[PenguinHeadphoner]

Ha. Beat me to it, Andricop mate! Was going to link you guys to it... Busted!
Good... Thank you.

This is how H95's aptX HD looks on my FiiO M11 Pro:

It also sounds quite good.

Still talkiing passive, wired audiophile here?!
*facepalm*

/np: Caroline Loeb - C'est la UAT !!!

Hi,

Where does it show that it is playing aptx HD ?

It just says that the device is connected or am I missing something ?

Regards.

 

[rael67]

Fully agree with you amico but I still see people trying to convince that it's comparable - it is not.

So we should stop trying to think that we can listen to HD content on a BT headphone with aptX adaptive codec.

I listen to Apple Music with my H95 but can't listen to the Qobuz Hi-Res audio files (which are downsampled).
Apple Music is AAC at 256 kbps
Qobuz 24bits/192kHz (for example "Come Away With Me" from Norah Jones) is FLAC or ALAC at more than 5 500 kbps
The H95 is not capable of more then 420 kbps (more then 10 times less then what the Qobuz file needs).

Do we need HD content ? It depends on each of us; I can for sure hear a difference between AAC 256 and 24bits/96kHZ; not sure I hear the difference with 32bits/192kHz or DSD files but a lot of people are fully OK with Apple Music or Spotify quality.



Excellent !!! Sei grande!

Are you sure? I purchased the Album Fear Inoculum from Tool via Qobuz in Hi-Res Audio 24bits/96kHz. No problem hearing it with the H95.

 

[MayaTlab]

I can for sure hear a difference between AAC 256 and 24bits/96kHZ

If you're talking about Apple Music sourced 256 kbps AAC vs. Qobuz sourced High res files, you may be hearing something else than AAC vs. High Res. For example they may not have received the same master or may have handled it differently during the conversion process (one album notorious for this is The Who's Who's Next which exists in a multitude of different masters, Apple Music's is quite different from Spotify's or Deezer).
Also, AAC tends to be quite poorly handled by devices other than Apple's in general (not just with Bluetooth).

 

[matteventu]

IMHO the H95 is aimed to wealthy people who know that B&O it's a high brand (so it must be good or at least its good to be seen with it on) who will listen to music from their phone via Apple Music, Spotify, Deezer, ... watch YouTube video and make calls with it. Most of the streaming music services do not stream at more than 256 kbps so aptX adaptive or AAC is enough.
And if you find that grey or black is not flashy enough to be seen you have a gold one now ...


Don't get me wrong I have an H95 and I like it a lot but I only use it for calls and casual music listening - otherwise I'll use a wired high end IEM with a good DAP connected on the balance output.
The H95 is good as it can be but it's not a high end headphone for audiophile.

Out of curiosity,

"otherwise I'll use a wired high end IEM with a good DAP connected on the balance output"

why IEMs and not another pair of high-end around-ear headphones?

Hi,
Where does it show that it is playing aptx HD ?

It just says that the device is connected or am I missing something ?

Regards.

Probably in the status bar at the top, but I strongly believe it's a "bug" of FiiO's UI that shows aptX HD even though the connected device doesn't support it.

 

[Andricop]

Are you sure? I purchased the Album Fear Inoculum from Tool via Qobuz in Hi-Res Audio 24bits/96kHz. No problem hearing it with the H95.

Of course you can listen to it but the DAP will automatically downsample the files to the highest resolution supported by the DAC and as you can see in the table here under aptX will not go over 48 kHz.



A lossless 24bit/96kHz file encoded in ALAC (but FLAC will be more or less the same) has a bitrate of approximately 2600 kbps and aptX adaptive is not capable of more then 420 kbps.

Have a look at the media info report of a 24/96 file that I've bought on Qobuz : bit rate is over 2600 kbps.

 

[Andricop]

Out of curiosity,

"otherwise I'll use a wired high end IEM with a good DAP connected on the balance output"

why IEMs and not another pair of high-end around-ear headphones?

Just because I like IEMs ... but of course a good wired headphone will also do justice to a well recorded and mastered hi-res audio file.

 

[angelom]

New youtube review of h95 here.

 

[PenguinHeadphoner]

If you're talking about Apple Music sourced 256 kbps AAC vs. Qobuz sourced High res files, you may be hearing something else than AAC vs. High Res. For example they may not have received the same master or may have handled it differently during the conversion process (one album notorious for this is The Who's Who's Next which exists in a multitude of different masters, Apple Music's is quite different from Spotify's or Deezer).
Also, AAC tends to be quite poorly handled by devices other than Apple's in general (not just with Bluetooth).

Hi,

Have been in touch with the people at Qobuz.
They do not enocde the source not do they touch it. They offer it as it is sent to them by the Label.
Not sure Apple receives super high res masters and then re-encodes them. tidal probably doesn'tdo it either.

I have Tidal and Qobuz. Never downloaded same albums in same format for both. So I'll do it and will check the files and report.

Regards.

 

[Dolores Dolomites]

Can you see the bitrate?

Grandrissimo! =)
Sadly not... When the "Sample rate display" option is checked in Display preferences, the sample rate of the playing source file alone is shown in the status bar, but that's just it. And it only shows when wired.

It just says that the device is connected or am I missing something ?

Hi there!
It's showing aptXHD in the statusbar, top-right. That's what aptX Adaptive does when the source only supports aptXHD: simply switches to it.
Same goes for aptX LL.

Speaking of that, I think these 'phones are great for listening to the TV as well: no perceivable delay when connected to mine at least, and the usual excellent sound.
Not that I'd really care since I'm always using a soundbar at home, but... Worth saying.

Just because I like IEMs

Ha. So do I.
Especially during the loooong warm seasons we have in Italy.
But it's good to have a shiny aluminum pair of tin earmuffs like the H95 during winter!

 

[PenguinHeadphoner]

Hi,

Did not see the aptx HD in the status bar.

This is what is shown. But I guess it is technically not feasible. aptx HD can go up to 572kbps when aptx Adapatative can only as high as 425kbps.
So I guess that as soon as it reaches the maximum of the adaptative capacities, it shows HD. But that will still be limited to 420kbps.
This is a guess...

Now, whether the difference between aptx Adaptative at full speed and aptx HD is audible or not is another debate.
And I will not enter that one either (sorry about my refusals to debaite).

 

[matteventu]

Just because I like IEMs ... but of course a good wired headphone will also do justice to a well recorded and mastered hi-res audio file.

Got it I love IEMs too! And I honestly find more IEMs that I Iike, while for over-ear headphones I always struggle to find one that I like 100%.

That's what aptX Adaptive does when the source only supports aptXHD: simply switches to it.
Same goes for aptX LL.

I'm not 100% sure about that... To my knowledge, aptX Adaptive falls back on standard aptX when either the transmitter or receiver doesn't support aptX Adaptive.

Not on aptX HD nor aptX Low Latency.

The only way to enjoy aptX Adaptive is having both a transmitter (a smartphone at the moment, as there are no aptX Adaptive standalone Bluetooth transmitters yet on the market) and a receiver (headphones or Bluetooth receiver) which support aptX Adaptive.
In all other cases, you'll fall back on standard aptX.

 

[Dolores Dolomites]

"Speaking of latency, aptX Low Latency is being retired after the launch of Adaptive, which has some implications for backward compatibility. When connecting to Low Latency devices, Adaptive will default back to aptX Classic. In other instances, aptX Adaptive simply matches the capabilities and bitrate of the Classic or HD capable device, so product transition should be seamless."

This is from the article that @Andricop linked us to.
Not exaclty how I remember, but close. =)

 

[PenguinHeadphoner]

"Speaking of latency, aptX Low Latency is being retired after the launch of Adaptive, which has some implications for backward compatibility. When connecting to Low Latency devices, Adaptive will default back to aptX Classic. In other instances, aptX Adaptive simply matches the capabilities and bitrate of the Classic or HD capable device, so product transition should be seamless."

This is from the article that @Andricop linked us to.
Not exaclty how I remember, but close. =)

Hi Dolores Dolomites,

It seems you are right indeed.

So if I understand this well, there are 2 case scenarios :

- Case scenario #1 : emitter and receiver are BT Adaptative compatible : they will connect to each other and adapt the bitrate according to tthe connection's quality and that will be in between 280kbps and 420kbps with improved codec ;

- Case scenario #2 : only one of the devices (emitter or receiver) is aptx Adaptative compatible. It can adapt to the other device's capabilities : aptx or aptx HD, so can stream up to 580kpbs (but with some "losses and interruptions" in case connection is not good enough.

If that is correct, thant that is really good. There's stiff that "non passive mode" point. Maybe on the H100 (as a H95 mkII would make no sense : the 95 stands for 95th anniversary).

 

[angelom]

If you're talking about Apple Music sourced 256 kbps AAC vs. Qobuz sourced High res files, you may be hearing something else than AAC vs. High Res. For example they may not have received the same master or may have handled it differently during the conversion process (one album notorious for this is The Who's Who's Next which exists in a multitude of different masters, Apple Music's is quite different from Spotify's or Deezer).
Also, AAC tends to be quite poorly handled by devices other than Apple's in general (not just with Bluetooth).

Hi,

Have been in touch with the people at Qobuz.
They do not enocde the source not do they touch it. They offer it as it is sent to them by the Label.
Not sure Apple receives super high res masters and then re-encodes them. tidal probably doesn'tdo it either.

I have Tidal and Qobuz. Never downloaded same albums in same format for both. So I'll do it and will check the files and report.

Regards.

The old name "Mastered for iTunes" is now "Apple Digital Masters". This albums are often (very) different from many other versions, including recent CD versions / masters of this albums. Dynamic range is VERY important in this albums, and Apple will not accepting this 'remasters' if some criteria isn't correct. This document explaining a lot about this: https://www.apple.com/itunes/docs/apple-digital-masters.pdf

Dismissing AAC 256kbps is typical exaggeration of people that insisting hi-res is (much) better. Tests of same master using lossy and many more high bitrate (including lossless formats) showing listeners can't hearing the difference in quiet environment.

 

[PenguinHeadphoner]

The old name "Mastered for iTunes" is now "Apple Digital Masters". This albums are often (very) different from many other versions, including recent CD versions / masters of this albums. Dynamic range is VERY important in this albums, and Apple will not accepting this 'remasters' if some criteria isn't correct. This document explaining a lot about this: https://www.apple.com/itunes/docs/apple-digital-masters.pdf

Dismissing AAC 256kbps is typical exaggeration of people that insisting hi-res is (much) better. Tests of same master using lossy and many more high bitrate (including lossless formats) showing listeners can't hearing the difference in quiet environment.

Hi,

This document confirms that Apple (like Qobuz and probably other streaming services) do not encode the files offered themselves.
That document (unless I am wrong) is describing guidelines on how to encode so the files can be offered on iTunes.
But I think they're not writing anywhere that they will encode the files at Apple themselves.

Anyways, I perfectly agree that to a vast majority of people (including me) a file encoded in AAC 256 the way it is meant to be and from a proper and decent master will sound much better than a stupidly encoded file from a bad master.

Regards.