Personally I'd much prefer a lossless format that can convert to a lossy file efficiently. If this isn't it then oh well, maybe next time the magic will reappear. I've always though HD meant lossless, but based on the responses here it seems I'm mistaken.
Everyone who hopes for lossless, 94 kHz or 24 bit audio, stop dreaming. This is about converting audio to lower bitrates (e.g. HE-AAC with 64-128 kBit/s) for 3G streaming.
256kbps AAC is already good enough - good enough that the format's quality exceeds that of the playback capabilities of any of Apple's products (which are less than spectacular by the way). Any of the compressed formats stream just fine.
...then there is uncompressed (AIFF) or Apple Lossless (ALAC) audio for environments where you might actually be able to tell the difference.
So, why on earth do we need yet another format?
With all due respect, what the heck do we need another audio format for? It's insanity. 256kbps AAC is already good enough - good enough that the format's quality exceeds that of the playback capabilities of any of Apple's products (which are less than spectacular by the way). Any of the compressed formats stream just fine.
If you are using a Mac (or PC) with optical audio outputs, then there is uncompressed (AIFF) or Apple Lossless (ALAC) audio for environments where you might actually be able to tell the difference.
And we all know what happened with SACD and HDCD formats - they failed, miserably. Apparently 16bit digital audio (standard CD) is more than good enough for humans (those claiming otherwise are nuts - human hearing tapers off after 15kHz). Dogs may have a different opinion...
So, why on earth do we need yet another format?
...Seems similiar to how TrueHD files contain a core AC3 file to support older receivers.
It won't get more efficient than converting offline server-side to a "core" file, and then adding the data needed to sum up to a lossless file - basically, just like DTS-HD works on blu-ray. You would need very little CPU to "convert" (extract, rather) the lossy file, compared to old-school converting.
Not sure what you mean by the last comment, I don't think any of the comments here contradicts HD meaning lossless.
So does this mean I'll have to re-purchase all of my iTunes music that I already bought from the iTunes store?
I'll take any lossless codec, but why cant apple just use FLAC (it's royalty free after all)?!
http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd
When this comes out, I'll definitely get iTunes Match.
Home Cinema systems are becoming more and more popular in households, so it isn't just audiophiles that'll appreciate this, as the average Joe will probably be able to notice the difference.
No, that's what the match service is all about. Just as you didn't have to re-purchase 128 kb songs to get Apple's 256 kb songs. Apple would simply find songs that you already own in the lower quality format and replace them with the higher quality format on systems that could handle it.
No, that's what the match service is all about. Just as you didn't have to re-purchase 128 kb songs to get Apple's 256 kb songs. Apple would simply find songs that you already own in the lower quality format and replace them with the higher quality format on systems that could handle it.
I happen to agree with Apple's choices of closed, efficient, simple and stable standards, over open standards.
iTunes Match sucks though, it messed up my library completely. What I'd like to know is if I can redownload my purchased songs in the higher bit rate.
So does this mean I'll have to re-purchase all of my iTunes music that I already bought from the iTunes store?
Well, that's what it's supposed to do. In reality there are many many songs in the iTunes store that it fails to match.
iTunes Match sucks though, it messed up my library completely. What I'd like to know is if I can redownload my purchased songs in the higher bit rate.
Right now tons of albums match all but one or two tracks. Offering a higher quality format is a great idea but until Match is fixed it's just going to make the bugs more obvious.
What good will this do if the Loudness War continues regardless? HD crap-tastic sound?
Apparently 16bit digital audio (standard CD) is more than good enough for humans (those claiming otherwise are nuts - human hearing tapers off after 15kHz). Dogs may have a different opinion...
Harmonics anyone?
The frequencies beyond 15khz affect the frequencies we hear, thus altering the musical perception of an instrument!
Harmonics anyone?
Instruments produce musical information well beyond 15khz! (some instruments beyond 100khz as a matter of fact!!) The frequencies beyond 15khz affect the frequencies we hear, thus altering the musical perception of an instrument! That's why a violin, when reproduced from a CD, will never sound like the real thing... With DVD-Audio and SACD thought it's a different story. Those formats, thought not embraced by the majority of people, are far superior to a CD and much closer to the actual music event. (and that's without bringing multichannel reproduction to the equation) A well mastered SACD or DVD-Audio, even in stereo 2.0, will thrash any CD!! The reason why those formats have failed is not because people could not tell the difference from a CD, but because it costs a lot of money to setup a good multichannel system!!
Why it matters to us: If it's developed so it's one file that any computer can convert to a lower bitrate "on the fly", it means our own copies of iTunes can store it for streaming in our own homes.
I'm not going to download something from Apples servers every time I want to listen to a song in my own home. But I'd sure love to set up an iTunes server with this capability. iTunes on my computers would access the library on the server and sync low quality versions of the song to my devices, whilst letting me stream high quality versions around the home.
I agree that would be a nice feature. However, the article is referring to what Apple does on its servers, not what you might (or might not) be able to do with iTunes.
Actually if you wear them the way they were designed to be worn theyre perfectly adequate