[angelom]

i am using my H100s with USB-C connection with my iphone 15 for true lossless/hi-res 24/96 playback, obviously sounds superb, if a little low volume compared to bluetooth, listen at 85 vs 65 ish. I had the oppurtunity of switching the mode between bluetooth (AAC 256kbps from iphone) and USB-C (up to 24/96, 3000 kbps)- and to be quite honest it was almost impossible to tell the difference! it shows that AAC codec is very good, at least for my 51 year old ears, or that Apples hardware implementation of AAC actually makes it even better
i do hope that B&O tweak the volume of the USB input, as some of the tracks on Apple Music even in lossless are quiet on the dB front and even at 85 volume isnt loud enough- maybe ill stick mainly to bluetooth as its more convenient, but the geek part of me really wants to listen to hi-res lossless haha

I know this is an unpopular comment, specially in a place like HF...but at least you see more people sharing my opinion more frequently in the science forum of HF.

For me --for my ears--, if the master is exactly the same, hi-res vs CD-quality vs 256kbps AAC (or even 192kbps), hi-res is really marketing BS. For human ears 192kbps AAC files (and even standard aptX or the more recent versions of SBC) is enough. Placebo is more true than sooooo many people know, even among (very) educated people. Like hi-res, LDAC is the same BS. But is true that sometimes the implementation of some codecs in some devices isn't so excellent.

But I still 'love' seeing the tremendous exaggerations and BS of soooo many people comparing lossy vs lossless/CD-quality vs hi-res...or ACC vs LDAC...or 192kbps vs 320/500/990kbps... And I love this exaggerations even more when they mention expensive wired headphones for appearing credible and speaking of "night and day" differences (or similar hyperbolic expressions).

 

[TheOneInYellow]

I know this is an unpopular comment, specially in a place like HF...but at least you see more people sharing my opinion more frequently in the science forum of HF.

For me --for my ears--, if the master is exactly the same, hi-res vs CD-quality vs 256kbps AAC (or even 192kbps), hi-res is really marketing BS. For human ears 192kbps AAC files (and even standard aptX or the more recent SBC) is enough. Placebo is more true than sooooo many people know, even among (very) educated people. Like hi-res, LDAC is the same BS. But is true that sometimes the implementation of some codecs in some devices isn't so excellent.

But I still 'love' seeing the tremendous exaggerations and BS of soooo many people comparing lossy vs lossless/CD-quality vs hi-res...or ACC vs LDAC...or 192kbps vs 320/500/990kbps... And I love this exaggerations even more when they mention expensive wired headphones for appearing credible and speaking of "night and day" differences (or similar hyperbolic expressions).

This is one of the very few areas we disagree on @angelom, but there is merit on aspects of your findings too ha ha!
However, I absolutely agree on how some people are focused only on numbers or checkbox features, but simultaneously don't blame them (too much). I blame Qualcomm and their partners for their manipulative marketing.
That said, we are in an era where high-end, driver-tuned based Bluetooth headphones are becoming both competitive and a little more popular, so the differences between codecs will be less of a factor versus the quality of the drivers/headphones. That should have always been the way, but we got there in the end!

In my opinion, having a source with the least number of limitations and processing is better than the alternative, depending on the situation and environment I am in.
Lossless codecs FLAC and Apple Lossless are optimised for good decoding on the vast majority of DAC topologies, new and old, and both codecs well are the most well known, used, and better optimised in software/hardware due to both popularity and (mostly) developer-friendly coding. In pure passive mode playback (stereo, headphones, etc), such codecs require little processing, filters and/or digital noise shaping, versus lossy codecs.

Bluetooth codecs require a tonne of processing, noise shaping, various reconstruction filters, etc, but as these codecs are built from decades of psychoacoustic science, are super cool engineering wise.
The really interesting aspect is how these codecs try to mitigate high-frequency cut-off, and push noise generated by the decoding process into the very high treble areas, in challenging environments, whilst maintaining lock-step lag-free connection and bass to mid quality (to cut through external noise). This is not common knowledge, but shows foresight by the Bluetooth developers on how to best serve music knowing we may be in environments where external noise is a factor.
Add ANC tech on top of this, and you can see why products like the new B&O Beoplay H100, Apple Airpods Max, Sony XM series, many Bose headphones, etc, have been so throughly popular.

 

[LFC_SL]

Perhaps something about being on a specialist forum. It is not dissimilar to posts suggesting 3k USD for a headphone is cheap because Susvara is twice that, when the rest of the world think the AirPod Pro's are luxury pricing or the rest of the world would rather spend money on other hobbies. So not really that controversial to say lossy is perfectly fine. An online music video is almost certainly lossy. Spotify is lossy. The radio is lossy. I would rather listen to a song I like on the radio than something boring in a technically perfect standard. And yes if you have the spare income and choose to squeeze every drop out of audio hardware, that is also fine.

 

[angelom]

This is one of the very few areas we disagree on @angelom

Absolutely no problem if you disagreeing with me.

The main idea of my previous post is this: even when measurements (science) is saying --obviously-- that there are differences between all the file formats I mentioning before, the real question is if in a properly genuine blind test the people --even people with supposed very good ears-- can hearing a difference. And the reality is that a very, very high percentage of people will failing.

 

[Jasenny51]

I know this is an unpopular comment, specially in a place like HF...but at least you see more people sharing my opinion more frequently in the science forum of HF.

For me --for my ears--, if the master is exactly the same, hi-res vs CD-quality vs 256kbps AAC (or even 192kbps), hi-res is really marketing BS. For human ears 192kbps AAC files (and even standard aptX or the more recent versions of SBC) is enough. Placebo is more true than sooooo many people know, even among (very) educated people. Like hi-res, LDAC is the same BS. But is true that sometimes the implementation of some codecs in some devices isn't so excellent.

But I still 'love' seeing the tremendous exaggerations and BS of soooo many people comparing lossy vs lossless/CD-quality vs hi-res...or ACC vs LDAC...or 192kbps vs 320/500/990kbps... And I love this exaggerations even more when they mention expensive wired headphones for appearing credible and speaking of "night and day" differences (or similar hyperbolic expressions).

yes, the good thing was that within the Apple music app you can select bluetooth or USB very quick, so it was literally swapping between so quickly that you would spot any kind of difference i think - and i couldnt

 

[Benesyed]

I know this is an unpopular comment, specially in a place like HF...but at least you see more people sharing my opinion more frequently in the science forum of HF.

For me --for my ears--, if the master is exactly the same, hi-res vs CD-quality vs 256kbps AAC (or even 192kbps), hi-res is really marketing BS. For human ears 192kbps AAC files (and even standard aptX or the more recent versions of SBC) is enough. Placebo is more true than sooooo many people know, even among (very) educated people. Like hi-res, LDAC is the same BS. But is true that sometimes the implementation of some codecs in some devices isn't so excellent.

But I still 'love' seeing the tremendous exaggerations and BS of soooo many people comparing lossy vs lossless/CD-quality vs hi-res...or ACC vs LDAC...or 192kbps vs 320/500/990kbps... And I love this exaggerations even more when they mention expensive wired headphones for appearing credible and speaking of "night and day" differences (or similar hyperbolic expressions).

I'm with angelom. Loseless is a scam. Any blinded test will confirm this and I'm happy to get money on this.

I do have a real question, have you had a chance to test the Bluetooth connectivity/stability in a busy area like airport? I always worry about that.

Ultimately I have to pass on these, the ear cups are too small for my ears, the solitaire are my absolute limit and the mic issues are a bit problem since I use that feature a lot. Thank you for your thoughts tho!!!

 

[angelom]

I do have a real question, have you had a chance to test the Bluetooth connectivity/stability in a busy area like airport?

No.

Ultimately I have to pass on these, the ear cups are too small for my ears, the solitaire are my absolute limit

Just so that you know, the opening of the earpads allowing more space for more big ears than the Solitaire T's.

 

[Halimj7]

As an aside, I'm super stoked that, since the release of Mark Levinson No. 5909, more manufacturers are using properly tuned drivers (either in step with DSP*, or actual dedicated performance with or without DSP) to push wireless audio experience into really awesome hi-fi experience, anywhere.

So far, the most successful applications have been (not in any particular order):
- Audeze Maxwell
- T+A Solitaire T
- Mark Levinson No. 5909
- Dali IO-12
- B&O Beoplay H100
- Focal Bathys* (only works with DSP)
- Noble Audio Apollo
- (others; might have forgotten one or two oops )

Most (mass produced) wireless headphones use low-cost drivers of so-so quality, and then use extensive DSP and other software solutions to digitally correct the drivers inside earcup housing to produce a great sound. Sony WH-1000XM5 and Apple Airpods Max are two fantastic examples of this. However, Sony XM series can be used in passive mode, but the sound is significantly different than Bluetooth mode as you are now hearing the driver without it's software correction.

Since Mark Levinson, and with some exceptions like Focal (Bathys has tuned drivers but also require digital error correction enabled), we can have properly tuned drivers dedicated with either little to no digital correction, and have the option for digital correction (if necessary) in challenging environments; a win-win with current technology!

I'm so pleased to see more brands do this, and really cool B&O have not only thrown a hat into the ring of (at present, as it is a new category) ultra-fi wireless headphones, but further made a serious attempt to make quality sound with and without Bluetooth/digital circuitry enabled.

Hopefully, this will have a trickle-down effect to both high-end and mid-fi offerings in the future, though I don't think we will see this in the affordable segment (and why should we when current options are good at their price points).
I also hope, in the future, prices do become more competitive too, and goal posts are moved lower (Apple Airpods Max is good, but still too dear at its current RRP).

Is h100 “properly tuned”?

 

[TheOneInYellow]

Is h100 “properly tuned”?

Versus headphones like Sony XM series or Apple Airpods Max, yes.

As I wrote in a previous post, most wireless headphones use low cost drivers which are then digitally error corrected (via DSP) to sound their best. In the case of Sony, through their XM series headphones, like the WH-1000XM5, can be run passively (via an analogue cable), they sound very different than with the internal electronics on. That's because, in passive mode, you're hearing the drivers sans any error correcting algorithms applied.

In this post here I listed headphones which were tuned with the least, or no, error correction DSP applied, or tuned better than (more affordable) headphones, but can also work with Bluetooth codecs, DSP, and/or ANC in (electrically or noisy) environments if used with the digital circuitry on.
Some of these headphones, like Noble Audio Fokus Apollo, T+A Solitaire T, and Mark Levinson No. 5909, can work fully passively with little change to the sonic character of said headphone. Solitaire T is the most advanced, but that's not appropriate discussion for this thread.

 

[angelom]

i am using my H100s with USB-C connection with my iphone 15 for true lossless/hi-res 24/96 playback, obviously sounds superb, if a little low volume compared to bluetooth,

I testing the H100 with a USB-C connection again with my iPhone 15 Pro and 2021 16" MacBook Pro, in both cases using local files (so, not from streaming service).

My results: The volume level in my iPhone 15 Pro is practically identical for both BT and USB-C connections. In contrast, the volume is VERY more loud with a USB-C connection in my MacBook Pro (but sill loud in BT mode, having the same volume like in my iPhone).

 

[Halimj7]

Has anyone seen a frequency response graph for h100 or seen any reviews which discuss the sound in detail? I have only seen/heard vague reviews which don’t mention detail, punch and speed. I know these are subjective.

 

[Jasenny51]

I testing the H100 with a USB-C connection again with my iPhone 15 Pro and 2021 16" MacBook Pro, in both cases using local files (so, not from streaming service).

My results: The volume level in my iPhone 15 Pro is practically identical for both BT and USB-C connections. In contrast, the volume is VERY more loud with a USB-C connection in my MacBook Pro (but sill loud in BT mode, having the same volume like in my iPhone).

Well that is very odd. I have the 15 pro max, and it’s significantly quieter on the USB connection. Did you turn on Hi resolution mode in the H100 settings on the app?
Do you have any volume limiters on in the iPhone settings?

 

[angelom]

Well that is very odd. I have the 15 pro max, and it’s significantly quieter on the USB connection. Did you turn on Hi resolution mode in the H100 settings on the app?
Do you have any volume limiters on in the iPhone settings?

I'm sorry, you're right. Yes, after turning on hi-res mode in the app, the volume is decreasing significantly in my iPhone 15 Pro, like you describe. And I testing again with same setting (hi-res on) in my MacBook Pro and now the volume for both USB-C and BT modes are practically identical (with hi-res off setting the USB-C is VERY more loud, like I saying in my previous post).

(No volume limiter, by the way)

 

[joe75]

I'm sorry, you're right. Yes, after turning on hi-res mode in the app, the volume is decreasing significantly in my iPhone 15 Pro, like you describe. And I testing again with same setting (hi-res on) in my MacBook Pro and now the volume for both USB-C and BT modes are practically identical (with hi-res off setting the USB-C is VERY more loud, like I saying in my previous post).

(No volume limiter, by the way)

Same for me on android :-/
Volume is much lower (no volume limiter of course).
I suspect it s to get headroom for more dynamic music..or it's just another bug
What i dont like it that it continues to charge when on my smartphone android though taking energy from my phone....

I will see if i can keep the usb c data connections without charging on my phone...

 

[angelom]

What i dont like it that it continues to charge when on my smartphone android though taking energy from my phone....

This isn't exclusive to the H100 -- is also happening with the Solitaire T and iO-12, all 3 headphones charging from my iPhone (or MacBook Pro) when using the USB-C connection for listening to music. I think I reading (I'm not 100% sure) that this is happening too with the new Noble Apollo.