Hi everybody! I usually listen to music with headphones so I don't bother my roommates. With Apple Music rolling out Spatial Audio & (Hi-Res) Lossless, I was wondering if there were any good headphones that do both?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Headphones for Spatial Audio & Hi-res Lossless?
- Thread starter guzhogi
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Airpods 3, Airpods Max and Pro, Beats Fit Pro are the only ones that support both (including head tracking spatial audio) from what I gather. 3rd party headphones (whatever model in the market) attached to a headphone amplifier with a built-in DAC can ONLY do Hi-Res Lossless (no spatial audio) but some models have their own version of spatial audio (example is virtual 7.1 surround emulator) that is different from Apple Music (but definitely no head tracking)
Sound BlasterX G6
Upgrade your game audio with the Sound BlasterX G6, the best 7.1 gaming DAC and headphone amp for PS5, PS4, Xbox One, Nintendo Switch, and PC.
us.creative.com
The Airpods 3, Airpods Max and Pro, and Beats Fit Pro do lossless? I thought that lossless doesn't work with wireless (or at least Bluetooth) headphones due to being streamed in AAC. I've heard of 3rd party wifi headphones, but those probably don't do spatial audio.
Can't have both unless you find a way to bypass BT. With a high quality DAC and headphones, you somewhat create not only higher audio resolution but also better spatial audio anyways than what Apple provides with their Airpods 3, Max and Pro.
Thanks. I have a bunch of music on CDs not available on Apple Music, so I don't know how much I'd really need/use spatial audio. Any idea how "standard" spatial audio formats are, or are they fairly proprietary to each company/service? I've seen third party headphones that have some form of "spatial audio" or "7.1 systems," but don't know if these systems are compatible with Apple Music.
As for (high definition) lossless, since that doesn't work over Bluetooth, most, if not all, of Apple's headphones won't work as I believe they transmit audio in only AAC format. I've seen some wifi headphones, but haven't tried them so don't know if they work with lossless.
I admit, I don't have the best hearing, and I'm not too much of an audiophile, so I don't know if I'd be able to hear enough of a difference to really care. Just me, but I just want to make an informed decision. Who knows? I might find a great pair of headphones that really make a difference.
Any DSP involved prior to transporting the digital stream to the DAC stage is considered proprietary to their own respective technologies. As an example, Apple Music when played using iTunes will stream unedited (no DSP since Spatial Audio is proprietary to Airpods and other Apple products) to a 7.1 headphone, the digital stream will enter first to the DSP engine built-in to the headphone circuitry then that altered digital signal is then converted to analog in the DAC stage then that analog signal becomes sound waves as electricity is converted to sound.
As for lossless, the definition accepted in the audiophile world IMHO is that the digital signal must NEVER be altered, prior to entering the DAC stage, and the ORIGINAL analog sound reproduced goes to headphones in the highest/purest quality. High quality headphones produce the ORIGINAL spatial information sound from the file. Apple's definition of lossless is simply that the file was NEVER compressed in lossy format from the original source. Adding spatial audio DSP and Bluetooth in the digital signal domain alter the ORIGINAL digital signal hence the digital signal that is being sent to the DAC is NOT really lossless from that point. To an audiophile's opinion, the original spatial information in the file is the one that the mastering engineered intended while to Apple, "spatial audio" is the "enhanced" spatial information that they add to their products in order to make the sound more "hi-fi".
Yes, I agree with this. With good recordings and high quality devices music sound spacial, dimensional and natural.
I don't think anyone can truly hear the difference between lossless and high bitrate lossy. Some people expect lossless to sound better so they perceive that it does. I was like that until I blind tested myself and failed to differentiate. But perhaps YMMV.
I can tell the difference between high bitrate lossy and lossless on some material but not others. Depends on the complexity.
Hi-res though, no. I've heard DACs that just sound better running at 96K+ even if you feed them an upsampled 44.1K file, so that's a hardware issue (e.g.: HRT+ DAC). I've heard hi-res files that sound better than their CD 44.1K counterpart, but then if you downsample the 96K file to 44.1K it still sounds just as good, so that's a capturing/mastering issue (e.g.: Rumours album on DVD-A). I truly believe 44.1K is all we needed, just like the Nyquist-Shannon theorem stated, but it's in the industry's interest to keep telling us we need more and more so they can re-package all their old catalogs again.
Other opinions are available.
Hi-res though, no. I've heard DACs that just sound better running at 96K+ even if you feed them an upsampled 44.1K file, so that's a hardware issue (e.g.: HRT+ DAC). I've heard hi-res files that sound better than their CD 44.1K counterpart, but then if you downsample the 96K file to 44.1K it still sounds just as good, so that's a capturing/mastering issue (e.g.: Rumours album on DVD-A). I truly believe 44.1K is all we needed, just like the Nyquist-Shannon theorem stated, but it's in the industry's interest to keep telling us we need more and more so they can re-package all their old catalogs again.
Other opinions are available.
Last edited: