Digital Audio Veteran Peter Eastty Joins Apple as Director of SoC Audio Processing

"...and create a new 24-bit capable version of its In-Ear headphones, but those reports have not yet panned out."

All headphones and speakers are analog. The digital conversion process needs to occur prior to amplification. So there's no such thing as 24bit capable headphones unless you're talking about digitally transmitting the data to the headphone via lightning or bluetooth. This is not a limitation of technology.... it is a limitation of human physiology unless you have a digital input implanted into your brain. So "digital" headphones convert the audio to analog and amplify the signal instead of your device. There's no gain for the end user to have the headphone convert the audio vs your iPhone unless you're headphone cable is 100ft long.

It doesn't matter, most people would not be able to tell the difference between 12, 16 or 24bit audio sources or 44.1k, 48k or 88.2 or 96k. This is not like the picture quality of SD, HD, 4k vs 8k

This is more like properly encoded H.264 vs H.265 vs AppleProRes with the same pixel count and framerate. You're not going to be able to tell the difference unless you've dropped a few hundred grand into a home theater setup and knew what to look for to see a difference. And even then there would no diminished entertainment quality between the various formats.

My point being that AAC 256kbps is not the weak link in your audio chain. It's your headphones or speakers. 192kbps lossy audio compression method far exceeds the reproduction quality of most headphones or speaker systems and 99.99% of people would never hear the difference unless switching between the same source at two different qualities in a properly designed recording studio.

These kind of hirings make me happy... Apple's going back to their roots!

That beard makes him looks like some sort of Sage.

This guy is part of the elite high end pro field. Not someone I would expect to be focusing on how to make iPad speakers sound better. I would hope the pro market is in for some future surprises.

Hmm.. With him and Trent on the team, I have some really positive feelings about the future of Apple audio quality.

DSD playback on the horizon?! (I hope.)

I hope not, there are no real benefits over PCM and a whole lot of headaches.

Maybe Apple can finally have real "Normalization" and "distortion free" EQ settings. :)

"...and create a new 24-bit capable version of its In-Ear headphones, but those reports have not yet panned out."

All headphones and speakers are analog. The digital conversion process needs to occur prior to amplification. So there's no such thing as 24bit capable headphones unless you're talking about digitally transmitting the data to the headphone via lightning or bluetooth. This is not a limitation of technology.... it is a limitation of human physiology unless you have a digital input implanted into your brain. So "digital" headphones convert the audio to analog and amplify the signal instead of your device. There's no gain for the end user to have the headphone convert the audio vs your iPhone unless you're headphone cable is 100ft long.

It doesn't matter, most people would not be able to tell the difference between 12, 16 or 24bit audio sources or 44.1k, 48k or 88.2 or 96k. This is not like the picture quality of SD, HD, 4k vs 8k

This is more like properly encoded H.264 vs H.265 vs AppleProRes with the same pixel count and framerate. You're not going to be able to tell the difference unless you've dropped a few hundred grand into a home theater setup and knew what to look for to see a difference. And even then there would no diminished entertainment quality between the various formats.

My point being that AAC 256kbps is not the weak link in your audio chain. It's your headphones or speakers. 192kbps lossy audio compression method far exceeds the reproduction quality of most headphones or speaker systems and 99.99% of people would never hear the difference unless switching between the same source at two different qualities in a properly designed recording studio.

I can only hear the difference on my high end system between 256 and 320 joint stereo mp3 in the most dissonant, multi-harmonic material in totally quiet conditions at not too high volume (that's not even the volume that material is supposed to be listened too :-) and I can't even tell you which one I like the best (I just know there is a minute difference).

AAC at 256kbs is better than 320kbs joint mp3 so I'm pretty sur I can't tell the difference for anything at that level in any listening conditions. Maybe some under 25 year old guy with bat ears, perfect speakers and perfect amplification in a quiet perfect room could, but that guy is 1 in 25 million probably.

This kind of thing right here is the real Apple.

Sadly, these are the kinds of stories that get swept under the rug when people complain about how Apple are more concerned with how things look rather than how they function.

I too am glad that Apple is re-focusing on audio for their products. Their sound quality hasn't been terrible, but there's definitely room for improvement.