Question on wired connection iphone to achieve Hi-Res through specific DAC.

EthicalEar

EthicalEar

Junior Audioholic
DAC: Monolith Desktop Headphone Amplifier and DAC with THX AAA Technology (Dual Akm 4493 DACs & Dual AAA-788 Modules)

Iphone XS has ALAC high resolution files Many 96KZH files I got from HD tracks and put into my Itunes library and added to my phone.
Next to my couch I have Headphone amp/dac. when I'm too lazy to play vinyl, I plug my Iphone into the USB port of this thing. I got it for headphone use but my main use has been to EQ my vinyl from my couch with connected Schitt Loki to this thing. But USB allows me to use my phone which sounds better than my APPLE TV as I can play higher resolution. My Question: Display shows 44.1Khz as soon as I connect it.(camera adapter lightning cable) And even if I Play a high resolution file it still shows 44.1Khz. Is the display incorrect? YES I have my Iphone settings to Lossless and I stream Hi-Res.
I haven't done an ear comparison with high res phone vs. a CD to see if it sounds the same or worse yet. It did sound better than the APPLE TV playing my library from computer or Apple Itunes music app. Right away as an audiophile I'm perplexed by the 44.1 display and wondering if there is anything I can do with the Monolith to fix this. I do know the Hi-res files on my phone play perfectly, listened to them with ifi HipDac with such superb quality and enjoyment. But I want to hear these details in my living room with Paradigm 95f's. Together with my Goovie light shows bouncing of those aluminum drivers it's always nights of pure bliss. Okay back to my question / quest - to achieve the 192 or 96 or even 48 Khz from my iphone through the Monolith DAC to my main system. Before I go to deep, I am wondering if it's an Apple limitation due to connected device. Phone knows and shows it's wire connection to the Monolith. Idea's, what do you do with your phone wiring direct to main system?
 
T

Trebdp83

Audioholic Ninja
If you are able to stream from the Apple Music service in hi-res 24/192 because Wi-Fi Streaming is set to Hi-Res Lossless and the Downloads setting is also set to Hi-Res Lossless , I would say the files themselves may not be hi-res or hi-res was not selected at the time of their download.
 
EthicalEar

EthicalEar

Junior Audioholic
https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/posts/1621752/react?reaction_id=1
If you are able to stream from the Apple Music service in hi-res 24/192 because Wi-Fi Streaming is set to Hi-Res Lossless and the Downloads setting is also set to Hi-Res Lossless , I would say the files themselves may not be hi-res or hi-res was not selected at the time of their download.
Thank you for your reply and suggestion. The files are indeed hi-res though. My Itunes library shows Bit rate for most of my Hi Res at 4608 kbps. Aja by Steely Dan is at 9216 kbps!!! and listening through headphones ifi hip dac you can tell! Just trying to get that quality to my main system without buying a music streamer because my phone should be able to do it wired to DAC but Apple can be finicky.
 
EthicalEar

EthicalEar

Junior Audioholic
Although most don't have actual music data on their phones, I do. 500GB data space and I only have 96 GB left. Not much but music on my phone. I don't have to worry about a signal or data when I take my phone anywhere. Anyway, I'm going to try a few things when I get a chance. I'll use my AJA songs to compare, and perhaps because the first song in my library alphabetically is artist A3 song Exile on Cold Harbor Lane. It's only 256 kbps. I'll see if I can get a Hi-res of that at 48Khz and see if "first song" in library is what the Monolith is going by.
 
Last edited:
T

Trebdp83

Audioholic Ninja
Yeah, the Aja album sounds good. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. I nearly bought an external DAC for Apple Music playback but Apple finally unlocked the HDMI output of the newer Macs with macOS Sonoma. So, I was able to get Apple Music hi-res over HDMI from my Mac mini M1 to my receiver without having to hook it or my iPhone to an external DAC.
 
EthicalEar

EthicalEar

Junior Audioholic
Hey. Just picked up Ananda cans with a lyr3 and bf2 dac Have a couple questions Would there be any benefits of one chain vs the other for sound quality Windows computer Amazon unlimited to bf2 to lyr3 Or iPhone 12 or 13 Amazon unlimited app to bf2 to lyr3 I am using the apple camera lightning adapter with the phone to the dac Also, are there any basic setting on either setup I need to go in to change to take advantage of the hd and ultra hd songs? Thanks sun advance
Very nice purchase. Those Ananda headphones look nice. If they are the BT version then they are capable of a lot. A Balanced Cable would make a world of difference but the Lyr3 is not for balanced headphones but I'm sure it will sound nice with a normal headphone cable. The Schitt Mjolnir would be a big step up but it's balanced. Also you would want to look at a good balanced headphone cable to go with them. For your phone, same situation, if your can's are BT then when you want to wire them, it doesn't much matter what cable with that DAC. Your phone Settings under "MUSIC" should be set to be Dolby Atmos to be Always on(just my preference) and the EQ should be Off. Then select Audio Quality. Turn Lossless Audio ON, then select Hi-Res Lossless for both Wi-Fi Streaming and Downloads. If you should choose to upgrade to Balanced features if your cans support it, you would notice another improvement in the soundstage. There are portable phone dac's with balanced options, such as the Ifi HIP Dac. Some Desk DAC's do not work with the phone. Errors such as does not support...etc.. are what I have seen. The cable from headphones to the Dac may require an adapter for balanced cable.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
DAC: Monolith Desktop Headphone Amplifier and DAC with THX AAA Technology (Dual Akm 4493 DACs & Dual AAA-788 Modules)

Iphone XS has ALAC high resolution files Many 96KZH files I got from HD tracks and put into my Itunes library and added to my phone.
Next to my couch I have Headphone amp/dac. when I'm too lazy to play vinyl, I plug my Iphone into the USB port of this thing. I got it for headphone use but my main use has been to EQ my vinyl from my couch with connected Schitt Loki to this thing. But USB allows me to use my phone which sounds better than my APPLE TV as I can play higher resolution. My Question: Display shows 44.1Khz as soon as I connect it.(camera adapter lightning cable) And even if I Play a high resolution file it still shows 44.1Khz. Is the display incorrect? YES I have my Iphone settings to Lossless and I stream Hi-Res.
I haven't done an ear comparison with high res phone vs. a CD to see if it sounds the same or worse yet. It did sound better than the APPLE TV playing my library from computer or Apple Itunes music app. Right away as an audiophile I'm perplexed by the 44.1 display and wondering if there is anything I can do with the Monolith to fix this. I do know the Hi-res files on my phone play perfectly, listened to them with ifi HipDac with such superb quality and enjoyment. But I want to hear these details in my living room with Paradigm 95f's. Together with my Goovie light shows bouncing of those aluminum drivers it's always nights of pure bliss. Okay back to my question / quest - to achieve the 192 or 96 or even 48 Khz from my iphone through the Monolith DAC to my main system. Before I go to deep, I am wondering if it's an Apple limitation due to connected device. Phone knows and shows it's wire connection to the Monolith. Idea's, what do you do with your phone wiring direct to main system?
Actually 44.1 is high res. There are trillions of bits wasted by audiophoolery.

Here is a thread I put together on this topic.
 
EthicalEar

EthicalEar

Junior Audioholic
Actually 44.1 is high res. There are trillions of bits wasted by audiophoolery.

Here is a thread I put together on this topic.
This is simply not correct. 44.1 may be considered Lossless but Hi-Res is beyond that. It is when you are getting information beyond CD quality. It is not audiophoolery. When I'm listening to Hi-Res music, the experience is significantly improved. How? each instrument has details that are no longer "blended in" to fit the bits. Instead you can hear cymbals! You can hear a vocal soft and a drum soft while the guitar solo is loud. Or any instrument not just an equal level but at it's own level. The emotion is the result. The music is that much more beautiful when you get Hi-Res audio to go beyond CD quality. I generally appreciate your posts but not sure why you don't understand this. If you want to listen to a song because you like the song, yes 44.1 is fine. If you want to listen to detail you never heard before, listen to Hi-Res. Example: Alan Parsons I Robot in 192/24. What you thought was just a Synth in the beginning you can hear WORDS in that Synth. "Pick Myself up off the ground" "I'll go have another beer" Truly new and not legible to that extent from 44.1. It's not magic. It's detail. Hi-Res.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
This is simply not correct. 44.1 may be considered Lossless but Hi-Res is beyond that. It is when you are getting information beyond CD quality. It is not audiophoolery. When I'm listening to Hi-Res music, the experience is significantly improved. How? each instrument has details that are no longer "blended in" to fit the bits. Instead you can hear cymbals! You can hear a vocal soft and a drum soft while the guitar solo is loud. Or any instrument not just an equal level but at it's own level. The emotion is the result. The music is that much more beautiful when you get Hi-Res audio to go beyond CD quality. I generally appreciate your posts but not sure why you don't understand this. If you want to listen to a song because you like the song, yes 44.1 is fine. If you want to listen to detail you never heard before, listen to Hi-Res. Example: Alan Parsons I Robot in 192/24. What you thought was just a Synth in the beginning you can hear WORDS in that Synth. "Pick Myself up off the ground" "I'll go have another beer" Truly new and not legible to that extent from 44.1. It's not magic. It's detail. Hi-Res.
Actually the evidence and hard data contradict you. Look at those videos and understand what they convey.
 
EthicalEar

EthicalEar

Junior Audioholic
Actually the evidence and hard data contradict you. Look at those videos and understand what they convey.
High-resolution audio is a term for audio files with greater than 44.1 kHz sample rate or higher than 16-bit audio bit depth. It commonly refers to 96 or ... I have an understanding of those videos you refer too. If you take the song as a whole then fine for you. I take each instrument, each sound and I understand how they have a meaning. Master's in engineering such as Alan Parsons are like a DiVinci painting in that there is no paint waisted. When you move to Hi-Res you can here more detail, more emotion. Not one blended bowl of oatmeal. It's the ingredients, the flavors of the wine. I would feel sorry for those who will never hear these wonderful Hi-Res songs the way the musician / engineer created them, instead of the CD that doesn't carry enough bits at 44.1 to express it.
 
Last edited:
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
High-resolution audio is a term for audio files with greater than 44.1 kHz sample rate or higher than 16-bit audio bit depth. It commonly refers to 96 or ... I have an understanding of those videos you refer too. If you take the song as a whole then fine for you. I take each instrument, each sound and I understand how they have a meaning. Master's in engineering such as Alan Parsons are like a DiVinci painting in that there is no paint waisted. When you move to Hi-Res you can here more detail, more emotion. Not one blended bowl of oatmeal. It's the ingredients, the flavors of the wine. I would feel sorry for those who will never hear these wonderful Hi-Res songs the way the musician / engineer created them, instead of the CD that doesn't carry enough bits at 44.1 to express it.
You are missing my point. The specifications and parameters of the CD were correctly chosen, by Philips/Sony. It was absolutely the correct choice and the CD sounds as good as anything else, without wasting bits and resources. The CD does indeed carry all the information you need and more than that is superfluous and way beyond the range of human hearing. If you really understand those videos on my post, you will see why.
 
EthicalEar

EthicalEar

Junior Audioholic
You are missing my point. The specifications and parameters of the CD were correctly chosen, by Philips/Sony. It was absolutely the correct choice and the CD sounds as good as anything else, without wasting bits and resources. The CD does indeed carry all the information you need and more than that is superfluous and way beyond the range of human hearing. If you really understand those videos on my post, you will see why.
No a CD does not sound as good as anything else. Perhaps it has a capacity too, so why doesn't it? Thank you for your point but it really doesn't belong in this post. Your videos on bit rate and sample rate are all fine and if you wish to debunk a higher bit rate, fine. Oh and to the person calling me dumb. Very nice. I wish you well. Can you answer why a high resolution audio format will show high frequency strings or vocals start quiet and build or remain quiet while the same frequency of another orchestral instrument can shine louder. And why the subtle details within a pitch can be picked up with the 96K and higher bit rate per second recordings. If these details were done upon initial recording and in the master tape then it's Mixing and engineering that is changing it for the higher detail output. CD's have mashed these frequencies. I think your measurements are for an Overall and not each instrument separated on the CD. I think the lower bit rate is blending the similar frequencies where the higher bit rate is allowing for each to be distinctive and profoundly more emotional that way. So if it's originally recorded that way, why can't they put it on the CD in the beginning? You go listen to your CD's and I'll listen to a hi-resolution. You can't call something Evidence when you are not measuring the same thing. You are measuring sound. Low noise floors vs. distortion. I am talking sound quality a vibrato, a bass player playing 64th notes but on CD it only sounds like one note. The science of sound is not over. Once you can move rocks with your equipment perhaps we will be closer to where we were thousands of years ago. You are missing something. But keep working on it and maybe you can answer why there is actually a difference.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
No a CD does not sound as good as anything else. Perhaps it has a capacity too, so why doesn't it? Thank you for your point but it really doesn't belong in this post. Your videos on bit rate and sample rate are all fine and if you wish to debunk a higher bit rate, fine. Oh and to the person calling me dumb. Very nice. I wish you well. Can you answer why a high resolution audio format will show high frequency strings or vocals start quiet and build or remain quiet while the same frequency of another orchestral instrument can shine louder. And why the subtle details within a pitch can be picked up with the 96K and higher bit rate per second recordings. If these details were done upon initial recording and in the master tape then it's Mixing and engineering that is changing it for the higher detail output. CD's have mashed these frequencies. I think your measurements are for an Overall and not each instrument separated on the CD. I think the lower bit rate is blending the similar frequencies where the higher bit rate is allowing for each to be distinctive and profoundly more emotional that way. So if it's originally recorded that way, why can't they put it on the CD in the beginning? You go listen to your CD's and I'll listen to a hi-resolution. You can't call something Evidence when you are not measuring the same thing. You are measuring sound. Low noise floors vs. distortion. I am talking sound quality a vibrato, a bass player playing 64th notes but on CD it only sounds like one note. The science of sound is not over. Once you can move rocks with your equipment perhaps we will be closer to where we were thousands of years ago. You are missing something. But keep working on it and maybe you can answer why there is actually a difference.
Unfortunately you are still talking nonsense. I could let it pass, but it is not a victimless crime. These useless Hi-Res streams clog the Internet and cause providers to have to add unnecessary capacity. That raises bills for us all. The CD has more than enough dynamic range for anything in the pop culture. Just possibly the end of Mahler 2 or 8 might push to the limit maximum Spl. and the noise floor but I doubt it. Dynamic range is set in the studio and especially the final mix. If you really understood those videos you would see that the CD has a very adequate dynamic range. I have plenty of CDs with colossal dynamic range. If you are concerned about dynamic range then it has it origin in something other than 16 bit 44.1 sampling rate.

I have verified this myself when I can alter the sampling rate of a Wav. file on a whim. I am sorry, but you are just wrong, and that is all you can say about it.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
No a CD does not sound as good as anything else. Perhaps it has a capacity too, so why doesn't it? Thank you for your point but it really doesn't belong in this post. Your videos on bit rate and sample rate are all fine and if you wish to debunk a higher bit rate, fine. Oh and to the person calling me dumb. Very nice. I wish you well. Can you answer why a high resolution audio format will show high frequency strings or vocals start quiet and build or remain quiet while the same frequency of another orchestral instrument can shine louder. And why the subtle details within a pitch can be picked up with the 96K and higher bit rate per second recordings. If these details were done upon initial recording and in the master tape then it's Mixing and engineering that is changing it for the higher detail output. CD's have mashed these frequencies. I think your measurements are for an Overall and not each instrument separated on the CD. I think the lower bit rate is blending the similar frequencies where the higher bit rate is allowing for each to be distinctive and profoundly more emotional that way. So if it's originally recorded that way, why can't they put it on the CD in the beginning? You go listen to your CD's and I'll listen to a hi-resolution. You can't call something Evidence when you are not measuring the same thing. You are measuring sound. Low noise floors vs. distortion. I am talking sound quality a vibrato, a bass player playing 64th notes but on CD it only sounds like one note. The science of sound is not over. Once you can move rocks with your equipment perhaps we will be closer to where we were thousands of years ago. You are missing something. But keep working on it and maybe you can answer why there is actually a difference.
Speaking of the same thing, are you comparing the same mix/master of each recording? Do you even have the provenance to do so?
 
EthicalEar

EthicalEar

Junior Audioholic
Unfortunately you are still talking nonsense. I could let it pass, but it is not a victimless crime. These useless Hi-Res streams clog the Internet and cause providers to have to add unnecessary capacity. That raises bills for us all. The CD has more than enough dynamic range for anything in the pop culture. Just possibly the end of Mahler 2 or 8 might push to the limit maximum Spl. and the noise floor but I doubt it. Dynamic range is set in the studio and especially the final mix. If you really understood those videos you would see that the CD has a very adequate dynamic range. I have plenty of CDs with colossal dynamic range. If you are concerned about dynamic range then it has it origin in something other than 16 bit 44.1 sampling rate.

I have verified this myself when I can alter the sampling rate of a Wav. file on a whim. I am sorry, but you are just wrong, and that is all you can say about it.
The only thing you have proven is that you can make the most boring videos I have ever seen. Talking nonsense? Your theories are missingvariables and all you are doing is trying to make people believe you. You still have no place in this post. Steven Wilson takes Yes music from long ago and remasters it. He puts it on 96Khz. Why did he do this? To extend the frequency range. Are you calling him a rip off? Peter Gabriel also does this. They do this to allow for the listener to hear the various parts in the music to a degree of higher resolution than was on the original recording. Sure CD's are good. Some music it's a waste to purchase hi-res versions. So why are they putting it out other than 44.1 especially after you told everyone it's nonsense. Trying to promote your theory? Yes. Well perhaps you don't believe it yourself so you need to see who knows different? Sound is energy. Once you record it it is no longer energy. It must be re-produced It doesn't matter if it's on a CD or a Album. But if it gets digitally compressed it is less! Okay Wav file. Take a wave file. How much data, how many songs can you fit? Not much. I don't know why you insist on shoving your video. You are not dumb but you can learn a lot more. Especially about pushing the wrong buttons.
 
Last edited:
EthicalEar

EthicalEar

Junior Audioholic
Speaking of the same thing, are you comparing the same mix/master of each recording? Do you even have the provenance to do so?
What are you taking about? My creds do not require your approval. If I don't understand something I learn and have benefited. If you make the font really really small, you can get more data to fit in the same spot. Compression. 44.1Khz lets compress the data to fit on this CD. Standardized size, for standardized players. What are you guys trying to prove? Say I'm not qualified to listen to music? Say your stuff is better than mine. Say I have more followers. You will only prove your response to be more of what this post was never about.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
What are you taking about? My creds do not require your approval. If I don't understand something I learn and have benefited. If you make the font really really small, you can get more data to fit in the same spot. Compression. 44.1Khz lets compress the data to fit on this CD. Standardized size, for standardized players. What are you guys trying to prove? Say I'm not qualified to listen to music? Say your stuff is better than mine. Say I have more followers. You will only prove your response to be more of what this post was never about.
LOL you don't seem to understand how it works in the first place. Good luck with your "critical ear", LOL
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
LOL you don't seem to understand how it works in the first place. Good luck with your "critical ear", LOL
This chap has no clue. He seems to think that the CD uses a compressed algorithm. It absolutely does not. This guy is a bit waster as well as a time waster.
 
isolar8001

isolar8001

Audioholic General
I say leave him out in the open on a sand dune and let Shai-Hulud deal with his insolence.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
High-resolution audio is a term for audio files with greater than 44.1 kHz sample rate or higher than 16-bit audio bit depth. It commonly refers to 96 or ... I have an understanding of those videos you refer too. If you take the song as a whole then fine for you. I take each instrument, each sound and I understand how they have a meaning. Master's in engineering such as Alan Parsons are like a DiVinci painting in that there is no paint waisted. When you move to Hi-Res you can here more detail, more emotion. Not one blended bowl of oatmeal. It's the ingredients, the flavors of the wine. I would feel sorry for those who will never hear these wonderful Hi-Res songs the way the musician / engineer created them, instead of the CD that doesn't carry enough bits at 44.1 to express it.
Parsons has said "Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment.". He also said that the room's acoustics are more important than audiophile gear.

That said, my question for Parsons- "What was the point in making the effort to achieve the mix for the recordings you're known for of it isn't sound quality?" Crap equipment can never sound as good, but I can say from personal experience in audio sales that a huge number of listeners of Dark Side of The Moon and Alan Parsons Project recordings used bad equipment.

Also, what is the high frequency limit of YOUR hearing? If you have worked/lived in high SPL environments and didn't use hearing protection, you're probably fooling yourself into believing that what you hear is real. The recording community and industry use many tricks to create illusions in sound. Marketing does the rest.

WRT your "I would feel sorry for those who will never hear these wonderful Hi-Res songs the way the musician / engineer created them", you need to realize that most pop/rock musicians blew out their ears a long time ago, so any comments about hearing fine details and high frequencies are BS. They hear what they can, but most recordings are mixed and mastered by people who know how to achieve 'their sound' because they have done it for so long.

Also, recordings can't sound the way they heard it in the control room because the acoustics and equipment are very different. Unless you have exactly teh same equipment, room, environmental conditions, etc, you will never hear anything created in a studio as they heard it.

Read interviews with mastering engineers- they usually comment on their hearing damage. Anyone who has spent much time near drums and especially cymbals without hearing protection is lying if they say their hearing is good and it's total BS if they say their hearing is perfect. NOBODY who's past childhood has perfect hearing- the sounds we're exposed to throughout our lives makes that impossible.

 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top