[tinyman392]

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).

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. ☺

There are also differences between APT-X codecs as well with APT-X HD being capable of the highest bitrates. However, LDAC apparently nearly doubles that. HWA (supported in the Ananda BT) also exists too as a competitor to LDAC.

Edit: granted you'd need devices (both source and host) that support these codecs.

 

[ricksastro]

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?

I really can't tell the difference between Spotify, Tidal HiFi and Amazon personally when I A/B/Ced them with the APMs.

 

[tinyman392]

I really can't tell the difference between Spotify, Tidal HiFi and Amazon personally when I A/B/Ced them with the APMs.

Isn't Amazon Music 320 MP3 like Spotify? I think Amazon has an HD music (13/15 dollars for Prime and non-Prime members, respectively) that is supposed to be lossless too.

 

[Claypole]

Isn't Amazon Music 320 MP3 like Spotify?

The standard music service included with Prime used to be about the same quality as the regular Spotify and Tidal services However, since Amazon launched their HD service, they seemed to have significantly reduced the bit rate of their regular service. I would if people are saying they can’t tell the difference, they must be comparing HD/HiFi services. The regular Amazon Prime Music service is virtually unlistenable now...

 

[clerkpalmer]

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.

I think you are conflating my points a bit (probably because they were not very clear). My first point is that the APM is not likely to sound better than someone's comparably priced wired setup - and this certainly has more to do with frequency response than bluetooth (although bluetooth is relevant here). Because of this, many here won't reach for their APM over their desktop rigs. There still is a use case for the APM - such as moving around the house, taking calls, deep iOS integration etc, but purely for SQ and music listening, most headfiers will grab their mid-fi cans over the APM.

My second point is that I believe that most wired desktop setups will be better than a comparable wireless setup and this does have to do with the limitations of bluetooth. While perhaps best moved to the Ananda BT thread, I don't think the variables are all that wide. I had an Ananda with a budget amp/dac setup (JDS Atom plus DAC about $200 total). So I wasn't running super high end gear. Total cost to me was about $750. The wired Ananda simply has more detail and clarity and a much wider soundstage than the wireless counterpart. It's almost a perfect comparison since the headphone is nearly the same and by all accounts HiFiman built a very solid balanced amp and dac into the BT version. I have to believe the differences in clarity and soundstage are tied directly to BT versus wired. Also, the BT version suffers from congestion during busy passages which I did not notice on the wired version and that seems like a BT hallmark. This is apparent whether running LDAC on a Pixel or AAC on ios. I tried Apple Music, Qobuz and USB Audio Pro as sources.

It would have been nice if Apple included a fully passive mode so we could try them with an AMP/DAC with some EQ to see if the flaws could be minimized but in their infinite wisdom they did not (neither did Hifiman in the Ananda BT). Maybe an EQ option will be forthcoming.

With all of the foregoing being said, I still like the APM. They are a fun listen and there are times when I want that. I still think they are too expensive by about $150 but it's not a deal breaker.

 

[tinyman392]

The standard music service included with Prime used to be about the same quality as the regular Spotify and Tidal services However, since Amazon launched their HD service, they seemed to have significantly reduced the bit rate of their regular service. I would if people are saying they can’t tell the difference, they must be comparing HD/HiFi services. The regular Amazon Prime Music service is virtually unlistenable now...

I really haven’t touched the Amazon Prime Music since I primarily use Apple Music. Was just curious.

 

[MayaTlab]

While perhaps best moved to the Ananda BT thread, I don't think the variables are all that wide. I had an Ananda with a budget amp/dac setup (JDS Atom plus DAC about $200 total). So I wasn't running super high end gear. Total cost to me was about $750. The wired Ananda simply has more detail and clarity and a much wider soundstage than the wireless counterpart. It's almost a perfect comparison since the headphone is nearly the same and by all accounts HiFiman built a very solid balanced amp and dac into the BT version. I have to believe the differences in clarity and soundstage are tied directly to BT versus wired. Also, the BT version suffers from congestion during busy passages which I did not notice on the wired version and that seems like a BT hallmark. This is apparent whether running LDAC on a Pixel or AAC on ios. I tried Apple Music, Qubuz and USB Audio Pro as sources.

What does "solid balanced amp and DAC" mean ?
For starters, while this may simply be a case of sample variation, or seatings variation during tests, Rtings measured a different FR curve between the two :
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/graph#4742/4011/670
It isn't much but we're not off to a great start if the idea is to control variables - and these small differences we know most humans can hear.
IMO you're jumping far too fast to conclusions.
And even if Bluetooth had to do something with it (which could be the case... or not), what tells you that it's audio over bluetooth in general or Hifiman's implementation ?
As I already wrote a little test I like to do that tells me a great deal about the amount of care that's been given to it is to play single tones at either very low or very high frequencies. For most BT headphones the results aren't pretty... regardless of codec or source. But some ace this test (and it isn't a question of price).

In regards to the APM I'd certainly welcome an EQ from Apple that's saved on the headphones. That should be concern number one to improve their sound, certainly not imagining using them passively wired (like most BT headphones they probably would sound worse this way anyway).

 

[geardoc]

Ok, the argument about staying in the Apple ecosystem is a good one. I've used it to justify Airpods and Airpods Pro. But, to be clear, these Airpods are overpriced, and only squeeze through because they are part of the ecosystem. So, do the Airpods Max fall into the same category? Mediocre for $500 wireless sound? Can you compare them with, say, the Bose 700 for sound quality? Or maybe the new Shure Aonic 50 wireless cans? I know the Bose beat Apple for noise reduction and the Shure's have a low latency mode and both sound good for the price of wireless. How does Apple measure up?

 

[clerkpalmer]

What does "solid balanced amp and DAC" mean ?
For starters, while this may simply be a case of sample variation, or seatings variation during tests, Rtings measured a different FR curve between the two :
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/graph#4742/4011/670
We're not off to a great start if the idea is to control variables.
IMO you're jumping far too fast to conclusions.
And even if Bluetooth had to do something with it (which could be the case... or not), what tells you that it's audio over bluetooth in general or Hifiman's implementation ?
As I already wrote a little test I like to do that tells me a great deal about the amount of care that's been given to it is to play single tones at either very low or very high frequencies. For most BT headphones the results aren't pretty... regardless of codec or source. But some ace this test (and it isn't a question of price).

In regards to the APM I'd certainly welcome an EQ from Apple that's saved on the headphones. That should be concern number one to improve their sound, certainly not imagining using them passively wired (like most BT headphones they probably would sound worse this way anyway).

Based on the reviews I've read, the Ananda BT has been praised for its high quality integrated balanced AMP and DAC. There is plenty of power and no discernable distortion. While it's certainly may not be as good as a JDS Atom/DA combo, it's reasonable to conclude it's as good as anything that has been implemented in a BT headset to date. Do I have hard specs for you? No.

Regarding frequency response, if anything, the BT version has the more attractive response. A bit warmer, a bit more bass and little less treble peak. For these reasons, I thought I would prefer the BT version but any improvement in tonality is offset by the reduced resolution, detail and soundstage. You tend to always come back to the hard data (freq. curve etc.) which is fine but we all know frequency response is not the be all end all in judging a headphone. I can tell you that subjectively, the wired version is a good measure better than the wireless version and I am attributing that to the limitations of bluetooth. I think it would be harder to find a more apples to apples comparison for an example than the Ananda v. Ananda BT. Anyway, we are way off topic now although I enjoy the spirited debate.

 

[MayaTlab]

Ok, the argument about staying in the Apple ecosystem is a good one. I've used it to justify Airpods and Airpods Pro. But, to be clear, these Airpods are overpriced, and only squeeze through because they are part of the ecosystem. So, do the Airpods Max fall into the same category? Mediocre for $500 wireless sound? Can you compare them with, say, the Bose 700 for sound quality? Or maybe the new Shure Aonic 50 wireless cans? I know the Bose beat Apple for noise reduction and the Shure's have a low latency mode and both sound good for the price of wireless. How does Apple measure up?

I've tried the three of them.
I couldn't bare listening to music on both the 700 and Aonic 50. Both electronics' were also pretty terrible (noise floor, audible artefacts with the bluetooth implementation regardless of codecs or sources, etc.). Both sounded a lot worse to me than the K371BT.
The APM's sound I can tolerate (and actually prefer to the K371BT in some ways - and would definitely prefer comprehensively with a few EQ tweaks). And the electronics actually feel like they belong to the 2020s.
I also don't find the ANC on the Bose 700 superior to the APM. Far from it (if only because of the more noticeable hiss).
I find them all three flawed in many ways. It's just that the Bose 700 and Aonic 50 fall way below my threshold for "tolerable product" while the APM barely edges above.

 

[clerkpalmer]

Ok, the argument about staying in the Apple ecosystem is a good one. I've used it to justify Airpods and Airpods Pro. But, to be clear, these Airpods are overpriced, and only squeeze through because they are part of the ecosystem. So, do the Airpods Max fall into the same category? Mediocre for $500 wireless sound? Can you compare them with, say, the Bose 700 for sound quality? Or maybe the new Shure Aonic 50 wireless cans? I know the Bose beat Apple for noise reduction and the Shure's have a low latency mode and both sound good for the price of wireless. How does Apple measure up?

Similar to the APP but worse in that the price gap is even higher. I would say that most would say they sound better than the Bose 700 and not as good as the Aonic which is getting a lot of praise (haven't heard them personally). If you are deep in iOS, the APM is worthy of your consideration but you could spend less money on the Aonic or the Drop Panda and be just as happy depending on your needs.

 

[MayaTlab]

Based on the reviews I've read, the Ananda BT has been praised for its high quality integrated balanced AMP and DAC. There is plenty of power and no discernable distortion. While it's certainly may not be as good as a JDS Atom/DA combo, it's reasonable to conclude it's as good as anything that has been implemented in a BT headset to date. Do I have hard specs for you? No.

Regarding frequency response, if anything, the BT version has the more attractive response. A bit warmer, a bit more bass and little less treble peak. For these reasons, I thought I would prefer the BT version but any improvement in tonality is offset by the reduced resolution, detail and soundstage. You tend to always come back to the hard data (freq. curve etc.) which is fine but we all know frequency response is not the be all end all in judging a headphone. I can tell you that subjectively, the wired version is a good measure better than the wireless version and I am attributing that to the limitations of bluetooth. I think it would be harder to find a more apples to apples comparison for an example than the Ananda v. Ananda BT. Anyway, we are way off topic now although I enjoy the spirited debate.

It's the opposite .
As long as we're not certain the FR curves are equal, we're not controlling this variable. Full stop.

 

[clerkpalmer]

It's the opposite .

Not according to my ears.

 

[MayaTlab]

Not according to my ears.

So... that logically means that you agree that their FR curves are different ?
Don't get me wrong given how absolutely terrible some audio over BT implementations were when performing my little test of "let's play single tones above 10 000hz and see what happens" I don't doubt for a second that some headphones' BT implementation can be subpar. But conversely I am not confident at all that good BT implementations can't be audibly transparent in A/B tests.

 

[clerkpalmer]

So... that logically means that you agree that their FR curves are different ?
Don't get me wrong given how absolutely terrible some audio over BT implementations were when performing my little test of "let's play single tones above 10 000hz and see what happens" I don't doubt for a second that some headphones' BT implementation can be subpar. But conversely I am not confident at all that good BT implementations can't be audibly transparent in A/B tests.

I think it’s the consensus that the frequency responses are different and most prefer the tonality of the BT version. I have to believe that hifimans Bluetooth implementation is top notch. While I don’t have proof the differences in clarity and detail are Bluetooth related, I think it’s a reasonable conclusion. You should buy a set and let me know your thoughts.