You are here

Log in or register to post comments
David Harper
David Harper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: Aug 7 2014 - 2:23pm
CD quality

If listening to CD quality disqualifies one as an audiophile that pretty much eliminates (almost) everyone.
And I have listened to hi-res. It doesn't sound any better to me.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 3 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Unless one treats CDs and

Unless one treats CDs and treats his CD player and treats the room, etc. CDs right out of the box generally sound thin and anemic, bass shy, rolled off, hot, two dimensional, dull, lifeless, synthetic, bloated, wiry, metallic, dry, like paper mâché and like they were recorded inside a barrel.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

mtymous1
mtymous1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 15 2015 - 5:47pm
Focus and intent
bierfeldt wrote:

For that matter, since both are limited to redbook CD quality, maybe anyone who doesn't have digital capabilities above redbook should get booted?

geoffkait wrote:

If listening to CD quality disqualifies one as an audiophile that pretty much eliminates (almost) everyone.
And I have listened to hi-res. It doesn't sound any better to me.

If listening to CD quality disqualifies one as an audiophile that pretty much eliminates (almost) everyone.
And I have listened to hi-res. It doesn't sound any better to me.

Reminder: the thread in this Rant & Rave is about Apple - not various media formats.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 3 hours ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
mtymous1 wrote:
mtymous1 wrote:
bierfeldt wrote:

For that matter, since both are limited to redbook CD quality, maybe anyone who doesn't have digital capabilities above redbook should get booted?

geoffkait wrote:

If listening to CD quality disqualifies one as an audiophile that pretty much eliminates (almost) everyone.
And I have listened to hi-res. It doesn't sound any better to me.

If listening to CD quality disqualifies one as an audiophile that pretty much eliminates (almost) everyone.
And I have listened to hi-res. It doesn't sound any better to me.

Reminder: the thread in this Rant & Rave is about Apple - not various media formats.

The quotes you attributed to me, Geoff Kait, belong to the other dude, David Harper, although I was also guilty of wandering off topic. My ipad sounds super on certain youtube videos like ACDC live on paris, Beck live doing Looser, etc. No complaints here.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

bierfeldt
bierfeldt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Oct 26 2007 - 2:30pm
Yes but my comment was

My comment, in context, was comparing Apple's AirPlay streaming lossless files from an Apple device relative to tow other formats. My point was AirPlay was delivering sound quality on par with my CD player or a Sonos which are generally considered pretty good sounding. On a comparative basis, if AirPlay is inadequate then so should CDs or Sonos devices if they are delivering the same quality of sound. I think usage of a benchmark like CD quality via the same DAC as a point of comparison for evaluation seems pretty reasonable as a way of defining whether Apple should be considered audiophile grade equipment or if those of us Apple users should be banned from forums such as this.

mtymous1
mtymous1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 15 2015 - 5:47pm
CD-
bierfeldt wrote:

My comment, in context, was comparing Apple's AirPlay streaming lossless files from an Apple device relative to tow other formats. My point was AirPlay was delivering sound quality on par with my CD player or a Sonos which are generally considered pretty good sounding. On a comparative basis, if AirPlay is inadequate then so should CDs or Sonos devices if they are delivering the same quality of sound. I think usage of a benchmark like CD quality via the same DAC as a point of comparison for evaluation seems pretty reasonable as a way of defining whether Apple should be considered audiophile grade equipment or if those of us Apple users should be banned from forums such as this.

Your arguments imply that CD-quality is “good enough.” While once very popular, CD-quality is not the best possible SQ that can be achieved. (The intent of the thread I started is NOT to argue that same tired, old topic – plenty of other threads here that debate that ad nauseam…)

Am also not arguing that AirPlay, CDs, Sonos, Tidal, nor any other CD-quality-capable delivery stream/service can adequately deliver 16/44.1 sound. (I’ll even add that we are all likely to agree that the aforementioned are all very easy to use). However, none of those mass-appeal delivery streams even OFFER the higher sound resolutions of digital sources that are available. MQ-P and MQ-D are the two other categories that have been defined to offer higher resolution than CD-quality (now known as MQ-C). (Read more here: https://www.cta.tech/News/News-Releases/Press-Releases/2014/DEG,-CEA,-The-Recording-Academy%C2%AE-and-Major-Labels.aspx) To restate the AirPlay example, it is inadequate because it downsamples resolutions that are above CD- and mainstream- quality.

Got it?

P.S. While Sonos may be “…generally considered pretty good sounding…”, if you think it delivers a product worthy enough to be considered audiophile-quality, then at least one of us is visiting the wrong website!

mtymous1
mtymous1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 15 2015 - 5:47pm
Apologies
geoffkait wrote:

The quotes you attributed to me, Geoff Kait, belong to the other dude, David Harper...

Apologies to Mr. Kait.

(As you can see, while Drupal may be the most cost-effective solution for The Enthusiast Network, it is far from the most functional.)

mtymous1
mtymous1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 15 2015 - 5:47pm
An Apple inconsistency...

Consider:
"The audio hardware in some MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, and iMac computers supports 176.4 kHz and 192 kHz digital audio when connected using optical output.

These computers support up to 192 kHz sample rate for audio playback:
•MacBook Pro (Retina, 13-inch, Late 2013) and later
•MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Late 2013) and later
•Mac Pro (Late 2013)
•iMac (21.5-inch, Mid 2014)
•Mac mini (Late 2014)"
(From https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202730)

...however:
"[AirPlay] maxes out at CD-quality 16-bit/44kHz: so there's no high-resolution audio."
(From http://www.cnet.com/news/bluetooth-airplay-sonos-play-fi-and-chromecast-whats-the-audio-difference/)

I don't get why a proprietary "ecosystem" would promote that kind of seemingly intentional design. (I say "seemingly intentional" because my current wireless capabilities over DLNA do not handicap my hardware investments.)

Can someone please explain the reason(s) behind AirPlay diminishing the capabilities of the above, select few hardware profiles?? As an audiophile, it doesn't make any sense to pay the premium for such hardware, only for the value proposition to be nullified by the conveniences that were intended to work together in a proprietary ecosystem.

(Clearly, not an approach that promotes technical superiority, BUT I don't even get the marketing ploy...)

bierfeldt
bierfeldt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Oct 26 2007 - 2:30pm
Is Apple the new Bose

Is Apple replacing Bose as the company we are all suppose to have a borderline irrational animosity toward? Incidentally, I agree with you that a Streaming protocol that down scales is a bit silly but it does meet 99.9% of consumer needs. However, my hunch is that since the iTunes Store offers only music that is compressed and below CD quality, this discourages people from seeking an additional source for digital files. Why support high res if you aren't going to sell it?

Just a thought

mtymous1
mtymous1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 15 2015 - 5:47pm
My observation is that the audiophile community's...

...tastes, preferences, and overall drive do NOT overlap with that of mainstream consumer market.

Again (and again and again), this post is about giving the Apple fanboys an opportunity to proffer Apple's technical superiority -- not hear the same old tired marketing buzzwords of ecosystems, ease-of-use, and experience that appeal to the "99.9% of consumer needs."

Ever notice and wonder why neither Apple nor Bose advertise here?

Just a thought.

bierfeldt
bierfeldt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Oct 26 2007 - 2:30pm
You have created a question

You have created a question and set rules that prevent you from being wrong. You are insisting on this "technical" argument because you know that Apple does not sell a technically superior product on a hardware basis. They sell a product that is perceived as high quality (debatable, more marketing than fact) and is easy to use (fact). Ease of use and the software associated with that is their competitive advantage. You have simply rejected this argument to focus on hardware because they aren't using technically superior hardware. For instance, they use Cirrus Logic chips in their DACs. These aren't The very best chips but they can sound very good. Listen to Marantz and Denon equipment and they prove Cirrus logic chips can sound very good. They are cheap though and keep costs down while producing good quality sound. Does the Ayre designed DAC in the Pono sound better and is it technically superior? Clearly. Is the software they use as well designed, stable and as easy to use and stream as Apples. No.

Interestingly, back in the 80s and 90s Apple produced a clearly superior line of personal computers called Macintosh. They insisted on using only the best interfaces and hardware in those computers and had a clearly superior operating system. This drove up the cost of the product and the cost to develop software for it but the belief was that since it was such an extraordinary product, people would understand the value and pay a premium. Ordinary people didn't know the difference between SCSI and IDE and didn't care. The Mac SuperDrive was 4x as expensive as a normal floppy drive. Consumers didn't pay a premium and for a very long time Apple was the niche computer for those who wanted a superior product, had the money or were graphic designers. I think I remember a great statistic about the share price/market cap for Apple being he same in 1984 and 2000. Then they released the iPod and everything changed.

They learned a lesson that people will pay a small amount more for a simple to use product but you better not run up the cost too much with expensive and unnecessary parts or the product will remain niche. Knowing you produce the best may be comforting on some level but it doesn't do much for your share price. They could incorporate services like hi res support in and produce a technically superior product today. This would drive up the cost which means a higher price (fewer sales) or a lower margin. I think their gal is to avoid niche status. They have created an extraordinarily desirable line of products that commands a premium vs. the market.

This doesn't mean their products are bad or incompatible with hi-fi. For most digital audio applications, even among most average audiophiles, CD quality is adequate. Most of my digital files are ripped from the1000 or so CDs I have and it would be cost prohibitive to replace with hi-res. They generally don't do things that are too sketchy though I will grant you the class action suit from deleting competitive media is sketchy. What they aren't is Bose who markets a system by insisting on a display environment that is separate from competition to avoid direct comparison. They setup a test environment that is unreplicatable in your home and then charge a fortune for it. I find their behavior in regard to marketing the acoustimas system reprehensible. Otherwise Bose products are just really expensive for what you get.

I bet Apple doesn't advertise here bcause the audience is small and highly targeted meaning the CPMs for an impression are high and the level of targeting is unnecessary. For other advertisers that have narrower appeal, the higher CPM is more efficient. Apple can reach all of us more cheaply and efficiently in mass media with everyone else. Bose doesn't advertise here because they know we hate them and that banner ads aren't going to change people's minds.

mtymous1
mtymous1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 15 2015 - 5:47pm
Admittedly...

...I stopped reading after:

bierfeldt wrote:

...Apple does not sell a technically superior product...

Took you a while to get there, but am glad to see that you finally did!

For those of you on the market for such, here's an interesting read for you:
theverge .com/2016/8/4/12373776/2012-macbook-pro-still-alive-not-dead-why

David Harper
David Harper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: Aug 7 2014 - 2:23pm
Technically superior

thing is,technically superior does not necessarily mean audibly superior. As an audiophile for 40 years I've wasted a lot of time and money pursuing audiophile sound quality. Most of the expensive high end gear is,IMO, snake oil. If I can get CD quality from ALAC or WAV files ,I'm good. Not to be a wet blanket here on a stereo forum, but I have yet to see an objective well executed blind test in which anyone has been able to reliably distinguish between CD and high res.
Admittedly my ipod nano isn't the best pmp on the market,but it gets the job done for me. And I want something with a display.

David Harper
David Harper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: Aug 7 2014 - 2:23pm
audiophiles

someone once said "audiophiles don't listen to music with their equipment,they listen to their equipment with music.

mtymous1
mtymous1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 15 2015 - 5:47pm
To the Simple, Everything Appears Simple
David Harper wrote:

thing is,technically superior does not necessarily mean audibly superior.

100% Agree with you. Provenance starts at the recording of the live performance. Poorly engineered recordings ain't gonna make a difference. In computing this is known as "GIGO."

David Harper wrote:

Not to be a wet blanket here on a stereo forum, but I have yet to see an objective well executed blind test in which anyone has been able to reliably distinguish between CD and high res.

Did you ever see this article?
www.stereophile .com/content/simple-everything-appears-simple
(Even you were mentioned in there!)

Or this one over on Audiostream?
www.audiostream .com/content/its-official-people-can-hear-high-res

Use your preferred search engine and you'll find plenty of similar positions (and counters).

mtymous1
mtymous1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 15 2015 - 5:47pm
Friendly reminder

Since this thread is now on page 2, a friendly reminder that the OP is as follows:

mtymous1 wrote:

I personally feel that if you have Apple products mixed in with your true hi-fi, that you should be banned-for-life from the audiophile community.

So, help me understand: what is it about Apple products that you fanboys INSIST on having?

Please spare me the typical responses of "It just works" or "I can do it from my phone/tablet" or "It's the experience..." I am seeking objective and persuasive responses that contain detail about TECHNICAL superiority, not rhetoric.

Thanks.

bierfeldt
bierfeldt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Oct 26 2007 - 2:30pm
My issue

My issue is with your post is the suggestion that those of us Apple users be "banned for life" for using a perfectly adequate piece of hardware and software for most applications. Apple products are fine for what they are. I have never met an audiophile who believes Apple products are the ultimate in technology, but many of us use them because Apple services are integrated into our equipment and it does a fine job with most of our music.

David Harper
David Harper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: Aug 7 2014 - 2:23pm
article

tried to locate the article you mentioned but I don't seem to be able to do it. I have argued with Robert Harley in the pages of TAS. It was about the sq of digital interconnects. I said they do not have "sound quality". He suggested I was simple minded,so you're in good company.

mtymous1
mtymous1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 15 2015 - 5:47pm
Had to insert a space
David Harper wrote:

tried to locate the article you mentioned but I don't seem to be able to do it. I have argued with Robert Harley in the pages of TAS. It was about the sq of digital interconnects. I said they do not have "sound quality". He suggested I was simple minded,so you're in good company.

Had to insert a space before ".com" -- so when you copy and paste the link(s), remove it and you should be good to go.

mtymous1
mtymous1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 15 2015 - 5:47pm
"To the Simple, Everything Appears Simple"
David Harper wrote:

tried to locate the article you mentioned but I don't seem to be able to do it. I have argued with Robert Harley in the pages of TAS. It was about the sq of digital interconnects. I said they do not have "sound quality". He suggested I was simple minded,so you're in good company.

FYI, "To the Simple, Everything Appears Simple" is the name of the Stereophile article (in which you are mentioned) by John Atkinson, Posted: Dec 15, 2015
Published: Jan 1, 2016

Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/simple-everything-appears-simple#qqBBJ4UdM59SUcwI.99

(I think I got the link to work this time.)

Regardless, I am asking nicely to please recall that the intent of this thread is about Apple and tech detail. (Not about the same old, tired arguments of hi-rez vs. CD vs. yadda-yadda. You are certainly more than welcome to continue piling on the plethora of threads already started about that topic, or start your own. Thanks!)

David Harper
David Harper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: Aug 7 2014 - 2:23pm
mtymous1 wrote:
mtymous1 wrote:
David Harper wrote:

tried to locate the article you mentioned but I don't seem to be able to do it. I have argued with Robert Harley in the pages of TAS. It was about the sq of digital interconnects. I said they do not have "sound quality". He suggested I was simple minded,so you're in good company.

I found the article and read it. Excellent article. I also read the comments. Again, excellent comments. thanks for pointing me to it.

FYI, "To the Simple, Everything Appears Simple" is the name of the Stereophile article (in which you are mentioned) by John Atkinson, Posted: Dec 15, 2015
Published: Jan 1, 2016

Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/simple-everything-appears-simple#qqBBJ4UdM59SUcwI.99

(I think I got the link to work this time.)

Regardless, I am asking nicely to please recall that the intent of this thread is about Apple and tech detail. (Not about the same old, tired arguments of hi-rez vs. CD vs. yadda-yadda. You are certainly more than welcome to continue piling on the plethora of threads already started about that topic, or start your own. Thanks!)

mtymous1
mtymous1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 15 2015 - 5:47pm
"Apple should stop selling four-year-old computers"

From theverge.com /2016/8/4/12373776/2012-macbook-pro-still-alive-not-dead-why {remove space after .com to see full article}:

"Apart from the 12-inch MacBook, which was refreshed in April, every single Mac line from the mini to the Pro is designated as "Don’t Buy" [on the MacRumors’ Buyer’s Guide] because of how long it’s been since Apple updated them... The Mac mini has gone 657 days since its last update, which was controversial in itself since Apple removed quad-core options and made the product harder to upgrade after purchase."

jgossman
jgossman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: Aug 18 2011 - 6:21am
bierfeldt wrote:
bierfeldt wrote:

They generally don't do things that are too sketchy though I will grant you the class action suit from deleting competitive media is sketchy. What they aren't is Bose who markets a system by insisting on a display environment that is separate from competition to avoid direct comparison. They setup a test environment that is unreplicatable in your home and then charge a fortune for it. I find their behavior in regard to marketing the acoustimas system reprehensible. Otherwise Bose products are just really expensive for what you get.

As a former "fanboy", and retailer, I can tell you this is so much bullshit (fans of the forum know this is my favorite word, so don't get in a huff, I still 'luv ya.)

First of all, not only are Apple's products technically inferior than all but the cheapest of their Windows/Android competition. The software (compared to Android 5 and Windows 10) is often complicated and buggy, and the license agreements, should you read them, are unbearable. I came to generally dislike Steve Jobs, but at least I understood him. Modern Apple can only be described as a pretty terrible company for it's consumers.

And to your point, Apple will not, does not sell side by side with it's competitors. Retailers, large and small, must by agreement totally physically separate Apple product from all competitors. In my former realm (cellular) I can tell you Samsung, LG, and Motorola deciding to compete on terms of tech and letting cost be what they are really showed how sort of shitty iPhones specifically and iPads to a lesser degree really are. If you see a LG V20 or Moto X and still buy an Apple, you are simply full of shit. And that's not to speak of how superior Windows surface computers are.

Argue with me all you want, but the truth is pretty clean cut. The only products they currently make that are truly class leading are pro desktops and the Apple TV (and Roku's are pretty damn close).

The Apple phenomenon is really that they are so much more expensive for a comparable product and very pretty. Yet just cheap enough to splurge on. Which, really, is why white middle class America buys things when it comes right down to it.

pofdstudios
pofdstudios's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: Feb 9 2017 - 8:49am
White middle class?!!? Well I

White middle class?!!? Well I would suggest that it's NOT only the "WHITE" middle class but the Black and Hispanic and Asian (insert various race here)as well. I run a windows computer but have used iPhones since the iPhone 3s. I like the Apple products because they just plain work and I believe that most people buy Apple for that very reason. There is not a lot of options you can change to inadvertently fuck up causing it to crash etc. Turn it on and it functions as intended. Now With a computer ,laptop or otherwise, I like windows machines because of the versatilty and its ability to be somewhat scalable . Yeah I know sounds weird but then again I was never one to give a blue @$#*&!@ what anyone thinks. Are Apple products high fidelity? Not even on it's best day does Apple even come close to high fidelity but there again do you buy a Hyundai to go drag racing? Of course not ,so while occasionally I will listen to my music on the iPhone using an Audioquest Dragonfly Red because it's what I may have on hand with me at work I mostly use an Astell & Kern AK320 for my portable music needs because to me it's the best solution for what I require.

mtymous1
mtymous1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 15 2015 - 5:47pm
The inconvenient truth about MQA on iOS

Since I see a good number of posts here asking questions about their iOS devices and MQA, figured this would help enlighten them:

https://darko.audio/2019/03/the-inconvenient-truth-about-mqa-on-ios/

mtymous1
mtymous1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 15 2015 - 5:47pm
Limitations of Airplay

https://help.qobuz.com/hc/en-us/articles/360028512652-Audirvana-integration

"This interface also allows you to get round the limitations of Airplay (which limits you to 16-Bit at 48 kHz) when listening wirelessly on a UPnP/DLNA compatible device from your Mac."

Do people really use Airplay?? If so, why?

Pages

  • X