Apple Music's new lossless output not available on Apple hardware

[Chris]

Apple's new Hi-res lossless codec which can be as high as 24bit/192KHz
won't work via bluetooth nor wired headphones via lightning port adapters.
https://www.whathifi.com/news/apple-music-hi-resolution-lossless-wont-work-on-iphone-airpods-or-homepod

Seems a bit of a pointless exercise.

I wonder if the headphone jack on an iphone 6 would work better?

[sms]

<https://gizmodo.com/apple-changes-its-mind-says-homepod-and-homepod-mini-w-1846948667>.

Since the Codec is open source you'll also be able to use it on Windows
(and presumably Linux). The goal is to sell more Apple Music subscriptions.

I doubt if anyone would be able to discern the difference between an
ALAC stream and an AAC stream on a Homepod or on a phone. But if you had
a higher-end receiver that could stream using ALAC it would be
worthwhile. An Apple TV box with optical audio out connected to a good
receiver would be great. Oddly, the latest generation of the the Apple
TV box dropped the optical audio port.

[nospam]

In article <s8gjdg$inu$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Apple's new Hi-res lossless codec which can be as high as 24bit/192KHz
> won't work via bluetooth nor wired headphones via lightning port adapters.
>
> https://www.whathifi.com/news/apple-music-hi-resolution-lossless-wont-work-on-
> iphone-airpods-or-homepod
>
> Seems a bit of a pointless exercise.

bluetooth is inherently lossy.

it's not possible without a new protocol.

> I wonder if the headphone jack on an iphone 6 would work better?

nope. high res audio is a significant limitation for obsolete analog
headphone jacks.

digital headphone jacks support external dacs, at least on iphones.

not that it matters, since there is no audible difference for human
listeners, nor can there be.

[nospam]

In article <s8gl3l$fg8$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Oddly, the latest generation of the the Apple
> TV box dropped the optical audio port.

nothing odd about it. optical wasn't used enough to justify keeping it.

[Lewis]

Optical audio was dropped from the previous Apple TV, 5 years ago or so.


--
"It's unacceptable to think" - George W Bush 15/Sep/2006

[Lewis]

In message <240520211326011050%nos...@nospam.invalid> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <s8gjdg$inu$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>> Apple's new Hi-res lossless codec which can be as high as 24bit/192KHz
>> won't work via bluetooth nor wired headphones via lightning port adapters.
>>
>> https://www.whathifi.com/news/apple-music-hi-resolution-lossless-wont-work-on-
>> iphone-airpods-or-homepod
>>
>> Seems a bit of a pointless exercise.

> bluetooth is inherently lossy.

> it's not possible without a new protocol.

>> I wonder if the headphone jack on an iphone 6 would work better?

> nope. high res audio is a significant limitation for obsolete analog
> headphone jacks.

And entirely meaningless to human hearing.

> not that it matters, since there is no audible difference for human
> listeners, nor can there be.

Exactly. This is just to shut up of the audidweebs whiners who claim, in
the face of all evidence and testing and medical facts that they can
hear a difference they cannot possibly hear.


--
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is
possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that
something is impossible, he is probably wrong.

[alien]

Do you mean that the dac processor in Iphone 6 is not enough to emulate
from digital to analog?

--
-alien-
~ Work like you don't need the money. ~
~ Love like you've never been hurt. ~
~ Dance like nobody is looking. ~

[nospam]

In article <GzYqI.664598$rZh3....@fx08.ams4>, alien

<al...@invalid.address> wrote:

> >> I wonder if the headphone jack on an iphone 6 would work better?
> >
> > nope. high res audio is a significant limitation for obsolete analog
> > headphone jacks.
> >
> > digital headphone jacks support external dacs, at least on iphones.
> >
> > not that it matters, since there is no audible difference for human
> > listeners, nor can there be.
>
> Do you mean that the dac processor in Iphone 6 is not enough to emulate
> from digital to analog?

no, and there is no emulation.

[alien]

Now I am not get what you mean.
If I am not mistaken all Iphone that have headphone jacks have their own
DAC.
Does Apple purposely bypass the DAC for Iphone that have headphone jacks?

[sms]

On 5/24/2021 6:54 PM, alien wrote:

<snip>

> Now I am not get what you mean.
> If I am not mistaken all Iphone that have headphone jacks have their own
> DAC.
> Does Apple purposely bypass the DAC for Iphone that have headphone jacks?

Beginning with the iPhone 7 there was no headphone jack, analog or digital.

There have not been any phones with digital audio (either TOSLINK or
coaxial).

Beginning with the iPhone 7 you could buy a Lightning to 3.5mm cable
that had a DAC inside the connector, but no one called the Lightning
port a "digital headphone jack."

For the new ALAC Codec it should be interesting to see if higher end
audio component manufacturers include ALAC in future equipment.

[alien]

On 25/05/21 04.33, sms wrote:
<snip>

>
> Beginning with the iPhone 7 there was no headphone jack, analog or digital.
>
> There have not been any phones with digital audio (either TOSLINK or
> coaxial).
>
> Beginning with the iPhone 7 you could buy a Lightning to 3.5mm cable
> that had a DAC inside the connector, but no one called the Lightning
> port a "digital headphone jack."
>
> For the new ALAC Codec it should be interesting to see if higher end
> audio component manufacturers include ALAC in future equipment.

Thank you for your explanation, I though the DAC (digital audio
converter) inside the old Iphone is capable to translate/emulate/
process the lossless digital audio to analog.

I was planning to hook up my old Iphone 6s to my car via audio line in.
I though it will make the sound much better, instead of using bluetooth.

[nospam]

In article <ENYqI.444507$KHwf....@fx25.ams4>, alien

<al...@invalid.address> wrote:

> >> Do you mean that the dac processor in Iphone 6 is not enough to emulate
> >> from digital to analog?
> >
> > no, and there is no emulation.
> >
>
> Now I am not get what you mean.

clearly.

> If I am not mistaken all Iphone that have headphone jacks have their own
> DAC.

just about every modern consumer electronic device has a dac, including
all smartphones, mp3 players, cameras, cd/dvd players, thermostats and
much, much ore.

> Does Apple purposely bypass the DAC for Iphone that have headphone jacks?

no unless an external dac is used, for obvious reasons.

[nospam]

In article <xRZqI.577712$dq1e....@fx22.ams4>, alien

<al...@invalid.address> wrote:

> > Beginning with the iPhone 7 there was no headphone jack, analog or digital.
> >
> > There have not been any phones with digital audio (either TOSLINK or
> > coaxial).
> >
> > Beginning with the iPhone 7 you could buy a Lightning to 3.5mm cable
> > that had a DAC inside the connector, but no one called the Lightning
> > port a "digital headphone jack."
> >
> > For the new ALAC Codec it should be interesting to see if higher end
> > audio component manufacturers include ALAC in future equipment.
>
> Thank you for your explanation,

it's wrong.

> I though the DAC (digital audio
> converter) inside the old Iphone is capable to translate/emulate/
> process the lossless digital audio to analog.

it can, and does.

> I was planning to hook up my old Iphone 6s to my car via audio line in.
> I though it will make the sound much better, instead of using bluetooth.

that has nothing to do with apple hi-res or lossless.

[nospam]

In article <s8hnmd$57s$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Beginning with the iPhone 7 there was no headphone jack, analog or digital.

false.

iphone 5 and later have a digital headphone jack, making the analog
headphone jack redundant, one of several reasons why the latter was
removed with the iphone 7.

> There have not been any phones with digital audio (either TOSLINK or
> coaxial).

nobody said phones had either of those.

> Beginning with the iPhone 7 you could buy a Lightning to 3.5mm cable
> that had a DAC inside the connector, but no one called the Lightning
> port a "digital headphone jack."

many people do.

> For the new ALAC Codec it should be interesting to see if higher end
> audio component manufacturers include ALAC in future equipment.

what new alac codec? alac has been around for more than 15 years and
was open sourced about 10 years ago.

[Lewis]

In message <xRZqI.577712$dq1e....@fx22.ams4> alien <al...@invalid.address> wrote:
> On 25/05/21 04.33, sms wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> Beginning with the iPhone 7 there was no headphone jack, analog or digital.
>>
>> There have not been any phones with digital audio (either TOSLINK or
>> coaxial).
>>
>> Beginning with the iPhone 7 you could buy a Lightning to 3.5mm cable
>> that had a DAC inside the connector, but no one called the Lightning
>> port a "digital headphone jack."
>>
>> For the new ALAC Codec it should be interesting to see if higher end
>> audio component manufacturers include ALAC in future equipment.

> Thank you for your explanation, I though the DAC (digital audio
> converter) inside the old Iphone is capable to translate/emulate/
> process the lossless digital audio to analog.

There is no emulation. Stop using that word, it does not mean what you
think it means.

--
In the words of one of the founding Igors: 'We belong dead? Ecthcuthe
me? Where doeth it thay "we"?'

[alien]

On 25/05/21 07.18, Lewis wrote:
> In message <xRZqI.577712$dq1e....@fx22.ams4> alien <al...@invalid.address> wrote:

<snip>

>
> There is no emulation. Stop using that word, it does not mean what you
> think it means.
>

Sorry, as you can see English is not my native language.
But I think you should understand what I mean ^_^

[alien]

On 25/05/21 05.21, nospam wrote:
>> I though the DAC (digital audio
>> converter) inside the old Iphone is capable to translate/emulate/
>> process the lossless digital audio to analog.
>
> it can, and does.
>
>> I was planning to hook up my old Iphone 6s to my car via audio line in.
>> I though it will make the sound much better, instead of using bluetooth.
>
> that has nothing to do with apple hi-res or lossless.
>

Thank you for your answer.
If it can process the signal from digital to analog.
Why the sound will not improve with Apple music lossless?

With Bluetooth it is convenient but if with direct plugin will make it
better it would be nice.

Too bad I cannot try it yet. I am really curious about the apple lossless.

[Rod Speed]

"alien" <al...@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:gB2rI.610294$hcZe....@fx46.ams4...

> On 25/05/21 05.21, nospam wrote:
>>> I though the DAC (digital audio
>>> converter) inside the old Iphone is capable to translate/emulate/
>>> process the lossless digital audio to analog.
>>
>> it can, and does.
>>
>>> I was planning to hook up my old Iphone 6s to my car via audio line in.
>>> I though it will make the sound much better, instead of using bluetooth.
>>
>> that has nothing to do with apple hi-res or lossless.
>>
>
> Thank you for your answer.
> If it can process the signal from digital to analog.
> Why the sound will not improve with Apple music lossless?
>
> With Bluetooth it is convenient but if with direct plugin will make it
> better it would be nice.
>
> Too bad I cannot try it yet. I am really curious about the apple lossless.

Don’t forget what killed the cat.

[Lewis]

In message <GA2rI.610293$hcZe....@fx46.ams4> alien <al...@invalid.address> wrote:
> On 25/05/21 07.18, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <xRZqI.577712$dq1e....@fx22.ams4> alien <al...@invalid.address> wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> There is no emulation. Stop using that word, it does not mean what you
>> think it means.
>>

> Sorry, as you can see English is not my native language.
> But I think you should understand what I mean ^_^

Nope. I know what emulation means, but I have no idea what you are
trying to say or what you think it means.

--
Don't be afraid to be weak, Don't be too proud to be strong.

[nospam]

In article <gB2rI.610294$hcZe....@fx46.ams4>, alien

<al...@invalid.address> wrote:

> Why the sound will not improve with Apple music lossless?

it does, but humans can't tell the difference. some people think they
can, but they can't.

> With Bluetooth it is convenient but if with direct plugin will make it
> better it would be nice.
>
> Too bad I cannot try it yet. I am really curious about the apple lossless.

you can easily try it. apple lossless has been around for more than 15
years.

[sms]

On 5/24/2021 8:07 PM, alien wrote:

<snip>

> I was planning to hook up my old Iphone 6s to my car via audio line in.
> I though it will make the sound much better, instead of using bluetooth.

Even without lossless compression it'll sound better via audio line in
versus Bluetooth, though I wouldn't go to "much better."

Perhaps there will now be a new run on NOS (New Old Stock) of the iPhone
6s, though it's not clear how good the internal DAC on the 6s is. ALAC
goes up to 24-bit/192 kHz, and it's highly unlikely that the internal
hardware DAC on the 6s can go up to that. You really need an external DAC.

The Apple web site states that to listen to lossless music on the iPhone
or iPad you need either a) a wired connection to headphones, receivers,
or powered speakers (using the 3.5mm headphone jack), b) use the
internal speakers (no upside to lossless audio on the internal
speakers), or c) an external DAC (plugged into the Lightning or USB
port). They also mention that lossless won't work over Bluetooth
(obviously). For the Mac the advice is the same.

For Apple TV the advice is strange. They only mention the 4K model, and
they tell you to use an HDMI cable to your receiver or TV but then they
say it doesn't support sample rates greater than 48KHz. Nothing about
older Apple TV models with TOSLINK digital audio.

Nothing said about Lightning to HDMI adapters or USB to HDMI adapters.

There are already USB-C to TOSLINK and 3.5mm DACs available for Android.
Amazon Music has been offering lossless since 2019.

Some people have used Apple's Lighting to USB adapter and then an
external USB DAC. You have to run the output of the USB adapter into a
powered USB hub and then plug the external DAC into the USB hub because
the Lightning port can't supply sufficient current for the DAC (on
Android, USB OTG has no problem supplying sufficient current). Not sure
about the iPad Pro with USB-C, but probably the hub is not needed.
Apparently some external DACs have an option for an external power
source eliminating the need for a powered USB hub, but still requiring a
power adapter.

The bottom line is that the best option for the highest quality out of
an iOS device is likely an iPad Pro and a USB-C to TOSLINK and/or analog
external DAC. Second best is a Lightning to USB dongle, a powered USB
hub with a USB-C port, and a USB-C to TOSLINK and/or analog external DAC.

Probably we'll see someone making a MFi Lightning to TOSLINK and/or
analog external DAC, but it will likely have to be powered externally.

[nospam]

In article <s8iumv$i9h$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Perhaps there will now be a new run on NOS (New Old Stock) of the iPhone
> 6s,

there won't.

> though it's not clear how good the internal DAC on the 6s is.

it's clear.

> ALAC
> goes up to 24-bit/192 kHz, and it's highly unlikely that the internal
> hardware DAC on the 6s can go up to that.

it can. it uses a cirrus logic chip capable of hi-res audio. it also
doesn't matter since humans can't hear a difference.

> You really need an external DAC.

true, although it's a waste of money.

[Chris]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <s8gjdg$inu$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Apple's new Hi-res lossless codec which can be as high as 24bit/192KHz
>> won't work via bluetooth nor wired headphones via lightning port adapters.
>>
>> https://www.whathifi.com/news/apple-music-hi-resolution-lossless-wont-work-on-
>> iphone-airpods-or-homepod
>>
>> Seems a bit of a pointless exercise.
>
> bluetooth is inherently lossy.

Why? It's simply a transport protocol. What it transports isn't lossy or
lossless.

> it's not possible without a new protocol.
>
>> I wonder if the headphone jack on an iphone 6 would work better?
>
> nope. high res audio is a significant limitation for obsolete analog
> headphone jacks.

Doubtful.

> digital headphone jacks support external dacs, at least on iphones.
>
> not that it matters, since there is no audible difference for human
> listeners, nor can there be.

What you believe is irrelevant.

[sms]

On 5/25/2021 1:31 AM, alien wrote:

<snip>

> If it can process the signal from digital to analog.
> Why the sound will not improve with Apple music lossless?

It depends on the quality of the hardware DAC inside the iPhone or iPad
with a headphone jack.

Apple implies that the hardware DAC is good enough when they state at
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212183>:

"You can listen to lossless on an iPhone or iPad updated to iOS or
iPadOS 14.6 using:

• A wired connection to headphones, receivers, or powered speakers"
• The built-in speakers
• To listen to songs at sample rates higher than 48 kHz, you need an
external digital-to-analog converter."

However the third bullet in that list should not be a bullet at all. The
text should read:

"You can listen to lossless on an iPhone or iPad updated to iOS or
iPadOS 14.6 using:

• A wired connection to headphones, receivers, or powered speakers"
• The built-in speakers

To listen to songs at sample rates higher than 48 kHz, you need an
external digital-to-analog converter."

This is because the internal hardware DAC tops out at 48khz while ALAC
goes up to 24-bit/192 kHz.

However you can still get CD quality audio out of the headphone jack
(16-bit/44.1 kHz), something you can't get via Bluetooth. Same as if you
plugged a Lightning to 3.5mm dongle into the Lightning jack. But you
could do this pre-ALAC as well, the file sizes would just be larger in
other lossless formats.

Unless you have a really high-end sound system, in a vehicle with very
little road noise or wind noise, I doubt if you could tell the
difference between .m4a (either AAC or ALAC), .caf, or .mp3 music. You
might be able to tell the difference between a Bluetooth and an analog
connection, depending on how good the Bluetooth is in the vehicle's
audio system, and again depending on the vehicle.

[nospam]

In article <s8j15d$4v7$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> However you can still get CD quality audio out of the headphone jack
> (16-bit/44.1 kHz), something you can't get via Bluetooth.

cd quality works perfectly fine over bluetooth.

it's not lossless, nor does it need to be. it's audibly
indistinguishable from the original cd, making it cd quality.

[nospam]

In article <ih4g4o...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger

<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> there is no audible difference for human listeners, nor can there be.
> >
> > What you believe is irrelevant.
>

> Projection.
>
> It is a fact (not a "belief") that most people simply cannot tell the
> difference.

not just most people, but *all* people. it's a limitation of human
physiology.

some people *think* they can hear a difference, but in objective
double-blind tests, they fail to do so. they do no better than chance.
they are simply guessing.

[nospam]

In article <s8j0ih$i1$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> >> Apple's new Hi-res lossless codec which can be as high as 24bit/192KHz
> >> won't work via bluetooth nor wired headphones via lightning port adapters.
> >>
> >>
> >> https://www.whathifi.com/news/apple-music-hi-resolution-lossless-wont-work-
> >> on-
> >> iphone-airpods-or-homepod
> >>
> >> Seems a bit of a pointless exercise.
> >
> > bluetooth is inherently lossy.
>
> Why? It's simply a transport protocol. What it transports isn't lossy or
> lossless.

low bandwidth and the profiles are all inherently lossy.

a future version of bluetooth could have sufficient bandwidth for
lossless, but it does not exist at this time and would only work with
future bluetooth headsets that also support it. existing headsets would
still use the lossy profiles.

> > it's not possible without a new protocol.
> >
> >> I wonder if the headphone jack on an iphone 6 would work better?
> >
> > nope. high res audio is a significant limitation for obsolete analog
> > headphone jacks.
>
> Doubtful.

there no doubt whatsoever. it can be shown mathematically.

> > digital headphone jacks support external dacs, at least on iphones.
> >
> > not that it matters, since there is no audible difference for human
> > listeners, nor can there be.
>
> What you believe is irrelevant.

it's not what i believe, but rather the limits of human physiology and
the results of numerous objective double-blind tests, which have
consistently shown that listeners cannot tell the difference, despite
thinking that they can.

there is no audible benefit for lossless and certainly not for hi-res.

there is a difference on an oscilloscope, but that isn't anything
that's audible.

dogs and bats might notice a difference, but they don't buy very many
iphones nor do they subscribe to any of the music services.

[Chris]

On 25/05/2021 15:40, nospam wrote:
> In article <s8j0ih$i1$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Apple's new Hi-res lossless codec which can be as high as 24bit/192KHz
>>>> won't work via bluetooth nor wired headphones via lightning port adapters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.whathifi.com/news/apple-music-hi-resolution-lossless-wont-work-
>>>> on-
>>>> iphone-airpods-or-homepod
>>>>
>>>> Seems a bit of a pointless exercise.
>>>
>>> bluetooth is inherently lossy.
>>
>> Why? It's simply a transport protocol. What it transports isn't lossy or
>> lossless.
>
> low bandwidth and the profiles are all inherently lossy.

OK. Bandwidth limitation I get. So what's the point enabling lossless
given that almost no-one can make use of it? Even the Homepods can use
it, yet. Just a gimmick?

> a future version of bluetooth could have sufficient bandwidth for
> lossless, but it does not exist at this time and would only work with
> future bluetooth headsets that also support it. existing headsets would
> still use the lossy profiles.
>
>>> it's not possible without a new protocol.
>>>
>>>> I wonder if the headphone jack on an iphone 6 would work better?
>>>
>>> nope. high res audio is a significant limitation for obsolete analog
>>> headphone jacks.
>>
>> Doubtful.
>
> there no doubt whatsoever. it can be shown mathematically.

Go on then.

>>> digital headphone jacks support external dacs, at least on iphones.
>>>
>>> not that it matters, since there is no audible difference for human
>>> listeners, nor can there be.
>>
>> What you believe is irrelevant.
>
> it's not what i believe,

Like I said it doesn't matter. Apple are providing an additional
service, that's what I'm discussing. Not whether that service has any
functional benefit for users. That's a different argument which you're
welcome to have, but not with me.

[Chris]

Thanks for this.

[nospam]

In article <s8j62r$9jo$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>>
> >>> bluetooth is inherently lossy.
> >>
> >> Why? It's simply a transport protocol. What it transports isn't lossy or
> >> lossless.
> >
> > low bandwidth and the profiles are all inherently lossy.
>
> OK. Bandwidth limitation I get. So what's the point enabling lossless
> given that almost no-one can make use of it?

the internal iphone speakers and external dacs support it.

people also think it's a benefit, even though they can't hear a
difference.

> Even the Homepods can use
> it, yet.

they will soon.

there's not much point to support a feature that hasn't been announced.

> Just a gimmick?

absolutely.

audiophools will pay for anything.

in this case, it's being offered for free, undercutting the competition.

> >>>> I wonder if the headphone jack on an iphone 6 would work better?
> >>>
> >>> nope. high res audio is a significant limitation for obsolete analog
> >>> headphone jacks.
> >>
> >> Doubtful.
> >
> > there no doubt whatsoever. it can be shown mathematically.
>
> Go on then.

nyquist.

[sms]

On 5/25/2021 9:03 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

>> Unless you have a really high-end sound system, in a vehicle with very
>> little road noise or wind noise, I doubt if you could tell the
>> difference between .m4a (either AAC or ALAC), .caf, or .mp3 music. You
>> might be able to tell the difference between a Bluetooth and an analog
>> connection, depending on how good the Bluetooth is in the vehicle's
>> audio system, and again depending on the vehicle.
>
> Thanks for this.

ALACs potential is really for audiophiles. You can buy the Apple CCK
(Lightning USB 3.0 adapter) and power the phone and the adapter with a
Lightning charger.

This one <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07ZSQV8JX> might be worth trying.
It does USB-C to a headphone jack as well as digital audio both coax and
optical. They say that it works with the Apple CCK (probably powered).

It claims to support 192kHz/24-bit. One review said that at 192KHz there
were problems, and some of the other reviews were not wonderful, though
some people had no problems. The device providing the USB 3.0 stream
needs to be able to stream at the higher bit rates, and I suspect that
the problems people had were because the host device was too slow.

I've wanted a non-Bluetooth method to connect my older high-quality
audio system to my phone for a while so I may try this. For now I've
been playing CDs via HDMI audio which is fine if I have the CD.

I'll have to rip all my CDs in a lossless format. What would be nice is
a small laptop with a physical Ethernet port, a USB 3.0 port, and an
external 5GB or so hard drive on the network with the music library.

My guess is that we'll see some Apple devices, like the next Apple TV or
a separate audio-only DAC with analog and digital audio outputs.

[nospam]

In article <s8jff2$ri2$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> ALACs potential is really for audiophiles.

it's potential is for archiving.

what audiophiles do can be ignored. they are detached from reality.

> You can buy the Apple CCK
> (Lightning USB 3.0 adapter) and power the phone and the adapter with a
> Lightning charger.

no need.

[Chris]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <s8j62r$9jo$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> bluetooth is inherently lossy.
>>>>
>>>> Why? It's simply a transport protocol. What it transports isn't lossy or
>>>> lossless.
>>>
>>> low bandwidth and the profiles are all inherently lossy.
>>
>> OK. Bandwidth limitation I get. So what's the point enabling lossless
>> given that almost no-one can make use of it?
>
> the internal iphone speakers and external dacs support it.

iphone speakers? Don't make me laugh!

> people also think it's a benefit, even though they can't hear a
> difference.
>
>> Even the Homepods can use
>> it, yet.
>
> they will soon.
>
> there's not much point to support a feature that hasn't been announced.
>
>> Just a gimmick?
>
> absolutely.
>
> audiophools will pay for anything.
>
> in this case, it's being offered for free, undercutting the competition.
>
>>>>>> I wonder if the headphone jack on an iphone 6 would work better?
>>>>>
>>>>> nope. high res audio is a significant limitation for obsolete analog
>>>>> headphone jacks.
>>>>
>>>> Doubtful.
>>>
>>> there no doubt whatsoever. it can be shown mathematically.
>>
>> Go on then.
>
> nyquist.

That'll be a no, then.

[sms]

On 5/25/2021 2:44 PM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> iphone speakers? Don't make me laugh!

Yes, that was very amusing.

[alien]

On 25/05/21 14.54, nospam wrote:
> In article <gB2rI.610294$hcZe....@fx46.ams4>, alien

> it does, but humans can't tell the difference. some people think they
> can, but they can't.

Well that sort of truth. Especially the older the human is, the range of
sound it can heard also became limited.

Maybe that's why the older someone, usually they will try to buy better
gear, even though, maybe it little bit useless ^_^

The one that should get a good earphone is younger generation so they
will experience how music can be so good.

> you can easily try it. apple lossless has been around for more than 15
> years.

Yes, I did that with my ipod, usually I was rip my CD to alac.
In my defend I was young it that time and also I am to lazy to change my
CD changer. With ipod is much more convenience than CD.

I just wondering, how good is the streaming that apple will release,
even though maybe right now I cannot hear it anymore.

[alien]

On 25/05/21 11.28, Rod Speed wrote:
> "alien" <al...@invalid.address> wrote in message
> news:gB2rI.610294$hcZe....@fx46.ams4...

<snip>

>
> Don’t forget what killed the cat.

Well it because they have too many lives so no wonder the cat like that.
Since I just have one live so I will be careful ^_^

Thank you for your advise.

[nospam]

In article <g_frI.423843$F197....@fx07.ams4>, alien

<al...@invalid.address> wrote:


> I just wondering, how good is the streaming that apple will release,
> even though maybe right now I cannot hear it anymore.

it's lossless, so it will be exactly the same as the original, whatever
that happens to be.

oldies were recorded on magnetic tape, so the original won't be as good
as something with a full digital path.

[nospam]

In article <s8jr4f$cnk$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> >>>>> bluetooth is inherently lossy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why? It's simply a transport protocol. What it transports isn't lossy or
> >>>> lossless.
> >>>
> >>> low bandwidth and the profiles are all inherently lossy.
> >>
> >> OK. Bandwidth limitation I get. So what's the point enabling lossless
> >> given that almost no-one can make use of it?
> >
> > the internal iphone speakers and external dacs support it.
>
> iphone speakers? Don't make me laugh!

laugh all you want. the internal speakers support lossless and hi-res.
go complain to apple if you think it's silly. they're the ones who are
listing it as a supported output device.

in any event, the real benefit is spatial audio, not lossless or
hi-res, which *is* supported via bluetooth (airpods pro & max).

> >
> >>>>>> I wonder if the headphone jack on an iphone 6 would work better?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> nope. high res audio is a significant limitation for obsolete analog
> >>>>> headphone jacks.
> >>>>
> >>>> Doubtful.
> >>>
> >>> there no doubt whatsoever. it can be shown mathematically.
> >>
> >> Go on then.
> >
> > nyquist.
>
> That'll be a no, then.

it's a very definite yes.

if you disagree, then by all means prove nyquist wrong. you'll be very
famous and extremely rich.

[alien]

On 25/05/21 16.21, sms wrote:

<snip>

> It depends on the quality of the hardware DAC inside the iPhone or iPad
> with a headphone jack.
>
> Apple implies that the hardware DAC is good enough when they state at
> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212183>:
>
> "You can listen to lossless on an iPhone or iPad updated to iOS or
> iPadOS 14.6 using:
>
>    • A wired connection to headphones, receivers, or powered speakers"
>    • The built-in speakers
>    • To listen to songs at sample rates higher than 48 kHz, you need an
> external digital-to-analog converter."
>
> However the third bullet in that list should not be a bullet at all. The
> text should read:
>
> "You can listen to lossless on an iPhone or iPad updated to iOS or
> iPadOS 14.6 using:
>
>    • A wired connection to headphones, receivers, or powered speakers"
>    • The built-in speakers

Agree especially with all Iphone that didn't have any headphone jack.
That's why I am thinking to dedicated my old iphone 6s just for playing
music and plug it in to my line in on my car head unit.

> To listen to songs at sample rates higher than 48 kHz, you need an
> external digital-to-analog converter."
>
> This is because the internal hardware DAC tops out at 48khz while ALAC
> goes up to 24-bit/192 kHz.
>
> However you can still get CD quality audio out of the headphone jack
> (16-bit/44.1 kHz), something you can't get via Bluetooth. Same as if you
> plugged a Lightning to 3.5mm dongle into the Lightning jack. But you
> could do this pre-ALAC as well, the file sizes would just be larger in
> other lossless formats.
>
> Unless you have a really high-end sound system, in a vehicle with very
> little road noise or wind noise, I doubt if you could tell the
> difference between .m4a (either AAC or ALAC), .caf, or .mp3 music. You
> might be able to tell the difference between a Bluetooth and an analog
> connection, depending on how good the Bluetooth is in the vehicle's
> audio system, and again depending on the vehicle.

I think 16 bit is already good enough for me, I hope I can tell the
different with my current setup.

You are correct, in fact I was try it before cable versus BT with
phones, and yes you can tell the difference.

But too bad since I am subscribe with Apple music, I am rarely bother to
use the line in, since as soon as car turn on, my phone is connected to
the head unit via BT.

I am planning to dedicated the old phone that lying around as apple
music player, whose know with that setup it will better than before, it
is not just because the difference of cable vs BT, but it better because
of the better quality like when I was use my ipod directly wired to the
head unit and the ipod was playing alac.

Thank you so much for your explanation.

[alien]

On 25/05/21 16.40, nospam wrote:
> cd quality works perfectly fine over bluetooth.
>
> it's not lossless, nor does it need to be. it's audibly
> indistinguishable from the original cd, making it cd quality.
>

According to this article
<https://9to5mac.com/2018/12/31/bluetooth-audio-codecs-explained/>

Iphone only using AAC codec if it connected via bluetooth.
It will automatically do that even though the file that it play is MP3,
M4A, or ALAC.

AAC is good for lossy, I am nothing against it since I am also using
bluetooth headphones after Apple decide to take the headphone jack.
I hate it, but what man can do, if the wife said, you should use Iphone
so it will easier for me and the kids to contact you!
I cannot do anything ...

So yeah ... it suck being too deep with apple ecosystem... it worst than
a cancer...

[alien]

On 25/05/21 20.25, sms wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 9:03 AM, Chris wrote:
<snip>
>

> ALACs potential is really for audiophiles. You can buy the Apple CCK
> (Lightning USB 3.0 adapter) and power the phone and the adapter with a
> Lightning charger.
>
> This one <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07ZSQV8JX> might be worth trying.
> It does USB-C to a headphone jack as well as digital audio both coax and
> optical. They say that it works with the Apple CCK (probably powered).
>
> It claims to support 192kHz/24-bit. One review said that at 192KHz there
> were problems, and some of the other reviews were not wonderful, though
> some people had no problems. The device providing the USB 3.0 stream
> needs to be able to stream at the higher bit rates, and I suspect that
> the problems people had were because the host device was too slow.
>
> I've wanted a non-Bluetooth method to connect my older high-quality
> audio system to my phone for a while so I may try this. For now I've
> been playing CDs via HDMI audio which is fine if I have the CD.
>
> I'll have to rip all my CDs in a lossless format. What would be nice is
> a small laptop with a physical Ethernet port, a USB 3.0 port, and an
> external 5GB or so hard drive on the network with the music library.

Interesting!
I think it will better if you plug it in via SFP or coax, the sound will
much better, than you using HDMI.

I was try it few years ago with my late father.

Turn out, the coax or SFP is much better than HDMI, but with HDMI you
can emulate the sound with av receiver, but my late father like it as
stereo instead of artificially surround.
He said to me, CD is stereo but if you using a DVD-audio it will
different story since maybe the record company really intend to have
more than 2 channels.
But since there is not a lot DVD-audio and it is only CD, so it became
useless to connect it via HDMI, and the sound will better if you just
use coax or SPF, that what he said to me.
We tried it and it is true, maybe because of my late father gears or
other reasons, but I can tell the different.

So if it possible, with your setup, give it a try to plug it in on SPF
or coax. Whose know it will sounding better.

> My guess is that we'll see some Apple devices, like the next Apple TV or
> a separate audio-only DAC with analog and digital audio outputs.

Yes, maybe they will make something like that instead of just apple home
pod.
If the infrastructure is ready, I bet they will release it, because it
will a lot of people that will like it, because they can connect it to
their own audio system, and the potential is endless.

[Lewis]

In message <g_frI.423843$F197....@fx07.ams4> alien <al...@invalid.address> wrote:
> On 25/05/21 14.54, nospam wrote:
>> In article <gB2rI.610294$hcZe....@fx46.ams4>, alien

>> it does, but humans can't tell the difference. some people think they
>> can, but they can't.

> Well that sort of truth. Especially the older the human is, the range of
> sound it can heard also became limited.

> Maybe that's why the older someone, usually they will try to buy better
> gear, even though, maybe it little bit useless ^_^

> The one that should get a good earphone is younger generation so they
> will experience how music can be so good.

You are not getting it. Humas have a range of hearing, there are no
humans that can hear the difference between a CD and a high bit rate
audio file. There are no humans who can hear the difference between a
well-encoded 256K AAC a V0 MP3 and a lossless file. It's not an age thing, It is
not an opinion thing. It is not a feeling. It is simple science and
biology.

--
My real name is Fat Patricia

[alien]

On 25/05/21 21.11, nospam wrote:
> it's potential is for archiving.

That is true, especially with CD that can be easily get destroyed.

> what audiophiles do can be ignored. they are detached from reality.

Well everyone have their own liking and preference, some like vinyl some
like CD, etc.
As long as you can afford it and opportunity to have it, there is
nothing wrong with it.
IMHO, Money is just a tools, you cannot bring money to the grave, so
enjoy it before you died.

[Lewis]

In message <s8iumv$i9h$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps there will now be a new run on NOS (New Old Stock) of the iPhone
> 6s, though it's not clear how good the internal DAC on the 6s is. ALAC
> goes up to 24-bit/192 kHz

Which is useful when you are remixing or editing music, and entirely
pointless otherwise.

> (no upside to lossless audio on the internal speakers)

Or you could have just said no upside to lossless and been 100% correct.

--
the nasty little sound of a sword being unsheathed right behind one
at just the point when one thought one had disposed of one's
enemies [...] It was that kind of laugh. --Equal Rites

[sms]

On 5/25/2021 6:15 PM, alien wrote:

<snip>

> Interesting!
> I think it will better if you plug it in via SFP or coax, the sound will
> much better, than you using HDMI.

Yes, I may try that. But I'll wait a bit until I can be sure that a USB
3.0 to TOSLINK DAC can handle the higher bitrate.

I think that ALAC portends a move by Apple into higher end consumer
audio. Their statement that ALAC is available through the iPhone
speakers was quite amusing. Perhaps they have plans for a new dongle
that will go from Lightning or USB 3.0 to analog and/or digital audio.

[Lewis]

In message <KihrI.111183$2a1....@fx05.ams4> alien <al...@invalid.address> wrote:
> On 25/05/21 20.25, sms wrote:
>> On 5/25/2021 9:03 AM, Chris wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> ALACs potential is really for audiophiles. You can buy the Apple CCK
>> (Lightning USB 3.0 adapter) and power the phone and the adapter with a
>> Lightning charger.
>>
>> This one <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07ZSQV8JX> might be worth trying.
>> It does USB-C to a headphone jack as well as digital audio both coax and
>> optical. They say that it works with the Apple CCK (probably powered).
>>
>> It claims to support 192kHz/24-bit. One review said that at 192KHz there
>> were problems, and some of the other reviews were not wonderful, though
>> some people had no problems. The device providing the USB 3.0 stream
>> needs to be able to stream at the higher bit rates, and I suspect that
>> the problems people had were because the host device was too slow.
>>
>> I've wanted a non-Bluetooth method to connect my older high-quality
>> audio system to my phone for a while so I may try this. For now I've
>> been playing CDs via HDMI audio which is fine if I have the CD.
>>
>> I'll have to rip all my CDs in a lossless format. What would be nice is
>> a small laptop with a physical Ethernet port, a USB 3.0 port, and an
>> external 5GB or so hard drive on the network with the music library.

> Interesting!
> I think it will better if you plug it in via SFP or coax, the sound will
> much better, than you using HDMI.

Nonsense.

> Turn out, the coax or SFP is much better than HDMI, but with HDMI you

"HDMI" is at least a dozen different things, but it carries high quality
audio just fine. If you noticed a difference you had shitty equipment.

> can emulate

NO. NO NO NO.

--
One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

[Lewis]

In message <250520211949528175%nos...@nospam.invalid> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> in any event, the real benefit is spatial audio, not lossless or
> hi-res, which *is* supported via bluetooth (airpods pro & max).

Yep. And Spatial Audio is amazing.

--
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.." -
Oscar Wilde

[nospam]

In article <slrnsar8of....@m1mini.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

> >> it does, but humans can't tell the difference. some people think they
> >> can, but they can't.
>
> > Well that sort of truth. Especially the older the human is, the range of
> > sound it can heard also became limited.
>
> > Maybe that's why the older someone, usually they will try to buy better
> > gear, even though, maybe it little bit useless ^_^
>
> > The one that should get a good earphone is younger generation so they
> > will experience how music can be so good.
>
> You are not getting it. Humas have a range of hearing, there are no
> humans that can hear the difference between a CD and a high bit rate
> audio file. There are no humans who can hear the difference between a
> well-encoded 256K AAC a V0 MP3 and a lossless file. It's not an age thing, It
> is not an opinion thing. It is not a feeling. It is simple science and
> biology.

someone in rec.photo.digital claims that despite his ears being limited
to 20khz (actually less because he's old), he can 'feel' ultrasonic
frequencies in his body and has speakers capable of reproducing them.

[nospam]

In article <s8k8kj$jcd$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> I think that ALAC portends a move by Apple into higher end consumer
> audio.

so far, apple's attempts at higher end consumer audio have been a
failure.

> Their statement that ALAC is available through the iPhone
> speakers was quite amusing. Perhaps they have plans for a new dongle
> that will go from Lightning or USB 3.0 to analog and/or digital audio.

those have been available for many, many years.

[nospam]

In article <7whrI.423845$F197....@fx07.ams4>, alien

<al...@invalid.address> wrote:


>
> > what audiophiles do can be ignored. they are detached from reality.
>
> Well everyone have their own liking and preference, some like vinyl some
> like CD, etc.

liking vinyl is fine. the artwork was great.

what's not fine is claiming that vinyl sounds better than cd, something
which is a mathematical impossibility.

same with film luddites and digital cameras.

[alien]

On 25/05/21 15.39, sms wrote:
> On 5/24/2021 8:07 PM, alien wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I was planning to hook up my old Iphone 6s to my car via audio line in.
>> I though it will make the sound much better, instead of using bluetooth.
>
> Even without lossless compression it'll sound better via audio line in
> versus Bluetooth, though I wouldn't go to "much better."

>
> Perhaps there will now be a new run on NOS (New Old Stock) of the iPhone
> 6s, though it's not clear how good the internal DAC on the 6s is. ALAC

> goes up to 24-bit/192 kHz, and it's highly unlikely that the internal
> hardware DAC on the 6s can go up to that. You really need an external DAC.

I have old 6s laying around doing nothing, that why I planning to
experimenting.

I believe the type of the music that I will listening is record to 16
bit instead of 24 bit, well yes I am from a developing country and the
most music that I am listening is old music from my home country.

But I will consider to get an external DAC.
If my car audio setup is good enough to tell the different and if apple
will remastered it to 24 bit, which is I doubt on it. I bet the master
already gone long times ago.

<snip>

> There are already USB-C to TOSLINK and 3.5mm DACs available for Android.
> Amazon Music has been offering lossless since 2019.

That is my problems, I stuck with apple ecosystem, so even though I hate
so much for decision that apple made to remove the headphone jack, I am
still using iphone.

<snip>
> Probably we'll see someone making a MFi Lightning to TOSLINK and/or
> analog external DAC, but it will likely have to be powered externally.

They already did few years ago, I was try something called Cozoy Rei
before, it has lighting to dac.
But unfortunately I don't like the type of the sound and that time, I
was thinking it useless to use it with my phone, while I have limited
space on my phone.
Instead of that, it is much better to use ipod and plug it to the dac
via 3.5mm jack, it sounds better because it can play alac and also the
space is bigger than my phone.

[alien]

Well, since you talked about science, you should know what the range of
frequency human can hear.

I was talked in context about the range of frequency human can hear and
age is related with the range of the frequency.
*it is a fact*
The older the person is, the limited the range of frequency that they
can hear.

Since you know about science you should know this.

If you want to, you can read more about the research and journals
regarding relation of ages and hearing, whose know that you need more
update about current journals and research. You can read about it at

<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=hearing+age>

Hope it helps.

[Lewis]

Peepl r dumm.


--
Eliot: Becoming me was the greatest creative project of my life.

[Lewis]

In message <oQirI.849781$zV01....@fx49.ams4> alien <al...@invalid.address> wrote:
> On 26/05/21 03.23, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <g_frI.423843$F197....@fx07.ams4> alien <al...@invalid.address> wrote:
>> You are not getting it. Humas have a range of hearing, there are no
>> humans that can hear the difference between a CD and a high bit rate
>> audio file. There are no humans who can hear the difference between a
>> well-encoded 256K AAC a V0 MP3 and a lossless file. It's not an age thing, It is
>> not an opinion thing. It is not a feeling. It is simple science and
>> biology.

> Well, since you talked about science, you should know what the range of
> frequency human can hear.

Yes, I do.

> I was talked in context about the range of frequency human can hear and
> age is related with the range of the frequency.
> *it is a fact*
> The older the person is, the limited the range of frequency that they
> can hear.

But that does not mean that younger people have hearing that is
impossible to human biology.

Your implication that younger people can hear things beyond the bounds of
human hearing are nonsense. 20 to 20,000 hertz isn't just a good idea, it's
the law (within a certain margin of error). Very few people can actually
hear 20 hertz or 20,000 hertz, in some specicalized conditions humans
can hear 12Hz and upt to about 27,000 Hertz, though not consistently. No
matter what tests or science you use, no human can hear anywhere near
the "high frequency" sound of some audio files marked to the
audiodweebirati.

I can still hear when certain electronics are left on, and my wife has
never been able to hear those frequencies, not even when we were 12yo,
but I cannot (and never could) hear the entire range of frequencies up
to that level.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain, but practicing docking procedures with a goat at
zero G's—it's never been done!"

[Lewis]

In message <7whrI.423845$F197....@fx07.ams4> alien <al...@invalid.address> wrote:
> On 25/05/21 21.11, nospam wrote:
>> it's potential is for archiving.

> That is true, especially with CD that can be easily get destroyed.

>> what audiophiles do can be ignored. they are detached from reality.

> Well everyone have their own liking and preference, some like vinyl some
> like CD, etc.

Quite difference. Audidweebs claim they can hear things they cannot
hear. When they are tested, they do not actually hear what they claim to
hear. They are delusional nitwits, and this has nothing to do with
preference.

> As long as you can afford it and opportunity to have it, there is
> nothing wrong with it.

Telling people you have superhuman abilities you do not have is
absolutely wrong, especially when you use that lie to evangelize
idiotically expensive nonsense to other people.

--
Dinner will be ready when the smoke alarm goes off.

[alien]

On 26/05/21 07.58, Lewis wrote:

> But that does not mean that younger people have hearing that is
> impossible to human biology.

That is correct! Young doesn't mean that they can hear more than the
normal of range frequency that human can hear.

> Your implication that younger people can hear things beyond the bounds of
> human hearing are nonsense.

When I wrote that?
Are you seeing things?

> I can still hear when certain electronics are left on, and my wife has
> never been able to hear those frequencies, not even when we were 12yo,
> but I cannot (and never could) hear the entire range of frequencies up
> to that level.

As you said, every human is different, for example you and your wife,
but it is not more than the normal range of frequency.

But still, the older human gets, the lower the range of sound they can hear.
*that is the fact*

There is nothing wrong getting older. It is a natural cycles of the living.

[Chris]

Simply giving what is presumably a name - not even a full name - is not
showing the maths of your argument. You need to explain it and it's
relevance to the discussion. If you can't, well we can draw our own
conclusions.

[nospam]

In article <s8lc91$10i$2...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>>>>>>> I wonder if the headphone jack on an iphone 6 would work better?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> nope. high res audio is a significant limitation for obsolete analog
> >>>>>>> headphone jacks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Doubtful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> there no doubt whatsoever. it can be shown mathematically.
> >>>>
> >>>> Go on then.
> >>>
> >>> nyquist.
> >>
> >> That'll be a no, then.
> >
> > it's a very definite yes.
> >
> > if you disagree, then by all means prove nyquist wrong. you'll be very
> > famous and extremely rich.
>
> Simply giving what is presumably a name - not even a full name - is not
> showing the maths of your argument. You need to explain it and it's
> relevance to the discussion. If you can't, well we can draw our own
> conclusions.

presumably a name??? you've never heard of nyquist??? no wonder you
don't understand this stuff.

his full name is harry nyquist and i'm not about to explain sampling
theory in a usenet post.

[Chris]

LOL. I bet you're a scream at parties.

"I love this song"
"No you don't. It's mathematically proven that it is worse that the song we
just heard."

[sms]

On 5/26/2021 4:43 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> Simply giving what is presumably a name - not even a full name - is not
> showing the maths of your argument. You need to explain it and it's
> relevance to the discussion. If you can't, well we can draw our own
> conclusions.

There are benefits in recording at 192 KHz if you want to do pitch
shifting. But really a Nyquist rate of 96 KHz which will reproduce
everything up to 48KHz, is more than adequate and probably not many
people could tell the difference between 96 KHz and the 44.1 KHz CD
frequency.

DVD and CD mastering is done at up to 176.4 KHz (4 x 44.1 KHz).

The bottom line is that while ALAC may be a nice marketing thing,
there's very little benefit over CD quality audio.

[sms]

On 5/26/2021 6:58 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> LOL. I bet you're a scream at parties.
>
> "I love this song"
> "No you don't. It's mathematically proven that it is worse that the song we
> just heard."

Actually comparing film/digital to audio isn't a good comparison. Film
is much higher resolution than even the best digital camera, and you can
see the difference.

For example, the highest resolution full frame (35mm) camera is 61
Megapixels (but it's really 61 megasensors since you need four sensors
per pixel with a Bayer sensor). You'd need about 175 Megapixels to equal
the best 35mm film. Of course the convenience of digital cameras far
outweighs the difference in quality for all but a few professionals. And
computational photography has changed everything, thanks mainly to Apple
and Google, but some professional camera makers, like Fuji, are putting
it into their high-end mirrorless equipment.

[nospam]

In article <s8lk67$nvf$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> >>> what audiophiles do can be ignored. they are detached from reality.
> >>
> >> Well everyone have their own liking and preference, some like vinyl some
> >> like CD, etc.
> >
> > liking vinyl is fine. the artwork was great.
> >
> > what's not fine is claiming that vinyl sounds better than cd, something
> > which is a mathematical impossibility.
> >
> > same with film luddites and digital cameras.
>
> LOL. I bet you're a scream at parties.
>
> "I love this song"
> "No you don't. It's mathematically proven that it is worse that the song we
> just heard."

you are completely missing the point and resorting to ad hominems.

[nospam]

In article <s8lqah$69d$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Actually comparing film/digital to audio isn't a good comparison.

actually it's a perfect comparison. both are digital sampling systems.

> Film
> is much higher resolution than even the best digital camera,

absolutely false.

> and you can
> see the difference.

yep, you certainly can see the difference. digital is better, by a wide
margin and has been for roughly two decades.

even low end digital cameras are better than film in every single
metric, including resolution, colour accuracy and dynamic range. for
high end cameras, it's not even close.

> For example, the highest resolution full frame (35mm) camera is 61
> Megapixels (but it's really 61 megasensors since you need four sensors
> per pixel with a Bayer sensor). You'd need about 175 Megapixels to equal
> the best 35mm film.

not only false, but a complete misrepresentation of how bayer works or
how digital cameras work for that matter.

you are trolling.

> Of course the convenience of digital cameras far
> outweighs the difference in quality for all but a few professionals.

nonsense.

the only 'professionals' who still shoot film are ignorant about the
quality of digital photography or they are scammers exploiting ignorant
customers.

> And
> computational photography has changed everything, thanks mainly to Apple
> and Google, but some professional camera makers, like Fuji, are putting
> it into their high-end mirrorless equipment.

computational photography is yet another advantage for digital and will
make an already big difference even greater.

[nospam]

In article <s8lpbh$tqf$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> There are benefits in recording at 192 KHz if you want to do pitch
> shifting. But really a Nyquist rate of 96 KHz which will reproduce
> everything up to 48KHz, is more than adequate and probably not many
> people could tell the difference between 96 KHz and the 44.1 KHz CD
> frequency.

the only reason to record at higher sampling rates is for processing in
the studio.

for end users, it's a complete waste of space and requires more
expensive hardware to convert it back to analog.

>
> The bottom line is that while ALAC may be a nice marketing thing,
> there's very little benefit over CD quality audio.

alac is *lossless* therefore it's in every way identical to cd quality.

[Chris]

You're missing the point. Music, photography and film are purely subjective
forms of media. Trying to apply objective maths is meaningless.

Vinyl is objectively different to digital, but subjectively impossible to
categorically state as better or worse.

Great work can be made with analogue media and absolute junk can be made
with digital media.

[Chris]

No you need to explain mathematically why "high res audio is a significant
limitation of obsolete (sic) analogue headphone jacks".

[nospam]

In article <s8mg5n$5v7$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> >>>>> what audiophiles do can be ignored. they are detached from reality.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well everyone have their own liking and preference, some like vinyl some
> >>>> like CD, etc.
> >>>
> >>> liking vinyl is fine. the artwork was great.
> >>>
> >>> what's not fine is claiming that vinyl sounds better than cd, something
> >>> which is a mathematical impossibility.
> >>>
> >>> same with film luddites and digital cameras.
> >>
> >> LOL. I bet you're a scream at parties.
> >>
> >> "I love this song"
> >> "No you don't. It's mathematically proven that it is worse that the song we
> >> just heard."
> >
> > you are completely missing the point and resorting to ad hominems.
>
> You're missing the point. Music, photography and film are purely subjective
> forms of media. Trying to apply objective maths is meaningless.

you're confusing the recording medium with the content.

> Vinyl is objectively different to digital, but subjectively impossible to
> categorically state as better or worse.

there is no subjectiveness involved.

the limits of each medium can be measured and objectively compared.

it's a well established fact that cds have a wider and more linear
frequency response with a much larger dynamic range than vinyl records.

that means that a cd can perfectly reproduce *everything* a vinyl
record can contain, and with room to spare.

the opposite is not the case. since a vinyl record is more limited, it
can't reproduce everything that a cd contains. it will sound worse.

> Great work can be made with analogue media and absolute junk can be made
> with digital media.

like i said, you're completely missing the point.

of course someone can fuck up a digital recording. that's a problem
with the person making the recording, not the technology.

[Chris]

digital encoding *samples* the analogue data so it cannot, by definition,
reproduce everything. It is a high quality approximation.

[nospam]

In article <s8o161$9f6$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >> Vinyl is objectively different to digital, but subjectively impossible to
> >> categorically state as better or worse.
> >
> > there is no subjectiveness involved.
> >
> > the limits of each medium can be measured and objectively compared.
> >
> > it's a well established fact that cds have a wider and more linear
> > frequency response with a much larger dynamic range than vinyl records.
> >
> > that means that a cd can perfectly reproduce *everything* a vinyl
> > record can contain, and with room to spare.
>
> digital encoding *samples* the analogue data so it cannot, by definition,
> reproduce everything. It is a high quality approximation.

absolutely false.

nyquist is proof.

[Lewis]

In message <s8o161$9f6$1...@dont-email.me> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> digital encoding *samples* the analogue data so it cannot, by definition,
> reproduce everything. It is a high quality approximation.

You are an astonishingly stupid person who has not fucking idea what the
fuck nonsense you are talking about.

--
eed help with our feelings. Otherwise, we bottle them up, and
before you know it powerful laxatives are involved.

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:270520210822062176%nos...@nospam.invalid...

Pathetic.

> nyquist is proof.

Pathetic.