[C_Lindbergh]

Use https://www.mailboxde.com/ if you want it shipped to Europe from Amazon, worked great. In my case it costed like 10 euros extra and a couple of days more shipping time, But it was worth it!

 

[myusernameislove]

Oh god, currawong replied, we are not worthy *bows

 

[rkw]

not for Apple though, they were obviously screwed by Qualcomm, not getting AptX HD, they'll probably pay for that later

Apple has no interest in aptX HD. They want to use AAC end-to-end, from the music file direct to the device with no intermediate transcoding. Within the Apple ecosystem, it makes technical sense.

 

[PiSkyHiFi]

Apple has no interest in aptX HD. They want to use AAC end-to-end, from the music file direct to the device with no intermediate transcoding. Within the Apple ecosystem, it makes technical sense.

It doesn't make technical sense, it makes financial sense. They are behind in the technical sense, because lossy will die eventually and very few people care. They'll probably just play it low key as you say and rely on AAC until they can change over everything swiftly. It's not like they invented AAC, they just helped make it ubiquitous. They use it because they think it's good enough and they are mostly right. The issue is recoding over Bluetooth, which can't replace wires for many of us until it's lossless, the extra recoding headroom of AptX HD helps until Bluetooth matures more.

I have Flacs at home and they always get preference over AAC since they are better, even if I can't pick it. Going higher than CD quality at final output I think is pointless though because I can not afford the analog equipment to match that level of detail that I couldn't pick in an ABX test.
I did use AAC, but 90% of my collection was mastered to red book CD, so that's the quality I expect.

Objectively, AptX HD is higher quality than Bluetooth AAC at present and the analog equipment to match is at the right price point. Going higher than that will demand expensive analog stages to match that most people alive today won't see become ubiquitous.

Apple has a policy to say AAC is enough, because it makes financial sense now, technically, passing well mastered recordings over wireless will be lossless eventually and Apple will dump AAC because it will be redundant, I don't care when it happens, Apple and I have a mutual agreement not to give a toss about each others needs anyway.

Google is happy to cast my flacs through a Chromecast audio without loss already. Apple is currently working on multi room air play 2 because they want to be ahead on functionality, sound quality is just less important to them now.

Don't be fooled into thinking they are technically ahead, they just haven't pushed lossless yet. They will when it becomes the elephant in the room.

Who is using AAC?
From wikipedia:
AAC is the default or standard audio format for YouTube, iPhone, iPod, iPad, Nintendo DSi, Nintendo 3DS, iTunes, DivX Plus Web Player, PlayStation 3 and various Nokia Series 40 phones. It is supported on PlayStation Vita, Wii (with the Photo Channel 1.1 update installed), Sony Walkman MP3 series and later, Android and BlackBerry. AAC is also supported by manufacturers of in-dash car audio systems.

Who has support for flac ready for when the bandwidth and storage are available?
The list is longer and more encompassing, since it requires no license. It is inevitable, Apple will join when they no longer need to refer to flac by name, since no one else will be using lossy, we won't even need the term lossless.

 

[egg1111115]

So, I'm new to audiophile stuff and was seeing a lot about the ability to use "balanced" cables/output on this device...can anyone give an ELI5 on this? I can't find much clear info on it online.

 

[m4rkw]

Apt X was over hyped for sure, unfortunately it has muddied the waters.

Apt X isn't a great codec for quality, AAC beats it easily in terms of quality, but AAC is more expensive to decode, especially in low latency applications, not for Apple though, they were obviously screwed by Qualcomm, not getting AptX HD, they'll probably pay for that later but there are different opinions about what will happen next. I don't have a crystal ball for Apple, I don't get why they aren't even playing this game yet, possibly still pissed about hardware contracts they keep failing to hit (some might say they did it deliberately, but I think it came down to price). AAC is an excellent codec for lossy compression, Apple might just increase the bandwidth and continue using AAC, only increasing the specs when they want to achieve CD quality over Bluetooth.

AptX HD isn't a great codec, but the standard is a higher bit-rate than AAC can do over Bluetooth, so because of the higher bit-rate, AptX HD is better than AAC over Bluetooth.

On this ES100, Apt HD > AAC > Apt X > SBC

I'm just talking numbers here, which are objective - once the signal gets to the DAC, then it comes down analog and the ES100 is IMO, much better than most of what's out there, not as good as the higher end audio phones like the LG V20, V30, G6 etc... using their native 3.5 mm jack.

Some people's ears prefer hearing compression artifacts over signal purity, so it's also a matter of taste.

My wager is still open if you change your mind

 

[m4rkw]

Sorry replied to the wrong message but you get my point hehe

 

[Cane]

So, I'm new to audiophile stuff and was seeing a lot about the ability to use "balanced" cables/output on this device...can anyone give an ELI5 on this? I can't find much clear info on it online.

http://www.aviom.com/blog/balanced-vs-unbalanced/

Similar principle is used on network cables (TP= Twisted pair, where noise affects both pairs and cancels each other out.).

 

[PiSkyHiFi]

Sorry replied to the wrong message but you get my point hehe

Honestly, I think the only thing we disagree on is Apple making this decision consciously as if it was a sensible technical decision.

They literally wouldn't know how to do better with audio hardware themselves, so they use what's available like everyone else. They couldn't afford AptX HD yet, but they bought into AptX on Macs, so I think your confidence that weren't even tempted should be shaky. Bluetooth is a strong market.

It's a contentious issue that Apple want people to ignore until they tell you to pay attention, so we can pretend it was all part of their plan.

Meanwhile, LG are placing AptX HD into their new line of assistant Bluetooth speakers and the list of brands coming on board grows, Huawei, Beyerdynamic, Sony, Asus, Google, Fiio and Audio Technica. Just another feature to market, yes, but also taking advantage of industry leading hardware that Apple don't have... Yet?

Will they be the last to bring actual CD quality to Bluetooth, whatever form that takes? Quite possibly, but they'll play it cool whenever it happens which is why we don't see their contracts in negotiation.

Apple came up with Retina display as a term, but they didn't invent the screens that have them, they just wanted the last word. Now all screens are retina displays and Apple have most convinced they are the leaders in design.

How are they going to be leaders of design here, by just not participating until lossless is ubiquitous? When no one is using lossy for anything audio, how will they look if they've done nothing and are still using AAC then? They'll just switch when no one uses the terms lossy or lossless any more and hope nobody noticed.

Because money.

 

[PiSkyHiFi]

Sony have licensed LDAC apparently for free for all future Android Oreo devices. They are aware of the need for early adoption in the Bluetooth compatibility stakes.

This is going off es100 too much now.

 

[rkw]

Don't be fooled into thinking they are technically ahead, they just haven't pushed lossless yet.

I didn't claim they are technically ahead. Apple is focused on their ecosystem. Apple Music uses AAC file format and they can stream it directly with AAC codec, so they won't add other codecs (such as aptX HD) to iPhone/iPad. They don't care about playing your lossless file from another source. When Apple decides to do lossless audio, it will be driven by Apple Music in some format TBD, and they will update iPhone/iPad, AirPod, HomePod, and Beats to support playing it.

 

[rkw]

They couldn't afford AptX HD yet

Are you joking? The most profitable company of all time has enough cash reserves to buy Qualcomm outright.

 

[egg1111115]

http://www.aviom.com/blog/balanced-vs-unbalanced/

Similar principle is used on network cables (TP= Twisted pair, where noise affects both pairs and cancels each other out.).

Thanks a lot! The article says this is better for longer cables where noise is more likely; does it really have that much of an effect on shorter cables? (as in ones you'd have on most headphones?)

 

[Lurk650]

I didn't claim they are technically ahead. Apple is focused on their ecosystem. Apple Music uses AAC file format and they can stream it directly with AAC codec, so they won't add other codecs (such as aptX HD) to iPhone/iPad. They don't care about playing your lossless file from another source. When Apple decides to do lossless audio, it will be driven by Apple Music in some format TBD, and they will update iPhone/iPad, AirPod, HomePod, and Beats to support playing it.

ALAC is Apple Lossless, it's the equivalent of FLAC. That's what I rip CDs in as it Lossless and can play on my iPod in the car.

 

[PiSkyHiFi]

Are you joking? The most profitable company of all time has enough cash reserves to buy Qualcomm outright.

They are both too busy suing the pants off each other to think of that.