[tinyman392]

I've used my Max a couple of days now.
Think I got a fit issue? (I have a L+ size head )

I've tried different length with the telescoping arms, and different placement of the cups over the ears, but I don't find the right position where sound and ANC are stable.
Small movements of the cups, and the sound and ANC are different.
Actually, if I turn my head both the bass and ANC change.
I often get more bass on the left (especially sub bass), even if I use L on L, or R on L.

Is this software related? Is the Max adjusting anything with different placement (like the Adaptive EQ on the Airpods Pro?)
Or is it just leakage due to bad fit?

Looking forward to hear if any of you experience something similar.

You have a fitment issue which is affecting the internal (vs external) ANC and AdaptiveEQ mechanisms. Besides turning off ANC there likely isn’t much you can do. But the bad fit also means you have an inconsistent seal which would also likely affect sound.

In short the internal ANC is trying to cancel out the noise of your ear canal and microphonics. But since that keeps drastically changing in a way it’s not expecting to, you get wonkyness. On the other hand AdaptiveEQ is trying to adjust sound for the change of driver on the head but the changes are likely too large and possibly include changes in seal (breaking seal) which is has to keep trying to adapt for, but again can’t. I think Crinacle had similar issues (possibly to a lesser degree).

You can try to listen with ANC and transparency turned off. But that might kill off some features that people would buy this headphone for. It would also greatly diminish their value.

 

[tinyman392]

in my opinion, the APMs are more intended for indoors leisure listening or light walking outdoors in mild and dry (i.e. not raining or snowing) weather. For exercising and travelling we’ve got the excellent APPs. Since I bought the Comply Large memory foam tips, they stay in place perfectly (and passively isolate noise more).

When I was travelling, before the pandemic, it always looked weird to me to see some airplane passengers carrying and using over-the-head headphones. They’re too bulky and they restrict the head movement. I’ve used IEMs (Shure SE846) instead but now I’m falling in love with the convenience that the APPs offer me. For at home listening, though, the debate is between the Sennheiser HD-650 and the APMs. So far, wireless convenience seems to be again winning.

Airplane use would actually be very good for them IMO. Most really good ANC headphones tend to be over ear (historically). Recently we’ve seen earbuds start to take hold though.

 

[angelom]

in my opinion, the APMs are more intended for indoors leisure listening or light walking outdoors in mild and dry (i.e. not raining or snowing) weather. For exercising and travelling we’ve got the excellent APPs. Since I bought the Comply Large memory foam tips, they stay in place perfectly (and passively isolate noise more).

When I was travelling, before the pandemic, it always looked weird to me to see some airplane passengers carrying and using over-the-head headphones. They’re too bulky and they restrict the head movement. I’ve used IEMs (Shure SE846) instead but now I’m falling in love with the convenience that the APPs offer me. For at home listening, though, the debate is between the Sennheiser HD-650 and the APMs. So far, wireless convenience seems to be again winning.

Many people don't like using iems, having something inside their ears, and shure 846, for example, isn't having transparency mode that is useful feature or mics for telephone calls or multipoint connection. And of the iems with anc, the big anc headphones are better in blocking sound, and offering better, more full sound too. This is a reason why you seeing many, many people with qc35 or xm3/4 headphones when travelling, specially in airplanes but in trains and underground too. The folding feature, light weight of the headphones and light hard case is very important for this purposes.

 

[Author]

Hi folks. I’ve really enjoyed this APM forum. It’s been mostly a perfect mix of technical knowledge and listening impressions, and I’ve enjoyed contributing in admittedly small ways. Does anyone have thoughts on APM performance in relation to the hi res/lossless benefits of Qobuz or Tidal? My main over ears are the APM and a cheaply dac’d/amped 650 (HIP DAC, although I also have a Darkvoice gathering dust at the moment). Do you think that “the best of the worst” in Bluetooth (i.e., the APM) can get anything out of Q or T?

 

[tinyman392]

Hi folks. I’ve really enjoyed this APM forum. It’s been mostly a perfect mix of technical knowledge and listening impressions, and I’ve enjoyed contributing in admittedly small ways. Does anyone have thoughts on APM performance in relation to the hi res/lossless benefits of Qobuz or Tidal? My main over ears are the APM and a cheaply dac’d/amped 650 (HIP DAC, although I also have a Darkvoice gathering dust at the moment). Do you think that “the best of the worst” in Bluetooth (i.e., the APM) can get anything out of Q or T?

The Qobuz or Tidal would be encoded as AAC at minimum or mixed in with system/misc. sound before being encoded and sent to the headphones. With an AAC sound source, it would be decoded to wave before being re-encoded as AAC (with system/misc. sound) before being sent to the headphones... Unless of course Apple found a way around this. From a purely sound quality perspective, the differences are small (though one might argue that the double-encoding with AAC is destructive over the single-encoding). The differences from a mastering perspective could be huge if Qobuz or Tidal offer a different master of the song.

 

[Author]

Airplane use would actually be very good for them IMO. Most really good ANC headphones tend to be over ear (historically). Recently we’ve seen earbuds start to take hold though.

True. Though I’ve yet to hear an earbud of note that can approach the APM (or XM3). I’ve tried the Sony earbuds, among many others, and they win out for ANC earbuds to me, but they’ve just never been a good fit. But you know, the passive isolation of the Jabras are almost as good (IMO). I would so totally take the APM on the plane.

 

[Author]

The Qobuz or Tidal would be encoded as AAC at minimum or mixed in with system/misc. sound before being encoded and sent to the headphones. With an AAC sound source, it would be decoded to wave before being re-encoded as AAC (with system/misc. sound) before being sent to the headphones... Unless of course Apple found a way around this. From a purely sound quality perspective, the differences are small (though one might argue that the double-encoding with AAC is destructive over the single-encoding). The differences from a mastering perspective could be huge if Qobuz or Tidal offer a different master of the song.

Forgive me if I’m interpreting incorrectly (I could use some schooling technically speaking).

Sounds like you’re saying that any improvement would be smaller over BT, at best. I’ve been trying out Qobuz for a couple days. I definitely hear a difference over the 650s. But even that is minimal to my middle aged ears. Not sure I hear anything over the APM (hence my posting). I’m inclined to stick with Apple Music. I have a huge library there and can actually shuffle it.

 

[clerkpalmer]

I sold my APM yesterday.

They don't sound as good as my wired headphones

I think a lot of people will be in this boat eventually. Those with a wired desktop setup will find little need to reach for the APM as time wears on. I had hoped to use them for some light lifting (not sweaty and no major movements) but the weight makes this impossible for me.

I’m still on the fence. I grabbed the AKG 371 BT for a comparison and I must say I prefer the APM as it is a more fun signature and I enjoy the energy in the subass more than the sucked out mids. The AKG is great for money but it’s not better than the APM to my ears for my purposes.

I think the bottleneck is Bluetooth. I recently swapped my wired Ananda for the BT version and was planning on being completely wireless. Despite the stellar reviews of the Ananda BT, it’s a step down from the regular Ananda in terms of sq. Whether the freedom to be wireless is worth the step back is a reasonable discussion but it just doesn’t seem BT can match a wired desktop setup.
For many it will be good enough but good enough isn’t really the goal on headfi.

 

[MayaTlab]

I think a lot of people will be in this boat eventually. Those with a wired desktop setup will find little need to reach for the APM as time wears on. I had hoped to use them for some light lifting (not sweaty and no major movements) but the weight makes this impossible for me.

I’m still on the fence. I grabbed the AKG 371 BT for a comparison and I must say I prefer the APM as it is a more fun signature and I enjoy the energy in the subass more than the sucked out mids. The AKG is great for money but it’s not better than the APM to my ears for my purposes.

I think the bottleneck is Bluetooth. I recently swapped my wired Ananda for the BT version and was planning on being completely wireless. Despite the stellar reviews of the Ananda BT, it’s a step down from the regular Ananda in terms of sq. Whether the freedom to be wireless is worth the step back is a reasonable discussion but it just doesn’t seem BT can match a wired desktop setup.
For many it will be good enough but good enough isn’t really the goal on headfi.

Too many uncontrolled variables when comparing wired Ananda to BT Ananda to attribute to BT the differences you heard.
I'm not super confident in Soudguys' measurements in general but if these can be trusted then Apple's implementation of AAC over bluetooth, at least on the source's end, already measures well enough in some metrics that at least as far as they're concerned artefacts are inaudible : https://www.soundguys.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-bluetooth-headphones-aac-20296/
There are also very significant differences across audio over BT implementations, even with the same codec. If you play single tones with, let's say, a Bose 700 or a M3 past 10 000hz, there are chances you will be able to hear spurious tones regardless of codec or source used - well unless they updated the firmware to solve these issues but I doubt it.

Personally I wouldn't attribute to the APM's BT any responsibility for deficiencies in how they sound, given what we know of how sensitive humans are to frequency response, as long as we know that their FR curve measurements are perfectible for the vast majority of users (for example, the conservative response in the upper mids, regardless of its magnitude, looks systematic across tests and regularly more or less below well known headphones such as the HD650, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that if the Harman target was available on all the rigs that they were measured on so far it would systematically fall below it - just perhaps with a different delta, and even less surprised to learn that if people were given the choice very few would EQ it down, and a vast majority would either leave it intact or EQ it up).
All I'd say is that, we know for a fact that human beings are quite sensitive to FR variance, other than FR the APM either measure excellently (THD) or we can take a leap of faith and presume that they'd do based on Apple's previous achievements (Bluetooth), the APM's FR is likely to be found at the edge of what most people would find acceptable in some areas, so let's focus our attention on FR first and not miss the forest for the trees.

 

[Author]

Too many uncontrolled variables when comparing wired Ananda to BT Ananda to attribute to BT the differences you heard.
I'm not super confident in Soudguys' measurements in general but if these can be trusted then Apple's implementation of AAC over bluetooth, at least on the source's end, already measures well enough in some metrics that at least as far as they're concerned artefacts are inaudible : https://www.soundguys.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-bluetooth-headphones-aac-20296/
There are also very significant differences across audio over BT implementations, even with the same codec. If you play single tones with, let's say, a Bose 700 or a M3 past 10 000hz, there are chances you will be able to hear spurious tones regardless of codec or source used - well unless they updated the firmware to solve these issues but I doubt it.

Personally I wouldn't attribute to the APM's BT any responsibility for deficiencies in how they sound, given what we know of how sensitive humans are to frequency response, as long as we know that their FR curve measurements are perfectible for the vast majority of users (for example, the conservative response in the upper mids, regardless of its magnitude, looks systematic across tests and regularly more or less below well known headphones such as the HD650, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that if the Harman target was available on all the rigs that they were measured on so far it would systematically fall below it - just perhaps with a different delta, and even less surprised to learn that if people were given the choice very few would EQ it down, and a vast majority would either leave it intact or EQ it up).
All I'd say is that, we know for a fact that human beings are quite sensitive to FR variance, other than FR the APM either measure excellently (THD) or we can take a leap of faith and presume that they'd do based on Apple's previous achievements (Bluetooth), the APM's FR is likely to be found at the edge of what most people would find acceptable in some areas, so let's focus our attention on FR first and not miss the forest for the trees.

You’re exponentially more technically-minded than I am, as are many here, but how would you take your wealth of knowledge and apply it to my layperson’s question about BT and higher-fidelity streaming services? Tinyman provided his helpful perspective, but your comment about not attributing deficiencies in how they sound to APM’s BT makes me wonder at your perspective regarding use of the APM and Qobuz or Tidal. Or it’s quite possible I’m missing nuance in your comment that means it has no bearing at all on my question...

 

[MayaTlab]

wealth of knowledge

Trust me I'm poor . I'm just quoting or reading other people's work.
In your case the only thing I'd say is "I don't know, I'm not sure".
Back in the early 2000s when I was a teenager I felt quite confident to A/B 192kbps MP3s ripped from my own CDs from Flac files. Now in 2020 I'm a lot less so when it comes to A/B 256kbps AAC encoded by Apple vs Flac files. With lossy codecs some tests seem to suggest that the quality of the encoders has improved over time, even with the same codec at the same bitrate - There's a study I found in that regard but can't find the link yet. And as Tinyman392 mentioned streaming services don't always use the same masters anyway (The Who's Who's Next album is the one I regularly bring as an example in that regard).
So if I feel that I'm hearing differences between Tidal Masters and Apple Music for example, I'm not sure that I'd be confident enough to attribute it to one single cause, and honestly so far not even sure I'd be able to reliably A/B them blind.
So IMO, I still consider that EQing the APM is the lowest hanging fruit available by far to improve how they sound to you... except that for my use case it's impractical.

 

[tinyman392]

Forgive me if I’m interpreting incorrectly (I could use some schooling technically speaking).

Sounds like you’re saying that any improvement would be smaller over BT, at best. I’ve been trying out Qobuz for a couple days. I definitely hear a difference over the 650s. But even that is minimal to my middle aged ears. Not sure I hear anything over the APM (hence my posting). I’m inclined to stick with Apple Music. I have a huge library there and can actually shuffle it.

IMO, small might still be an overstatement of the differences between them. I personally can't hear the differences between AAC and lossless to begin with. The chances of me hearing re-encoded AAC vs AAC would likely be even smaller. There are people who claim to be able to hear the differences between the former, though no real AB testing has ever been done in the latter.

One test that could be performed would be to see if you can hear the differences wired with the APM, granted this requires a 30-35 dollar cable.

 

[tinyman392]

Trust me I'm poor . I'm just quoting or reading other people's work.
In your case the only thing I'd say is "I don't know, I'm not sure".
Back in the early 2000s when I was a teenager I felt quite confident to A/B 192kbps MP3s ripped from my own CDs from Flac files. Now in 2020 I'm a lot less so when it comes to A/B 256kbps AAC encoded by Apple vs Flac files. With lossy codecs some tests seem to suggest that the quality of the encoders has improved over time, even with the same codec at the same bitrate - There's a study I found in that regard but can't find the link yet. And as Tinyman392 mentioned streaming services don't always use the same masters anyway (The Who's Who's Next album is the one I regularly bring as an example in that regard).
So if I feel that I'm hearing differences between Tidal Masters and Apple Music for example, I'm not sure that I'd be confident enough to attribute it to one single cause, and honestly so far not even sure I'd be able to reliably A/B them blind.
So IMO, I still consider that EQing the APM is the lowest hanging fruit available by far to improve how they sound to you... except that for my use case it's impractical.

If I'm not mistaken, one thing to keep in mind here is that 256 AAC is more analogous to 320 MP3 than it would be 256 MP3. Honestly with masters, you'd only hear the differences if they were indeed mastered differently. I know some vinyl is mastered differently than production CD, there are some great examples of this (like Red Hot Chili Pepper's Stadium Arcadium album).

 

[Author]

Trust me I'm poor . I'm just quoting or reading other people's work.
In your case the only thing I'd say is "I don't know, I'm not sure".
Back in the early 2000s when I was a teenager I felt quite confident to A/B 192kbps MP3s ripped from my own CDs from Flac files. Now in 2020 I'm a lot less so when it comes to A/B 256kbps AAC encoded by Apple vs Flac files. With lossy codecs some tests seem to suggest that the quality of the encoders has improved over time, even with the same codec at the same bitrate - There's a study I found in that regard but can't find the link yet. And as Tinyman392 mentioned streaming services don't always use the same masters anyway (The Who's Who's Next album is the one I regularly bring as an example in that regard).
So if I feel that I'm hearing differences between Tidal Masters and Apple Music for example, I'm not sure that I'd be confident enough to attribute it to one single cause, and honestly so far not even sure I'd be able to reliably A/B them blind.
So IMO, I still consider that EQing the APM is the lowest hanging fruit available by far to improve how they sound to you... except that for my use case it's impractical.

So a minute or two before you posted this I found this from Qobuz:

“Does Bluetooth allow me to listen in Hi-Res?

We remind you that a Studio Premier or Studio Sublime subscription is required to enjoy this streaming quality, and that the Hi-Res option must be selected in the settings of your Qobuz application.

Bluetooth compresses sound and does not accurately reproduce the Hi-res quality offered by Qobuz as part of its Studio Premier and Studio Sublime subscriptions.

AptX HD Bluetooth offers a higher quality than standard bluetooth but is also not lossless. This technology is compatible with certain smartphones and some Hi-Fi devices. To discover the aptX HD- compatible devices, click here.“

They are not saying there is NO improvement, but regardless I think this is pretty damning for BT and Qobuz (and probably Tidal too, even though my cheap DAC is compatible w/MQA).*** Edit to say: I shouldn’t have brought up the DAC. It has meaning only for the 650.

I appreciate your candidness about a/b comparisons. The best I could do in the early 2000s was hearing a slight difference 128 vs.192 (I never compared to lossless - didn’t care then). I do think even though my ears aren’t quite as good, what I CAN hear is better with better equipment. But BT remains a step back, as I’ve read over and over. I think my question was wishful thinking.

 

[Author]

IMO, small might still be an overstatement of the differences between them. I personally can't hear the differences between AAC and lossless to begin with. The chances of me hearing re-encoded AAC vs AAC would likely be even smaller. There are people who claim to be able to hear the differences between the former, though no real AB testing has ever been done in the latter.

One test that could be performed would be to see if you can hear the differences wired with the APM, granted this requires a 30-35 dollar cable.

Right I’m not inclined to the cable at the moment. I’ve spent enough money for now! Thank you...