wireless. the last “mile” between the amp and the speakers/drivers is and always will be an analog connection, until someone comes up with digital electricity or your ears can decode 1’s and 0’s.

        The limitations in the wireless spec aren’t intrinsic, but they are coded into the specs.All the specs are available. You should read up on them.

        Joe

        1. Every inch of electric wire will pick up interference. You can diminish effects by twisting your pairs, shielding the conductors, freezing the environment, etc. but ultimately it’s a losing battle. So yes, analog transport has intrinsic limitations that digital transport doesn’t.

          Not that I think it’s significant: As others have pointed out, we cannot usually hear the difference anyway. But claiming that digital wireless limitations vs. analog wired are a given is misleading.

          The Bluetooth spec is a confusing spec from a consumer point of view, but for an engineer it’s pretty flexible. Even if you stick to the A2DP profile, there are a fair amount of alternatives available (and the transport part of it has no intrinsic limitation beyond bandwidth and range — neither of which are practical issues for headset audio).

          1. That’s not true either. I’ve never seen/heard any interference in that last chain from amp to speakers (I work in with audio, both live and in recording, and I build amps). I take that back. We had a problem once when the speaker run ran too close to a huge transformer in an outdoor set-up. Nothing anyone would see in an home or smartphone setup. If you were that close to that kind of interference, your speaker line is the least of your problems

            Interference is problematic in the preamp stages, except in the most EXTREME cases. Even when running the audio to your car stereo with an analog run from the headphone jack, it is the car audio wiring that is introducing the noise (and probably also all your smartphone radios), not the speaker line itself.

            Joe

          2. You joke, but monster rock guitarist Eric Johnson swears he can hear when his instrument cables are plugged in backwards.

            Joe

        1. That is pure crap. Are you freaking kidding me?

          No.

          This isn’t the only codec supported by Bluetooth’s Advanced Audio Distribution Profile (A2DP) – in fact, the same profile has optional support for MP3 and AAC formats, although for some reason that option is rarely if ever utilized by manufacturers of Bluetooth audio devices.

          There is part of your answer: No intrinsic limitation with A2DP if your source is MP3 or AAC. (Apple AirPods, BTW, use AAC. I’m guessing that W1-equipped Beats products do too, but I haven’t gotten confirmation on that yet.) In addition, you’re not required to use A2DP (that’s just there so player manufacturers and speaker/headphone manufacture can easily interoperate; not a concern if if — like Apple — you can control both ends), and current versions of Bluetooth have plenty of bandwidth to handle lossless-encoded sources.

  8. My understanding of the Lightning dongle is that you can still plug in your analog headphones and hear sound. Mr. O’Donnell says that the D:A converter is not needed. In order to listen to sound using the dongle, the D:A must still be in the audio stream somewhere unless its in the dongle. Also. When I DID hear fairly well and loved to listen to unencumbered music, I used to subscribe to Stereophile Magazine and often wondered why stereophiles would literally throw tens of thousands of dollars on equipment to replicate the “true” analogue signal with celerity. If this is what Mr. O’Donnell is referring to, I can’t buy into it. Men, and some older women, have significant hearing loss as they get past 30, maybe less so than my Vietnam Vet group who listened to a lot of real noise without hearing protection. I defy a middle-aged man to be able to ascertain between a half-speed master and most later day CD recordings. When it comes to sound quality in a portable device, such as a iPod, most replay equipments will not replay at the quality sound level no matter how much money you throw at the device. I have nearly 4500 recordings on my Mac, only half of them are on my iPhone since I do not have enough memory. I can’t imagine how much memory I would have to have if they were all recorded at half-speed master quality.

    1. I have less than 200 songs on my 64GB iPhone 6 (for the commute). Wi-Fi at work. Wi-Fi at home. Wi-Fi at the cafe. Wi-Fi at the mall. Wi-Fi at the hotel. I can stream Apple’s and Google and Spotify’s entire catalog.

      The only thing I won’t have with the iPhone 7 and bluetooth is Hi-Fi.

      1. i live in the country and outside most of the day with ZERO wifi and areas that I cannot get data. AND I am very selective on my music since it appears that I am 40 years older than you, no offense meant. I have Pandora on my iPad and iPhone, but I’m not satisfied with the selection THEY pick for me. To each his own. Come out in the country where iPhones are a tool.

  9. When Apple removes the headphone jack, they will also, by default, remove the audio DAC (digital-to-analog convertor) from the iPhone because it’s no longer necessary.

    Does that mean the cheap $9 Lightning to Analog adaptor contains a DAC?

    1. That’s not totally true. They still need a DAC (and other stuff) for the internal speakers. But unless they are passing audio through the the Lightning port (which the specs used to say they don’t) then any lightning headset will need at least a DAC and amp. So chances are the adaptor has a DAC and amp built-in.

      Joe

  10. The change is, to me, obviously not an audio, fidelity, or technology based decision, it is an aesthetic decision, pure and simple. But I don’t think they have sacrificed the _music_. And that is what will ultimately make the decision bearable. There is a different experience to hear an extremely high fidelity presentation versus wanting to hear songs. People vary on how much value they put into each, though they are usually inextricable.

    What will cause a problem for Apple in the long-term is the convenience thing. Apple isn’t the first company to try to relegate that analog connection into oblivion. It survived those efforts, too. I have no doubts it will survive this effort. That analog connection is fully capable of passing the highest quality audio possible today and likely for the foreseeable future.

    Nothing beats its simplicity. Long after Lightning ports, USB-C ports, and wireless bluetooth standards have passed on to other standards, the mini-jack will still be able to do what those others have had to surrender to their successors. The convenience will be that the mini-jack is still best at what it does. that’s why it is still around. Nothing has done the job better. Nothing.

    Joe

    1. Back in the days, Nokia failed with the 1.5mm jack, which was a much smaller departure. I guess a dongle is a dongle is a dongle, and if you gotta have a dongle, might as well be a complex one w/ more benefits than just “a tad smaller”.

  11. Most of the commenters miss the point. Apple could make the transition easier by including aptX codec support for a better experience from third-party Bluetooth headphones. As it stands, the only people benefiting from the “wireless revolution” are Apple and people using AirPods. In ear headphones aren’t acceptable to me or my family. We have fours iPhone users (and four iPads) in the house and a junk drawer of in-ear headphones — wires and wireless. They just don’t fit comfortably. We prefer over the ear headphones. But the quality of Bluetooth on Apple devices that don’t have an Apple proprietary W1 chip is sub-par.

    I don’t care if a survey of tone-deaf public can’t hear the difference. I can.

  12. I’m blown away by the iPhone 7/7+ and over time I’ve done less and less with Android as far as customization, flashing ROMs, etc. I’m at a point where I just need high quality hardware, reliability, and a smooth UX. Nougat on the Nexus devices is close, and I’m also considering the Pixel XL phone, but I’d be lying to myself If I said I wasn’t strongly considering even grabbing a used iPhone 6S like this https://www.getorchard.com/us/iphone-6s-for-sale/ until my contract is up and I can upgrade again…

    1. I can relate much more to what you’re saying on a phone. What about a tablet? Why should a tablet be hindered by a phone OS?

  13. FYI, all. There was a technical error about Apple removing the DAC in the iPhone 7 that has now been corrected. Note that it does not change any of my arguments.

  14. It’s understandable why Apple is making bad decisions about audio quality. This has been the case since they first employed audio charlatan Tomlinson Holman. Holman, who was responsible for the cinema audio mess that is called THX, put back cinema audio decades with his unscientific claptrap. Holman went to work at Apple after he became persona non grata in the film world, and the bad audio decisions being made by Apple reek of the Holman unscientific approach. Cinema sound has struggled to recover from Holman’s bad decisions there.

  15. “Perfectly enjoyed this insightful read! Hazmat suits are indeed critical protective gear. To help those on the hunting, I’d persuade checking short this complete guide as far as something the most appropriate nuclear fallout protection suits in the market. Safeness initially, ever after!”

  16. SightCare is a powerful formula that supports healthy eyes the natural way. It is specifically designed for both men and women who are suffering from poor eyesight.

  17. GlucoTrust 75% off for sale. GlucoTrust is a dietary supplement that has been designed to support healthy blood sugar levels and promote weight loss in a natural way.

  18. Quietum Plus is a 100% natural supplement designed to address ear ringing and other hearing issues. This formula uses only the best in class and natural ingredients to achieve desired results.

  19. Cortexi – $49/bottle price official website. Cortexi is a natural formulas to support healthy hearing and mental sharpness well into your golden years.

  20. Nervogen Pro is a dietary formula that contains 100% natural ingredients. The powerful blend of ingredients claims to support a healthy nervous system. Each capsule includes herbs and antioxidants that protect the nerve against damage and nourishes the nerves with the required nutrients. Order Your Nervogen Pro™ Now!

  21. Achieve real weight loss success with ProvaSlim provides real Weight loss powder, weight gain health benefits, toxin elimination, and helps users better digestion.

  22. SonoVive™ is a 100% natural hearing supplement by Sam Olsen made with powerful ingredients that help heal tinnitus problems and restore your hearing.

  23. Boostaro increases blood flow to the reproductive organs, leading to stronger and more vibrant erections. It provides a powerful boost that can make you feel like you’ve unlocked the secret to firm erections

  24. Neotonics is a dietary supplement that offers help in retaining glowing skin and maintaining gut health for its users. It is made of the most natural elements that mother nature can offer and also includes 500 million units of beneficial microbiome.

  25. GlucoBerry is a meticulously crafted supplement designed by doctors to support healthy blood sugar levels by harnessing the power of delphinidin—an essential compound.

  26. Dentitox Pro is a liquid dietary solution created as a serum to support healthy gums and teeth. Dentitox Pro formula is made in the best natural way with unique, powerful botanical ingredients that can support healthy teeth.

  27. Nervogen Pro, A Cutting-Edge Supplement Dedicated To Enhancing Nerve Health And Providing Natural Relief From Discomfort. Our Mission Is To Empower You To Lead A Life Free From The Limitations Of Nerve-Related Challenges. With A Focus On Premium Ingredients And Scientific Expertise.

  28. HoneyBurn is a 100% natural honey mixture formula that can support both your digestive health and fat-burning mechanism. Since it is formulated using 11 natural plant ingredients, it is clinically proven to be safe and free of toxins, chemicals, or additives.

  29. Amiclear is a dietary supplement designed to support healthy blood sugar levels and assist with glucose metabolism. It contains eight proprietary blends of ingredients that have been clinically proven to be effective.

  30. Claritox Pro™ is a natural dietary supplement that is formulated to support brain health and promote a healthy balance system to prevent dizziness, risk injuries, and disability. This formulation is made using naturally sourced and effective ingredients that are mixed in the right way and in the right amounts to deliver effective results.

  31. Metabo Flex is a nutritional formula that enhances metabolic flexibility by awakening the calorie-burning switch in the body. The supplement is designed to target the underlying causes of stubborn weight gain utilizing a special “miracle plant” from Cambodia that can melt fat 24/7.

  32. Glucofort Blood Sugar Support is an all-natural dietary formula that works to support healthy blood sugar levels. It also supports glucose metabolism. According to the manufacturer, this supplement can help users keep their blood sugar levels healthy and within a normal range with herbs, vitamins, plant extracts, and other natural ingredients.

  33. TropiSlim is a unique dietary supplement designed to address specific health concerns, primarily focusing on weight management and related issues in women, particularly those over the age of 40.

  34. GlucoFlush Supplement is an all-new blood sugar-lowering formula. It is a dietary supplement based on the Mayan cleansing routine that consists of natural ingredients and nutrients.

  35. While Inchagrow is marketed as a dietary supplement, it is important to note that dietary supplements are regulated by the FDA. This means that their safety and effectiveness, and there is 60 money back guarantee that Inchagrow will work for everyone.

  36. Gorilla Flow is a non-toxic supplement that was developed by experts to boost prostate health for men. It’s a blend of all-natural nutrients, including Pumpkin Seed Extract Stinging Nettle Extract, Gorilla Cherry and Saw Palmetto, Boron, and Lycopene.

  37. GlucoCare is a dietary supplement designed to promote healthy blood sugar levels, manage weight, and curb unhealthy sugar absorption. It contains a natural blend of ingredients that target the root cause of unhealthy glucose levels.

  38. Manufactured in an FDA-certified facility in the USA, EndoPump is pure, safe, and free from negative side effects. With its strict production standards and natural ingredients, EndoPump is a trusted choice for men looking to improve their sexual performance.

  39. Nervogen Pro is a cutting-edge dietary supplement that takes a holistic approach to nerve health. It is meticulously crafted with a precise selection of natural ingredients known for their beneficial effects on the nervous system. By addressing the root causes of nerve discomfort, Nervogen Pro aims to provide lasting relief and support for overall nerve function.

  40. FitSpresso stands out as a remarkable dietary supplement designed to facilitate effective weight loss. Its unique blend incorporates a selection of natural elements including green tea extract, milk thistle, and other components with presumed weight loss benefits.

  41. SonoVive is an all-natural supplement made to address the root cause of tinnitus and other inflammatory effects on the brain and promises to reduce tinnitus, improve hearing, and provide peace of mind. SonoVive is is a scientifically verified 10-second hack that allows users to hear crystal-clear at maximum volume. The 100% natural mix recipe improves the ear-brain link with eight natural ingredients. The treatment consists of easy-to-use pills that can be added to one’s daily routine to improve hearing health, reduce tinnitus, and maintain a sharp mind and razor-sharp focus.

  42. Introducing FlowForce Max, a solution designed with a single purpose: to provide men with an affordable and safe way to address BPH and other prostate concerns. Unlike many costly supplements or those with risky stimulants, we’ve crafted FlowForce Max with your well-being in mind. Don’t compromise your health or budget – choose FlowForce Max for effective prostate support today!

  43. TerraCalm is an antifungal mineral clay that may support the health of your toenails. It is for those who struggle with brittle, weak, and discoloured nails. It has a unique blend of natural ingredients that may work to nourish and strengthen your toenails.

  44. Cortexi is an effective hearing health support formula that has gained positive user feedback for its ability to improve hearing ability and memory. This supplement contains natural ingredients and has undergone evaluation to ensure its efficacy and safety. Manufactured in an FDA-registered and GMP-certified facility, Cortexi promotes healthy hearing, enhances mental acuity, and sharpens memory.

  45. Sight Care is a daily supplement proven in clinical trials and conclusive science to improve vision by nourishing the body from within. The Sight Care formula claims to reverse issues in eyesight, and every ingredient is completely natural.

  46. Kudos on the article! It’s well-written and informative. Adding more visuals in your future pieces could make them even more enjoyable for readers.

  47. LeanBiome is a company that specializes in providing its customers with high-quality dietary supplements that promote healthy digestion and overall well-being. One of their key products is the lean bacteria species capsules, which contain nine clinically-researched living organisms that work together to support a healthy gut microbiome. However, it is important to note that these bacteria need to stay alive in order to be effective. This is where LeanBiome’s use of cutting-edge DRcaps capsules comes into play.

  48. Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic is a unique weight loss supplement that sets itself apart from others in the market. Unlike other supplements that rely on caffeine and stimulants to boost energy levels, Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic takes a different approach. It utilizes a blend of eight natural ingredients to address the root causes of weight gain. By targeting inflammation and improving sleep quality, Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic provides a holistic solution to weight loss. These natural ingredients not only support healthy inflammation but also promote better sleep, which are crucial factors in achieving weight loss goals. By addressing these underlying issues, Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic helps individuals achieve sustainable weight loss results.

  49. Sugar Defender’s prowess in managing blood sugar is deeply rooted in its exceptional blend of natural ingredients, each playing a distinct role that contributes to the overall success of the supplement. Here are some noteworthy positive impacts of the Sugar Defender Ingredients blend:

  50. PBN sites
    We generate a system of self-owned blog network sites!

    Merits of our private blog network:

    We perform everything so GOOGLE does not realize that THIS IS A self-owned blog network!!!

    1- We acquire web domains from different registrars

    2- The principal site is hosted on a virtual private server (Virtual Private Server is high-speed hosting)

    3- Additional sites are on separate hostings

    4- We assign a distinct Google account to each site with verification in Search Console.

    5- We design websites on WP, we don’t use plugins with assistance from which malware penetrate and through which pages on your websites are created.

    6- We refrain from duplicate templates and use only distinct text and pictures

    We refrain from work with website design; the client, if wished, can then edit the websites to suit his wishes

  51. Rolex watches
    Understanding COSC Validation and Its Importance in Watchmaking
    COSC Accreditation and its Strict Criteria
    Controle Officiel Suisse des Chronometres, or the Official Swiss Chronometer Testing Agency, is the authorized Swiss testing agency that attests to the precision and precision of wristwatches. COSC accreditation is a sign of quality craftsmanship and reliability in chronometry. Not all watch brands pursue COSC accreditation, such as Hublot, which instead adheres to its proprietary strict criteria with movements like the UNICO, attaining similar accuracy.

    The Science of Exact Timekeeping
    The core mechanism of a mechanical watch involves the spring, which delivers power as it loosens. This system, however, can be prone to environmental elements that may impact its precision. COSC-validated mechanisms undergo demanding testing—over 15 days in various circumstances (5 positions, three temperatures)—to ensure their durability and reliability. The tests evaluate:

    Mean daily rate accuracy between -4 and +6 seconds.
    Mean variation, highest variation levels, and impacts of thermal variations.
    Why COSC Certification Is Important
    For timepiece fans and collectors, a COSC-validated watch isn’t just a item of technology but a proof to enduring excellence and precision. It symbolizes a timepiece that:

    Offers excellent dependability and accuracy.
    Ensures confidence of superiority across the whole design of the watch.
    Is likely to maintain its worth more effectively, making it a sound choice.
    Well-known Chronometer Brands
    Several renowned manufacturers prioritize COSC certification for their timepieces, including Rolex, Omega, Breitling, and Longines, among others. Longines, for instance, presents collections like the Record and Soul, which feature COSC-accredited mechanisms equipped with innovative materials like silicon equilibrium suspensions to improve durability and efficiency.

    Historic Background and the Evolution of Timepieces
    The concept of the chronometer dates back to the requirement for exact chronometry for navigation at sea, emphasized by John Harrison’s work in the 18th century. Since the official establishment of Controle Officiel Suisse des Chronometres in 1973, the certification has become a benchmark for evaluating the accuracy of high-end timepieces, sustaining a legacy of excellence in horology.

    Conclusion
    Owning a COSC-certified watch is more than an visual selection; it’s a dedication to excellence and accuracy. For those valuing accuracy above all, the COSC validation offers peace of thoughts, guaranteeing that each validated timepiece will perform reliably under various circumstances. Whether for individual contentment or as an investment, COSC-certified watches distinguish themselves in the world of watchmaking, carrying on a tradition of meticulous chronometry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *