[klaboor]

I already read those articles. Again, chasing bitrates is irrelevant in standard use case. You forget to mention very important thing when it comes to data compression, specifically for psychoacoustic codecs. It's transparency, which means that transparent bitrate is the one where sound between uncompressed and compressed data is perceptually indistinguishable. For MP3 it's somewhere around 245kbps, for AAC even lower. Not less important is implementation of codec itself. No matter how great source is, there will be allways encode on transmitter side (phone or usb dongle) and decode on receiver side (headphones), even if you feed it with exactly same specs source, reencode (resampling) will happen no matter what. So if this path (source -> reencode -> transmit -> decode -> listen) is bad implemented, higher rates won't fix the issue. Of course it doesn't mean we should feed it with 128kbps mp3. I'm just trying to explain that stict to the technologies which are "better" in numbers doesn't strictly mean it's automatically better in experience. Relation between bitrate and sound quality is exponential. It's worth up to the certain point and going further is discutable and totally unnecessary in most cases.

 

[486892]

I already read those articles. Again, chasing bitrates is irrelevant in standard use case. You forget to mention very important thing when it comes to data compression, specifically for psychoacoustic codecs. It's transparency, which means that transparent bitrate is the one where sound between uncompressed and compressed data is perceptually indistinguishable. For MP3 it's somewhere around 245kbps, for AAC even lower. Not less important is implementation of codec itself. No matter how great source is, there will be allways encode on transmitter side (phone or usb dongle) and decode on receiver side (headphones), even if you feed it with exactly same specs source, reencode (resampling) will happen no matter what. So if this path (source -> reencode -> transmit -> decode -> listen) is bad implemented, higher rates won't fix the issue. Of course it doesn't mean we should feed it with 128kbps mp3. I'm just trying to explain that stict to the technologies which are "better" in numbers doesn't strictly mean it's automatically better in experience. Relation between bitrate and sound quality is exponential. It's worth up to the certain point and going further is discutable and totally unnecessary in most cases.

That make sense - it is not relevant to look at the numbers, but hear the sound. That is the reason why best mixing or mastering engineers do not look at the numbers, but can hear minor changes in sound instead. When you work with higher resolution in sound, it is same as you would work with higher resolution in graphics. Your ear or your eye are the judge.

When I turn over from Spotify to Apple lossless with Beoplay H95 from OnePlus8pro Dolby Atmos aptX-adaptive, the sound has completely different space to be alive.

 

[WDitters]

I already read those articles. Again, chasing bitrates is irrelevant in standard use case. You forget to mention very important thing when it comes to data compression, specifically for psychoacoustic codecs. It's transparency, which means that transparent bitrate is the one where sound between uncompressed and compressed data is perceptually indistinguishable. For MP3 it's somewhere around 245kbps, for AAC even lower. Not less important is implementation of codec itself. No matter how great source is, there will be allways encode on transmitter side (phone or usb dongle) and decode on receiver side (headphones), even if you feed it with exactly same specs source, reencode (resampling) will happen no matter what. So if this path (source -> reencode -> transmit -> decode -> listen) is bad implemented, higher rates won't fix the issue. Of course it doesn't mean we should feed it with 128kbps mp3. I'm just trying to explain that stict to the technologies which are "better" in numbers doesn't strictly mean it's automatically better in experience. Relation between bitrate and sound quality is exponential. It's worth up to the certain point and going further is discutable and totally unnecessary in most cases.

Very true... It stands or falls with the quality of the device and the implementation... And at the end of the day it's what your ears tell you anyway ... In general however, as a very crude rule of thumb I usually try to pick the best codec available (on paper) and take it from there..

 

[Logu4]

If my phone does not support aptx adaptive, can I connect the H95 with a usb cable for max sound quality? If yes, is it contained in the package?

 

[matteventu]

If my phone does not support aptx adaptive, can I connect the H95 with a usb cable for max sound quality? If yes, is it contained in the package?

Yes, but it's a USB-A to USB-C cable, so you will need either another USB-C to C cable, or a USB-A to USB-C adapter.

What codecs does your phone support? If it supports aptX HD then that will work, same for standard aptX. AAC on Android is hideous instead, far worse than SBC.

 

[Logu4]

I have a Samsung M51. I think it supports only AAC and SBC. In developer mode aptx is inaktiv. That means that to obtain max sound quality I need to wire the H95 via USB?

 

[matteventu]

I have a Samsung M51. I think it supports only AAC and SBC. In developer mode aptx is inaktiv. That means that to obtain max sound quality I need to wire the H95 via USB?

I would first try to see whether SBC sounds good enough to you.

Personally, I find it sounding well enough, even though I still prefer aptX HD/aptX.

But any of them sound much much better than AAC.

 

[Logu4]

I tried SBC and AAC on my M51 with a JBL Club One and there is a noticeable difference in favour of SBC. As I bought this M51 von Samsung one year ago I didn't expect I will be listening to wireless music and I did not pay attention to codec support at all. But in the realm of the sub 500-600 Euro headphones wireless music does not take such a high tall on sound quality, especially with HD Bluetooth codecs und good DSPs and DACs integrated in the headphones. It is funny now, that my not too old mobile phone is staying on the way. I want to try the H95 but driving it with the SBC codec only will limit its usefulness concerni6 audio, so it is not worth it, I would say. I will still try it, wired via USB to my phone, I suppose the battery of the phone will drain much faster, but the M51 has a huge battery

 

[WDitters]

I have a Samsung M51. I think it supports only AAC and SBC. In developer mode aptx is inaktiv. That means that to obtain max sound quality I need to wire the H95 via USB?

I tried SBC and AAC on my M51 with a JBL Club One and there is a noticeable difference in favour of SBC. As I bought this M51 von Samsung one year ago I didn't expect I will be listening to wireless music and I did not pay attention to codec support at all. But in the realm of the sub 500-600 Euro headphones wireless music does not take such a high tall on sound quality, especially with HD Bluetooth codecs und good DSPs and DACs integrated in the headphones. It is funny now, that my not too old mobile phone is staying on the way. I want to try the H95 but driving it with the SBC codec only will limit its usefulness concerni6 audio, so it is not worth it, I would say. I will still try it, wired via USB to my phone, I suppose the battery of the phone will drain much faster, but the M51 has a huge battery

I would then invest in USB AUDIO Player Pro for android. That app will bypass the android audio layer and directly identify the H95 internal DAC connected to USB and drive it to the maximum of its capabilities... That way you will have the best possible sound from the H95.. I worked with the developer last year to have the H95 properly identified so you should be fine there.

 

[Logu4]

I would then invest in USB AUDIO Player Pro for android. That app will bypass the android audio layer and directly identify the H95 internal DAC connected to USB and drive it to the maximum of its capabilities... That way you will have the best possible sound from the H95.. I worked with the developer last year to have the H95 properly identified so you should be fine there.

Thank you, I will take a closer look at it. But would it work with Amazon music and othe HD streaming services or just with the files stored on my phone?

 

[WDitters]

Thank you, I will take a closer look at it. But would it work with Amazon music and othe HD streaming services or just with the files stored on my phone?

It supports Tidal and Qobuz. No Apple or Amazon unfortunately

 

[jagwap]

I tried SBC and AAC on my M51 with a JBL Club One and there is a noticeable difference in favour of SBC. As I bought this M51 von Samsung one year ago I didn't expect I will be listening to wireless music and I did not pay attention to codec support at all. But in the realm of the sub 500-600 Euro headphones wireless music does not take such a high tall on sound quality, especially with HD Bluetooth codecs und good DSPs and DACs integrated in the headphones. It is funny now, that my not too old mobile phone is staying on the way. I want to try the H95 but driving it with the SBC codec only will limit its usefulness concerni6 audio, so it is not worth it, I would say. I will still try it, wired via USB to my phone, I suppose the battery of the phone will drain much faster, but the M51 has a huge battery

AAC is not well implemented on many android phones, sometimes shockingly bad (Nothing above 15kHz!), but very good in comparison on Apple products.

 

[Logu4]

I tried today the H95 briefly and did a short comparison with JBL Club One. I thought the JBL has already a lot of bass but the H95 had even more. And it is really well executed on the H95, a lot of detail, well layered, captivating. But the rest did not convince me. I perceived the mids not es forward and meaty as I would like (Diana Kralls voice could not shine) but most of all it was the highs' timbre, which made me pack them back in the box. I felt, the high frequencies werde very detailed but also artificial. They just did not sound right to me, the highs from JBL were more natural. Soundwise I find it is not a satisfactory headphone for the money. Compared to H95 the JBL appears somewhat shouty and in the bass region the H95 is clearly much better. But the JBL costs 230 Euros. I would even say, I perceive the JBL as the more natural sounding device. I used the same source with Bluetooth SBC. Sound profile was Optimal. Connecting the H95 vie usb-c cable to my Samsung M51 produced no sound, it was the phone which was playing althought the H95 was turned on. What did I do wrong?

 

[Maukey]

I tried today the H95 briefly and did a short comparison with JBL Club One. I thought the JBL has already a lot of bass but the H95 had even more. And it is really well executed on the H95, a lot of detail, well layered, captivating. But the rest did not convince me. I perceived the mids not es forward and meaty as I would like (Diana Kralls voice could not shine) but most of all it was the highs' timbre, which made me pack them back in the box. I felt, the high frequencies werde very detailed but also artificial. They just did not sound right to me, the highs from JBL were more natural. Soundwise I find it is not a satisfactory headphone for the money. Compared to H95 the JBL appears somewhat shouty and in the bass region the H95 is clearly much better. But the JBL costs 230 Euros. I would even say, I perceive the JBL as the more natural sounding device. I used the same source with Bluetooth SBC. Sound profile was Optimal. Connecting the H95 vie usb-c cable to my Samsung M51 produced no sound, it was the phone which was playing althought the H95 was turned on. What did I do wrong?

I wouldn't say you did anything wrong. Unfortunately, that's an issue with many wireless ANC headphones in some form or another. Most sound digital, or as you stated, not natural. To my ears, the most natural sounding wireless ANC headphones I've heard are the Sennheiser Momentum 3, Shure Aonic 50, and Dali iO-6 (Although the highs are a little bright if your seal isn't perfect). They all have the least digital, processed sound I've heard. And that's over the B&O H95, AirPods Max, Sony 1000XM4, Bose QC35/45, etc. I would check those out if natural sound is a big deal for you.

I do agree with your assessment of the H95's high frequencies. It's something I mentioned in my impressions a while back. However, I still LOVE the sound. It's just such a musical, relaxing headphone to my ears, with just enough bass and dynamics to not make them boring. I still rank it in my top 5 of best sounding wireless ANC headphones. Maybe give it more time and see if you get use to it. I've grown to really appreciate the tuning on this headphone. It's also so well made and functionally excellent. But in saying all of that, I do understand if you can't get use to the off sounding highs. It's definitely noticeable to my ears as well, especially after I've been listening to my Aonic 50, Dali iO-6, or Momentum 3.

 

[486892]

I agree with you 'Maukey'. H95 are different approach - unique and attractive.

I have old Acoustic Research High-End speakers, which got from my father and they sound similar to H95.

H95 are just different to many other 'traditional' models in my opinion. The highs are almost 'invisible', which you can hear in many higher end products, they do not disturb at all!

Also, the bass and low mid area are just insane well tuned on H95. The upper mids got a bit better after using OnePlus Dynamic setting, but I don't think there is a perfect HP's or speakers existed anyway. And these are having some upper mid problems. I'll keep these anyway untill they break, because I like unique and comfortable staff : D