[Happyprozak]

While I see the advantages of measurability in the classic sense of science (you can only discuss about measurements, not about feelings), I tend to look at that from a different standpoint. I've recently read an interesting book named 'Galileos Error', which essentially states, that with reducing science to quantitative measurements while totally ignoring qualitative statements, science has introduced an inherent problem: what we can directly perceive is only qualitative, nothing else.

So while I see a very basic (in the sense of deep down) problem with pure qualitative evaluations, there are additional problems with that approach: what exactly are those quantitative measurements we could reliably use for classification? We know that we can't measure how something sounds, only facets of that are represented by FR, THD, waterfall and impulse response plots and whatnot. They give hints at potential problems, though none (not even all of them together) completely describe how something actually sounds.

Next thing: sound quality (in the sense of personal reception and feeling about) is very personal and influenced not only by physiognomy but also expectations, previous exposure and 100 other things we might not even know about.

So I think we simply lack any usable quantitative measurements that give a picture of sound. But it gets worse: headphones are increasingly complex products, that touch many more facets of life than before (audio conferences becoming commonplace, mobile audio, streaming services, you get my point). Not only that we also lack good quantitative evaluations for those new aspects, there is no globally accepted weighting between those.

I'm far from giving up on the scientific side of things, to the contrary: I think science helps us understand the world around us and it is the best thing we have to do so. Still we need to evolve not only measurements, but science itself to get a more complete picture, to be able to talk about aspects of reality (or what looks like one) that are currently out of reach. We have to strive to evolve ever better measurements to get to the core of how things work.

But on the personal front I think we have to accept that there's no one size fits all: if I'm after A headphone for work, an open model with wires just won't cut it. That weighting of different aspects cannot be normalized. But that does not have to be a bad thing, it just means that no one is "right" about this -- neither is anyone "wrong".

There’s a lot of emotion and feelings involved when rating headphones so it can’t be strictly based on science. I would say it’s a bit akin to rating food. We can put together a scientific list of the most nutritious meals but you can’t do that for the best tasting meals because it’s simply preference that varies by individual.

A better analogy might be wine. There are people who have an amazing ability to distinguish between different wines (skill they have developed through years of training and talent) but the vast majority of people simply fool themselves into thinking they can taste minute differences and fail a blind test.

 

[vkenz]

Do you have any more details on that claim? Because I don't think there's anything special about the APM in that regard. Sometimes the statement that AAC encoded songs are better for AAC Bluetooth connections pops up, but as far as I've been able to clear this up this is simply not correct: the iOS sound APIs always accept WAV only, i.e. decompressed audio, and this is decompressed for transfer via Bluetooth (incidentally using AAC again in case of iOS -> APM).

furthermore I'm sure Apple would have mentioned their new revolutionary way to stream audio to their new headphone, were there any advances in technology (they did talk about that when Airplay 2 was introduced with lower latency etc.).

It is kind of very technical jargon. But from my understanding it is like copying the music file to the earphones first. Then use the H1 + DAC + AMP chip in the APM to convert it to sound. I think this method they would not need a bigger bandwidth since they just transfer those files to the APM. Also with copying files over bluetooth their error correcting and retransmit request would not affect sound. It is kind of like what netflix stream does but shorter range.

 

[torifile]

To put it quite simply, can I pick up a $10 pair of ear buds and arguably say that these ear buds best any headphone out there because I like the sound? I personally believe that people have the right to say "objectively speaking a pair of shure SE846's for example are categorically better, they are flat out better, but you believe a genuine distinction and classification between the $10 earbuds and the shure SE846's can't be drawn? Like I alluded to previously, a budget/mid/high-end/flagship generalised grouping or classification of headphones cannot exist due to differing personal preferences?

Have you heard the Sony MH755? Those are like $6 and fantastic. (I get your point, though)

 

[ricksastro]

I'm new here...been a casual enjoyer of high quality cans (HD265, HD600) for years, but don't consider myself an audiophile. I've been ambidextrous as far as Android and Apple for years, but have recently migrated towards Apple stuff for various reasons (a whole other conversation). I recently purchased the APM and have been enjoying them for several days, breathing life back into my older ears. Pushing 60, my hearing isn't what it used to be.

A few posts in the last days I feel aren't getting enough attention IMO with all the goings on about opinions and preferences.

I can perform an objective test of my hearing through a set of headphones with an app on my phone and apply that correction to those headphones to compensate for my personal weaknesses! After 10 minutes, I have a custom set of cans for my hearing and they sound great! Even compensates for different hearing in L and R ears. If someone else listened to them, they may sounds like crap to them with my settings, but I just don't care. Before this, I played with balanced, vocal and brightness settings and those helped, but the custom audiogram setting brings my brain back closer to the balanced memories of my Sennheisers, but with better sub-bass

We have no idea what others hear when they listen, so reviewers fall back on objective response measurements and note their opinions. But are these even relevant in the APM world? Does it adjust dynamically according how it wants to translate input to output, adding a time element into the equation that really can't be captured on a flat graph? I tried XM4s and the muddying or veiling of sound was just bad, but yet they have received accolades upon accolades for their sound. They had pretty good graphs, but who cares?

For those that missed it, go into the Heath app, select Hearing and click on audiogram and download the Mimi hearing test app. Once you run through that test, the audiogram option will pop up on your accessibility -> audio visual -> headphone accommodations page in addition to the balanced, vocal and brightness settings. You can compare them while listening and hear the difference. It wasn't earth-shatteringly different for me, but enough for my brain to say "yea, that's about right"

 

[tkddans]

To put it quite simply, can I pick up a $10 pair of ear buds and arguably say that these ear buds best any headphone out there because I like the sound? I personally believe that people have the right to say "objectively speaking a pair of shure SE846's for example are categorically better, they are flat out better, but you believe a genuine distinction and classification between the $10 earbuds and the shure SE846's can't be drawn? Like I alluded to previously, a budget/mid/high-end/flagship generalised grouping or classification of headphones cannot exist due to differing personal preferences?

I feel I agree with where you are coming from completely. You aren’t saying we shouldn’t personally prefer anything we want. You’re simply saying we shouldn’t confuse our enjoyment with whether we say those preferred headphones perform better on the usual traits we look to discuss:
• Detail retrieval
• Instrument separation or clarity; Imaging or where the instruments are in space
• Frequency response curve
• Comfort

From my view of the forum so far, or how I’ve at least tried to express my observations during comparisons, the APM is categorically worse in several traits compared to the HD 800 S and probably many other headphones in one trait or another.

But, take a closer look at the traits and things can indeed get confusing. I don't even mean subjectively alone, I mean objectively.

Imaging and Soundstage
Take imaging or locating the instruments in space with respect to one another. Many critics, see YouTube audiophile reviews that even touch on imaging, say they are disappointed with that trait of the APM. In my own observation log, however, I found that I weirdly enjoyed how the instruments felt more together. The smaller stage from which they sounded to perform, in a strange way, made live performances feel more authentic. Maybe it's simply because concerts play instruments off of speakers. When did anyone go to a live rock concert and think to themselves, "wow, do you hear that wide soundstage and separation." (EDIT: I realize orchestra, jazz, and more can benefit from wider soundstage, as those performances do locate to each performer) In a weird sense I prefer the APM's soundstage for live recordings though objectively smaller, because to me is objectively closer to a live portrayal!

Ranking the APM on soundstage width, I would say it falls below the HD 800 S. In most situations, with studio recordings, this is inevitably more desired. But then you have music that simply doesn't sound as authentic to me on the 800 S compared to the APM.

Frequency Response or Tuning
Try next looking at frequency response. Notice the Harman curve on the first image.

The Harman curve starts higher on the bass, goes down about 5 dB in the 200 - 1k range, goes up and peaks again at around 2k-4k, before dropping down sharply toward 20 kHz.

If I didn't tell you that the bottom image was the HD 800 S, you might think that the bottom image is objectively ridiculous. The HD 800 S instead starts lower in the bass region! Then, instead of dipping relative to the bass and rising again at 2k-4k, it flatlines and dips DOWN. Then in the treble, it spikes way up, instead of down along the harman curve. Unless I'm misinterpreting things - I'm not an expert!

The point made here is that the Harman curve has been a starting point for where we can attempt to qualify headphone tuning, but the Harman curve is only one interpretation of what pleasing sound could be like. To me, it's helpful only as a point of reference to help talk with people about what you see in the response. The dips and spikes are landmarks to refer from during conversation, but not something to judge the ultimate affect on the listener in every headphone.

On these graphs alone, I would have told you maybe the APM would be a safer buy. If these graphs weren't labeled, I wonder how many people would say the APM are better in tuning!

I love the HD 800 S tuning and, though far from the Harman curve, is something beautifully designed by the Sennheiser team. Tuning is art and to me, those are a masterpiece of an interpretation of what could be. I do not say the same for the APM.

Clarity and Detail
The drivers in the HD 800 S are also more responsive, it seems. Every note is just that much more clear to the ear. Nothing muddies anything else.

I could not tell you in any way that the APM is clearer than the 800 S. The 800 S also retrieves more detail in many ways, again probably owed to more responsive drivers and engineering I don't know about as a layman.


Conclusion
Objective and subjective meld in weird ways in art, audio, whiskey, and wine. The top shelf single malt has more nuance from the barrel and aging compared to the younger bottom shelf; but sometimes objectively better nuance doesn't translate to a better score on a blind taste test. Sometimes simple can nail it better than nuance attempts to.

The APM, though it seems like it doesn't deserve it, truly does sound better in some situations to me. Objectively, it presents sub-bass that just isn't there on the HD 800 S - and it's objectively clear and great bass (not muddy at all). You could even say the APM is closer to the Harman curve too (though I really don't like using closeness to Harman curve as the sole determining factor for whether a FR is "better"; tuning is artistic expression, in a sense, of the engineers).

Objectively, the soundstage is smaller on the APM. Objectively, in my subjective opinion, this actually makes the APM feel more authentic to live performances - but worse for studio recordings.

But I know...critics will read all this with glossed over eyes and probably still chastise me for even daring to compare any trait whatsoever. I'm sorry guys...but the overall better headphone isn't necessarily better than an overall worse headphone. Sometimes the cheaper one actually does do better.

I am not selling the HD 800 S. The APM doesn't replace it for many things. But it surprisingly very much does for some, objectively and subjectively, in my opinion. Do you buy the best scotch and only drink the same $200 bottle your whole life? Or do you taste a variety of cheaper scotches for the unique taste each offers?

P.S. I also realize the comparison falls short of many people's expectations for what they are buying this product for. Yes, the APM are closed back and wireless and are most appropriately compared to that category. Even further, you could say you'd only compare them to ANC wireless. In the ANC category, they're the best (though ANC headphones are generally reviewed poorly).

P.P.S. See my equalizer setting for a brighter, more balanced APM. I don't love messing with EQ, but it's fun to fiddle with.

EDIT:: For kicks, look at the comparison between the APM and the LCD2 (shown in Snazzy's review video)
Very similar FR.

 

[Double C]

Do you have any more details on that claim? Because I don't think there's anything special about the APM in that regard. Sometimes the statement that AAC encoded songs are better for AAC Bluetooth connections pops up, but as far as I've been able to clear this up this is simply not correct: the iOS sound APIs always accept WAV only, i.e. decompressed audio, and this is decompressed for transfer via Bluetooth (incidentally using AAC again in case of iOS -> APM).

furthermore I'm sure Apple would have mentioned their new revolutionary way to stream audio to their new headphone, were there any advances in technology (they did talk about that when Airplay 2 was introduced with lower latency etc.).

This is what I was asking as well in an earlier post about he H1 chip. I think the person that claimed this was hifi insider on YouTube. The thought blew my mind as well. I wonder if there is something ‘game changing’ about the way the H1 chip is receiving bits and then processing.

 

[amoeba1126]

One thing I find annoying reading through this thread is some of the arguments/justifications/excuses that have been made I rarely find in other dedicated headphone threads, since the advent of the APM it now feels like many people are saying that we can't judge headphones objectively anymore, now it's just about personal preference and sound signature/tuning, classic budget/mid/high-end/flagship categories have now came to an end, the APM exists outside the realm of traditional objective classification (?), I can't help feel that 'some' people on here with obvious biases are trying to move the goal posts in terms of the current process of reviewing and judging headphones, fitting their narrative that APM is possibility the best headphone in the world, with the H1 chips and DSP processing the APM can be any headphone it wants to be, it just comes down to tuning and preference now.

Pre APM world, for the most part, I think many headfiers accepted a 'general' classification of particular headphones, meaning kind of where about said headphone fitted on the ladder, or headphone wall of fame (rarr!), you would find courteous statements like, "I actually prefer headphone X than Y even though it's only a mid tier headphone because I prefer the mid range presentation, or bass emphasis etc, headphones like HD600 vs HD800 are a classic example, HD800 is arguably of the best hi-fi headphone in the world, in the true since of the meaning of hi-fi (hi-fidelity), but it's certainly not to everyone's taste, many prefer HD600/650, but we accept the HD800's position nonetheless, personally I love the HD800, I like a headphone that tests your ears to the point of cringing even, I see it similar to well done HDR on TV's that makes you cringe when a car headlight shines in your face, why do TV enthusiasts want that? because it mimics real life, I don't believe all music should should 'comfortable', you hear people say, "that 6k peak destroys that headphone", trying listening to a live band in a room lol, I understand preferences are important, you like what you like, but I still believe the continued search for objective classifications of headphones is very important.

Price / tier classification to begin with is something that audio enthusiasts came up with to be able to recommend things to others or justify their own user preferences. However, even that is wholly subjective at the end of the day and the result of "Can it do what I want better than my previous headphones? "Headphones have always been about sound preference and use case beyond the hi-fi starting point. That is the sole reason why anyone would upgrade; to get the sound that THEY want. Now there are technical differences of course; some headphones are a bit more clear, a bit more faster, can extend deeper/higher, or have better spatial imaging or soundstage and that can help determine technical superiority from one to another. Yet, even those still boil down to user preference.

Then we have use case, which makes an even bigger splash. Generally speaking, people don't like having a bunch of different things that all do fundamentally the same thing. It's troublesome and lowers the value of individual investment. For example, I initially upgraded from the HD650 to the LCD-2 because I was looking for more bass without sacrificing mids. This is your classic "moving up the ladder". After that, I started a job that required me to be at the office more, cutting down the time I was able enjoy my LCD-2 significantly. I also needed something for work, but I needed closed headphones due to being in an office with others. Hence, I downgraded from a ODAC > Burson > LCD-2 setup to a Grace M9xx > TH-X00 setup. However, I view the entire experience as an "upgrade" as I now have a portable setup that gets me subjectively 90% of the sound I like that I can use both at home and work.

With improvements to manufacturing and technology, making hi-fi capable headphones in general have never been easier. This is a fact and because it is a fact, we can now start entering a world where focus can be placed on other important features without really sacrificing sound quality. The additions of these features add value beyond traditional sound comparisons as they expand the situations where we can use a pair of headphones. Whether headphone "purists" like it or not, this will continue to happen and continue to marginalize traditional ways of "objectifying" headphones.

 

[Ilomaenkimi]

It is very strange to me why APM causes so much whining and bs. I just don't get it.

But there is lot of things i dont understand.

 

[plakat]

To put it quite simply, can I pick up a $10 pair of ear buds and arguably say that these ear buds best any headphone out there because I like the sound? I personally believe that people have the right to say "objectively speaking a pair of shure SE846's for example are categorically better, they are flat out better, but you believe a genuine distinction and classification between the $10 earbuds and the shure SE846's can't be drawn? Like I alluded to previously, a budget/mid/high-end/flagship generalised grouping or classification of headphones cannot exist due to differing personal preferences?

I get your point, but still playing devils advocate I‘d add that for some person with a budget of 10,- the SE846 (which I happen to own and love btw) might be the less ideal option. Which still doesn’t make the 10,- option sound better — but that was my point: there are potentially many aspects to factor into a ranking

This is what I was asking as well in an earlier post about he H1 chip. I think the person that claimed this was hifi insider on YouTube. The thought blew my mind as well. I wonder if there is something ‘game changing’ about the way the H1 chip is receiving bits and then processing.

Not that I know of... and in general Apple is far from mute about its groundbreaking revolutionary final best ultimate solutions So I think if there was anything special they would have let us know. In color and Dolby Surround so to say...

 

[spinspin]

You seem to be pretty focused and determined to associate APM with HD800 with a number of posts on this matter. I can see why it would be useful. It helps to validate the use of the APM. By associating headphone X with a well renowned headphone HD800 it thereby elevates headphone X. We can rationalise the differences and say the differences are actually things we like - such as small sound stage for intimacy.

Here is an example, borrowing some of your words/reasoning

Lets call a new headphone codenamed MOOMBA

MOOMBA vs HD800

Imaging and Soundstage

"I found that I weirdly enjoyed how the instruments felt more together. The smaller stage from which they sounded to perform, in a strange way, made live performances feel more authentic. Maybe it's simply because concerts play instruments off of speakers. When did anyone go to a live rock concert and think to themselves, "wow, do you hear that wide soundstage and separation." In a weird sense I prefer the APM's soundstage for live recordings. Though objectively smaller, because to me is objectively closer to a live portrayal!"

MOOMBA just like APM has a small sound stage. MOOMBA will sound better to you than HD800 and give you that intimate feeling. Fortunately there are a plethora of headphones that create this attractive small sound stage(attractive to you) like MOOMBA and APM provides. The majority of headphones actually give you this and you can pick one from any price bracket from $50+ dollars.

Frequency Response or Tuning

"The point made here is that the Harman curve has been a starting point for where we can attempt to qualify headphone tuning, but the Harman curve is only one interpretation of what pleasing sound could be like. To me, it's helpful only as a point of reference to help talk with people about what you see in the response. The dips and spikes are landmarks to refer from during conversation, but not something to judge the ultimate affect on the listener in every headphone."

You are basically saying that the tuning curves of headphones are nice and all but they don't really matter too much. Some curves appeal to some and other curves appeal to others.

All headphones have a certain curve. Having a curve is not unique to HD800 or APM or MOOMBA, every headphone has a curve. So with the above reasoning it's just about finding a headphone with a curve we find attractive enough. Just as with narrow soundstage, there is a plethora of headphones (ALL) with a curve to try out. And if we are aiming for headphones that have a curve similar to harman there are options starting from a low price too. 100 ish dollars. That is not to say that the headphones which are close to harman will be attractive to person X.

Clarity and Detail

"The drivers in the HD 800 S are also more responsive, it seems. Every note is just that much more clear to the ear. Nothing muddies anything else.

I could not tell you in any way that the APM is clearer than the 800 S. The 800 S also retrieves more detail in many ways, again probably owed to more responsive drivers and engineering I don't know about as a layman."

MOOMBA and APM and a plethora of other available headphones provide lower clarity and detail than HD800. You can find these lower clarity headphones starting from a lower
price point.

Conclusion

MOOMBA and APM and a number of other headphones provide a small sound stage, lower clarity and detail than hd800, and they also have a tuning curve to try out and see if you like.

You can attain these attributes in a headphone that costs 50, 100, 150, 200, ..... 500, 550... that's up to you.

In the end, I don't really see the usefulness in associating HD800 with APM or MOOMBA or one of the many headphones out there that provides and small sound stage and lower clarity and detail.

I don't often see this "association" spring up when headphone manufacturer XYZ creates headphone DEF costing 200 dollars. But there might be a compelling force to entertain such an association / comparison when it comes to APM as it is a high price headphone with a similar price to a second hand HD800.

I feel I agree with where you are coming from completely. You aren’t saying we shouldn’t personally prefer anything we want. You’re simply saying we shouldn’t confuse our enjoyment with whether we say those preferred headphones perform better on the usual traits we look to discuss:
• Detail retrieval
• Instrument separation or clarity; Imaging or where the instruments are in space
• Frequency response curve
• Comfort

From my view of the forum so far, or how I’ve at least tried to express my observations during comparisons, the APM is categorically worse in several traits compared to the HD 800 S and probably many other headphones in one trait or another.

But, take a closer look at the traits and things can indeed get confusing. I don't even mean subjectively alone, I mean objectively.

Imaging and Soundstage
Take imaging or locating the instruments in space with respect to one another. Many critics, see YouTube audiophile reviews that even touch on imaging, say they are disappointed with that trait of the APM. In my own observation log, however, I found that I weirdly enjoyed how the instruments felt more together. The smaller stage from which they sounded to perform, in a strange way, made live performances feel more authentic. Maybe it's simply because concerts play instruments off of speakers. When did anyone go to a live rock concert and think to themselves, "wow, do you hear that wide soundstage and separation." (EDIT: I realize orchestra, jazz, and more can benefit from wider soundstage, as those performances do locate to each performer) In a weird sense I prefer the APM's soundstage for live recordings though objectively smaller, because to me is objectively closer to a live portrayal!

Ranking the APM on soundstage width, I would say it falls below the HD 800 S. In most situations, with studio recordings, this is inevitably more desired. But then you have music that simply doesn't sound as authentic to me on the 800 S compared to the APM.

Frequency Response or Tuning
Try next looking at frequency response. Notice the Harman curve on the first image.



The Harman curve starts higher on the bass, goes down about 5 dB in the 200 - 1k range, goes up and peaks again at around 2k-4k, before dropping down sharply toward 20 kHz.

If I didn't tell you that the bottom image was the HD 800 S, you might think that the bottom image is objectively ridiculous. The HD 800 S instead starts lower in the bass region! Then, instead of dipping relative to the bass and rising again at 2k-4k, it flatlines and dips DOWN. Then in the treble, it spikes way up, instead of down along the harman curve. Unless I'm misinterpreting things - I'm not an expert!

The point made here is that the Harman curve has been a starting point for where we can attempt to qualify headphone tuning, but the Harman curve is only one interpretation of what pleasing sound could be like. To me, it's helpful only as a point of reference to help talk with people about what you see in the response. The dips and spikes are landmarks to refer from during conversation, but not something to judge the ultimate affect on the listener in every headphone.

On these graphs alone, I would have told you maybe the APM would be a safer buy. If these graphs weren't labeled, I wonder how many people would say the APM are better in tuning!

I love the HD 800 S tuning and, though far from the Harman curve, is something beautifully designed by the Sennheiser team. Tuning is art and to me, those are a masterpiece of an interpretation of what could be. I do not say the same for the APM.

Clarity and Detail
The drivers in the HD 800 S are also more responsive, it seems. Every note is just that much more clear to the ear. Nothing muddies anything else.

I could not tell you in any way that the APM is clearer than the 800 S. The 800 S also retrieves more detail in many ways, again probably owed to more responsive drivers and engineering I don't know about as a layman.


Conclusion
Objective and subjective meld in weird ways in art, audio, whiskey, and wine. The top shelf single malt has more nuance from the barrel and aging compared to the younger bottom shelf; but sometimes objectively better nuance doesn't translate to a better score on a blind taste test. Sometimes simple can nail it better than nuance attempts to.

The APM, though it seems like it doesn't deserve it, truly does sound better in some situations to me. Objectively, it presents sub-bass that just isn't there on the HD 800 S - and it's objectively clear and great bass (not muddy at all). You could even say the APM is closer to the Harman curve too (though I really don't like using closeness to Harman curve as the sole determining factor for whether a FR is "better"; tuning is artistic expression, in a sense, of the engineers).

Objectively, the soundstage is smaller on the APM. Objectively, in my subjective opinion, this actually makes the APM feel more authentic to live performances - but worse for studio recordings.

But I know...critics will read all this with glossed over eyes and probably still chastise me for even daring to compare any trait whatsoever. I'm sorry guys...but the overall better headphone isn't necessarily better than an overall worse headphone. Sometimes the cheaper one actually does do better.

I am not selling the HD 800 S. The APM doesn't replace it for many things. But it surprisingly very much does for some, objectively and subjectively, in my opinion. Do you buy the best scotch and only drink the same $200 bottle your whole life? Or do you taste a variety of cheaper scotches for the unique taste each offers?

P.S. I also realize the comparison falls short of many people's expectations for what they are buying this product for. Yes, the APM are closed back and wireless and are most appropriately compared to that category. Even further, you could say you'd only compare them to ANC wireless. In the ANC category, they're the best (though ANC headphones are generally reviewed poorly).

P.P.S. See my equalizer setting for a brighter, more balanced APM. I don't love messing with EQ, but it's fun to fiddle with.


EDIT:: For kicks, look at the comparison between the APM and the LCD2 (shown in Snazzy's review video)
Very similar FR.

 

[neverover]

Got mine yesterday and loving them so far. I had a question.
There was a video posted last week about how AirPod Max's stream the songs in to the headphones so bluetooth compression is not an issue. It was the "Gamechanger" video.
That really intrigued me. The problem is, I haven't heard another reviewer or article mention that.
Has that been confirmed?

Do you have any more details on that claim? Because I don't think there's anything special about the APM in that regard. Sometimes the statement that AAC encoded songs are better for AAC Bluetooth connections pops up, but as far as I've been able to clear this up this is simply not correct: the iOS sound APIs always accept WAV only, i.e. decompressed audio, and this is decompressed for transfer via Bluetooth (incidentally using AAC again in case of iOS -> APM).

furthermore I'm sure Apple would have mentioned their new revolutionary way to stream audio to their new headphone, were there any advances in technology (they did talk about that when Airplay 2 was introduced with lower latency etc.).

I think he was referring to this video

He is basically talking on how Apple chip “decompress” audio file that was transmitted via Bluetooth by computational audio. So it’s kinda like computational photography where they make Machine Learning decide the best composure instead of the actual lens capability. That’s why even an AAC will sound very good and detailed. But yeah funny thing is nobody really talked about this. This is quite a game changer. If they improve this every year, Apple can be at the top of food chain just by tweaking the software, technically speaking.

 

[tkddans]

In the end, I don't really see the usefulness in associating HD800 with APM or MOOMBA or one of the many headphones out there that provides and small sound stage and lower clarity and detail.

That's precisely my point. I'm comparing them to show we can and should compare whatever we own against the headphone we seek to fill a void with. That's all we can do. I think it's useful for someone to say, "look, the HD 800 S, for people who own those, they do not do some things the APM can. Look at where I enjoy the APM more than the 800 S, you may find this experience useful to draw from."

If I owned other headphones, I would do the same comparison and ask the same question, "how do these fit in my collection and where do I choose one over the other." I'll keep doing that no matter the price difference. I don't care about that.

Many people on this forum have multiple pairs for this reason. HD 800 S for analytical, or clarity/soundstage on classical, etc. But then they Prefer the 650's, the LCD2, or some other pair for relaxed listening.

It is my point exactly to compare to the 800 S, not to say the APM ought to be better overall (it isn't), but to say the APM fills a listening experience the 800 S does not.

Perhaps a far more appropriate comparison is not one of apples to oranges as I have with the APM to 800 S, but instead something like the LCD2 against the APM. Or some other headphone with similar tuning, against the APM.

EDIT:: I'm going to compare the APM to the Panda, AKG K361/371, and the HD 650 next. The Panda and 650 should be closer to an "apples to apples" comparison. This will be a true shoot out for who performs better in other objective areas besides FR, though they will differ there too.

 

[dleblanc343]

Today has been a good headphone day for me.

First I received new pads for my A900. It’s insane that Audio Technica only charged $3.50 for each earpad and a whole dollar for the ‘3D Wings’. And shipping was free. So I spent a whole ten bucks to get my 14 year old beloved A900 feeling like new again.

Then a short while later, my AirPods Max showed up at the door.

I’ve gotta say, I love the APM so far. I’ve only been listening for a couple hours, but my first impressions are that I like them a lot. The bass and sub-bass are excellent, the soundstage is pretty wide (albeit not as wide as the A900), and I’m hearing details and instrument separation that is far better than what I get from my A900. I think the A900 might still have the advantage in detail. For example, listening to a piano note, I can hear a little more texture with the A900 than with the APM.

The A900 has this smooth, laid back complexity that I just love. But the APM is more dynamic. They’re punchier, more interesting, and when there’s a mix with many different layers of instrumentation, I feel like I can hear each individual layer stand out more on the APM than I can with the A900s. So even though the A900 offers a bit more detail and texture, the APM feel like there’s ‘more going on’, if that makes sense. The A900 has a warmer sound but the APM has a more immersive sound.

It’s too early to declare the APM my overall winner, but it may very well be. And the A900 and APM are clearly the two best sounding headphones I own.

My current headphone rankings of what I own:

1. AirPods Max
2. Audio Technica A900
3. Audio Technica M50

I need to take a minute and praise Audio-Technica service department for their outstanding service and pricing for parts. I 100% agree with you, and it's nice to see they don't gauge clients like Focal and Sennheiser do for parts (Utopia pads... cost a fortune).

Also, while talking about A-T, I brought my APM to the office today, and decided to compare with Audio-Technica ATH-SR50BT for giggles... and to my surprise, I prefer the A-T's in more ways than the Applephones

Seriously underrated wireless headphone, for anyone not needing noise cancelling.. these things rock.

 

[tkddans]

I just got the AKG K361 in the mail. I'm already impressed by the quality of materials for the price. The pads are soft faux leather (I presume they aren't real because of cost alone), and they feel great to the touch and on the head. Adjustability is easy. The headphones are light. Wearing these for hours are probably going to be much easier and less variable from person to person in opinion on comfort - as opposed to the APM where some people are comfortable with them and some not sure or not at all.

The package comes with a charging cable and two different lengths of stereo cables to plug into sources. Very nice of them to include two lengths of the same cable. The cables aren't anything special, but it's still nice of them.

Even the carrying pouch it comes with has a nice touch to them. With a soft inner lining and nice grey textured outside, the drawstring carrying bag is a nice touch. I already feel that the $105 I spent is well worth every dollar in these qualities at the least.

After I finish charging the headphones, I will start listening to them wirelessly, using my reference playlist, and see what my first impressions are. It's looking like a great deal so far. With the praise they get from many audiophiles (DMS, Headphone Show, Z reviews), I have high expectations for sound quality at this price range. Probably better than the $150 m50x and ~$300 ANC wireless headphone world.

 

[Maukey]

I just got the AKG K361 in the mail. I'm already impressed by the quality of materials for the price. The pads are soft faux leather (I presume they aren't real because of cost alone), and they feel great to the touch and on the head. Adjustability is easy. The headphones are light. Wearing these for hours are probably going to be much easier and less variable from person to person in opinion on comfort - as opposed to the APM where some people are comfortable with them and some not sure or not at all.

The package comes with a charging cable and two different lengths of stereo cables to plug into sources. Very nice of them to include two lengths of the same cable. The cables aren't anything special, but it's still nice of them.

Even the carrying pouch it comes with has a nice touch to them. With a soft inner lining and nice grey textured outside, the drawstring carrying bag is a nice touch. I already feel that the $105 I spent is well worth every dollar in these qualities at the least.

After I finish charging the headphones, I will start listening to them wirelessly, using my reference playlist, and see what my first impressions are. It's looking like a great deal so far. With the praise they get from many audiophiles (DMS, Headphone Show, Z reviews), I have high expectations for sound quality at this price range. Probably better than the $150 m50x and ~$300 ANC wireless headphone world.

Looking forward to your comparisons