iPhone AAC vs. Aptx and Aptx-hd real world
Jun 20, 2019 at 8:51 PM Post #301 of 315
https://habr.com/en/post/456182/

I don't know enough to say if everything in this article is correct, but the little I know seemed to align.
it certainly is very informative.
Thanks for the link, it is great consolidated reading!

And this makes me :anguished::

"AAC has many extensions to the standard encoding method. One of them—Scalable To Lossless (SLS)—is standardized for Bluetooth and allows you to transfer lossless audio. Unfortunately, no SLS support could be found on existing devices. An extension to reduce transmission delay AAC-LD (Low Delay) is not standardized for Bluetooth.", so much more could be had.

"The situation with AAC is ambiguous: on one hand, theoretically, the codec should produce quality that is indistinguishable from the original, but practice, judging by the tests of the SoundGuys laboratory on different Android devices, is not confirmed. Most likely, the fault is on low-quality hardware audio encoders embedded in various phone chipsets. It makes sense to use AAC only on Apple devices; with Android you'd better stick with aptX/HD and LDAC."

And some article conclusion :anguished::

"People who do not hear the difference between codecs while testing via a web service claim they hear it when listening to music with Bluetooth headphones. Unfortunately, that is not a joke or a placebo effect: the difference is really audible, but it is not caused by difference in codecs."

"The marketing of alternative codecs is very strong: aptX and LDAC are presented as a long-awaited replacement of the “outdated and bad” SBC, which is far from as bad as it is commonly thought of." .. "As it turned out, the artificial limitations of Bluetooth stacks on SBC can be bypassed, so that the SBC will be on par with aptX HD."
 
Last edited:
Dec 14, 2019 at 11:44 AM Post #303 of 315
"Most wireless audio devices have a maximum bitrate of 320 kbps for AAC, some support only 256 kbps. Other bitrates are extremely rare.
AAC provides excellent quality at 320 and 256 kb/s bit rates, but is prone to generation loss on already compressed content, however it’s difficult to hear any differences between the original and AAC 256 kb/s on iOS, even with several consecutive encodings. For MP3 320 kbps encoded into AAC 256 kbps the loss can be neglected."

As an iOS user who has done some fairly critical testing, this is exactly what I found. ALAC rip to AAC produces output that is indistinguishable from lossless wired, at least for me/most. I could hear degradation on MP3 rips below 320 kbps to AAC.
 
Dec 14, 2019 at 1:49 PM Post #304 of 315
Generation loss may not be the best way to describe it because the loss all occurs in transcoding from one codec to another. You can encode back and forth from WAV to AAC a whole bunch of times with no loss at all. The trouble comes when you transcode from MP3 to AAC.
 
Dec 1, 2020 at 10:33 PM Post #305 of 315
Hi everyone! I really hope I am in the right place to be asking this question, as I haven’t been able to find a definitive answer.

Question: Will I notice a tangible improvement in sound quality when using Amazon Music HD as source with Bluetooth headphones that support AptxHD (eg Sennheiser Momentum 3) on an Android Phone (eg LG V30) vs. Same headphones on an iPhone X (which will be AAC)?

Thank you so much in advance for any input!
 
Dec 2, 2020 at 3:25 AM Post #306 of 315
Hi everyone! I really hope I am in the right place to be asking this question, as I haven’t been able to find a definitive answer.

Question: Will I notice a tangible improvement in sound quality when using Amazon Music HD as source with Bluetooth headphones that support AptxHD (eg Sennheiser Momentum 3) on an Android Phone (eg LG V30) vs. Same headphones on an iPhone X (which will be AAC)?

Thank you so much in advance for any input!

I don’t think so (many will tell your otherwise though). AAC on the iPhone is well implemented and sounds very good (especially on the go). But I‘ve read that AAC implementations on Android may have problems, so on that plattform you may be better off with aptX.

That being said, I like AAC for its lower required bandwidth and therefore more stable connections in crowded areas (mostly not a problem at the moment obviously...). Especially aptX HD was quite problematic in my tests, but I’ve also heard for aptX connections from people who had to switch the side on which they carry their phones to get a stable connection (phone had to be on the same side as the Bluetooth receiver in their headphones...)
 
Mar 7, 2021 at 6:12 AM Post #308 of 315
Good to see this thread is still going and it is something I have been thinking over a lot again recently. I usually have an iDevice and droid that I switch between and I think in some ways Android has actually got worse since I started this thread.

AAC is bad on android, it always bugged me how terrible it sounded and then when I saw that soundguys article it all made sense. LDAC is still a little broken in that other than the P40 pro no phone I have used lets you switch from Best Effort and keep the setting and Samsung phones cannot do 990 mode at all. Best Effort varies between devices it seems with many choosing 330 mode and whatever you view on LDAC it is pretty much only available on Sony headphones. Lastly APTX-HD is not available on many phones now so if you have non Sony cans your choices are limited to standard APTX, AAC or SBC.

I have settled on standard APTX with android but honestly to my untrained ears I think that Bluetooth audio just sounds better on an iPhone which is crazy really.
 
Sep 10, 2021 at 1:11 PM Post #309 of 315
Re. the Iphone / Android, AAC/Aptx question and which sounds better; I haven't had a chance to compare. However there are a few observations I can share:
  • Android, like Windows PCs, does a degree of audio processing buried deep in the OS kernel, this includes a mixer and sample rate converter and allows multiple sources to play at the same time, i.e. notifications can play over the music you're listening to. However this processing tends to affect audio quality, sometimes quite seriously. I don't know if this is also true of Iphones.
  • Years ago I freelanced as an engineer getting a well known radio station live on air. We were using a networked audio player to play encoded promos jingles and commercials to air and were worried about how transcoding the audio from one codec to another would affect audio quality. We transcoded between AAC, MP3 and Aptx. AptX came out as the definite winner on grounds of audio quality, transcoding to AptX had a far lower impact on audio quality than to any of the other formats.
On Iphones it makes sense to use AAC, this being the format used by Itunes so the likely source of your music. On Android it makes sense to use Aptx as there is likely to be a wider range of source codecs. I haven't tested which sounds best when encoding FLAC, ALAC or uncompressed audio however.
On my Android devices, using a player that bypasses the internal processing and provides bit-perfect playback makes a big difference. I recently bought a pair of Cambridge Audio Melomania 1+ tws earphones to replace a brokem pair of Sennheisers and was initally rather disappointed in the quality, however listening via a bit perfect player they sounded far better, more definition between instruments and notes, better sense of room acoustics etc. This was true on my old Sony X compact as well as my work Galaxy Note 20 ultra. BTW, this improvement was also obvious on my Sennheisers as well, especially via the headphone jack on the Sony when using wired cans.
Re. 256k being indistinguishable from uncompressed audio: On a good recording I can most definitely hear a difference, however I need to be listening on a good system with good source material. It is fairly obvious when listening on HD650s via an MDAC, not so much via a phone and the HD650s using a bit perfect player.
A couple of years back I attended a conference on Broadcast Audio and the new R128 audio control standard, part of which makes provision for lossy compression which can increase peak audio levels due to ringing in the band pass filters used in the compression codecs. One of the speakers demonstrated the effect of lossy compression by playing uncompressed then compressed audio starting at 320k and going down to 96k via a pair of studio monitors, the difference was certainly noticeable even at 320K. He then played what had been removed from the original audio during compression. It was fascinating, listening to what was removed as the compression was increased you could hear the correlation between the removed audio and what was missing in the compressed output. If anyone's It's possible to try this at home using recording software such as Audacity. Place the source file on tracks 1 & 2 and compressed tracks on 3 & 4, reverse the phase of one pair of tracks and then mix track 1 & 3 and tracks 2 & 4, this will subtract one stereo pair from the other leaving the difference signal. You will need to play with levels and synchronisation to get the best null. You will be left with the difference between compressed and uncompressed, i.e. what the compression has removed, which was described i the conference as sounding like 'space monkeys'.

Summary: If using Iphone, stick to AAC as this is likely your source codec format, If using Android, Aptx is likely best as it is the least destructive when transcoding form other compressed formats.
When using Android, if possible use a bit perfect player for serious listening (i.e. not speech), especially important if using an external DAC. I use USB Audio player PRO but I'm sure there are others. Not sure whether this is necessary with Iphones.
 
Sep 11, 2021 at 10:00 PM Post #310 of 315
Once codecs reach audible transparency, the only consideration is convenience.
 
Aug 21, 2022 at 9:00 PM Post #311 of 315
I know this is an old thread, but I came across it while doing my own research on a very specific part of the AAC codec on iOS devices (that I still haven’t found an answer for yet, so my search goes on) but I felt compelled to create an account simply to respond to this, lol.

The interaction between bigshot and piskyhifi has been very interesting coming from both sides of the debate but I would argue they are both right:

In a high-level summary of his position, piskyhifi is looking strictly at the math and aptx-HD has a higher bit rate than AAC so it’s obviously better (just look at the math). And he’s right: aptx-HD is technically superior to 256AAC.

bigshot is saying AAC is audibly transparent at 256kbps so anything beyond that is just extra file size with no audio fidelity that we can even hear, so what’s the point in listening to higher bit rates? Fair point, and also true.

I think the best analogy I can come up with to describe the debate they had years ago would be what the human eye is capable of seeing on the electromagnetic spectrum.

If I had a pair of imaginary glasses with the technical specs to view gamma rays and radio waves (aptx-HD) they would be technically superior to glasses that only allow me to see visible light (256AAC).

So yes, aptx-HD is superior to AAC256, but it’s like wearing glasses that are capable of seeing radio waves that human eyesight is unable to see on its own.

Kinda pointless…

FLAC, ALAC, WAV have a specific purpose that I don’t see ever going away, but for daily use, even in home critical listening, using a lossy codec of your choice that achieves transparency is all you need; you’re not missing out on what your ear can’t hear, just like using glasses that are technically capable of viewing what you’re not capable of seeing.
 
Last edited:
Aug 21, 2022 at 10:14 PM Post #312 of 315
Better than AAC256 will be necessary if you’re a dog or a bat.
 
Aug 21, 2022 at 10:59 PM Post #313 of 315
Yup, and it’s funny that everything you said years ago is still accurate even though lossless music providers are mainstream now.

It reminds me of something an audiophile said on another forum I was on recently about when Spotify will finally release a lossless tier: “I can’t wait to not hear the difference!”
 
Aug 21, 2022 at 11:20 PM Post #314 of 315
You guys are spot on: "But why don't you just make the knob say 10 rather than 11?" "Uh, no. It goes up to ELEVEN!" Men LOVE specs- they feel so dang competent when they know all the specs. When I installed high-end home theaters I had SO many clients (essentially all cashed out tech stock options) who would want to put $100k worth of equipment in disastrous room acoustics. Me, "You know some acoustic treatments on the primary reflection points would get you a lot better sound, even with average equipment." Him, "Pffft. This amp has 0.0001% distortion!"
 
Nov 12, 2022 at 10:19 AM Post #315 of 315
You guys are spot on: "But why don't you just make the knob say 10 rather than 11?" "Uh, no. It goes up to ELEVEN!" Men LOVE specs- they feel so dang competent when they know all the specs. When I installed high-end home theaters I had SO many clients (essentially all cashed out tech stock options) who would want to put $100k worth of equipment in disastrous room acoustics. Me, "You know some acoustic treatments on the primary reflection points would get you a lot better sound, even with average equipment." Him, "Pffft. This amp has 0.0001% distortion!"
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top