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.
Apple Reportedly Developing High-Definition Audio Format with 'Adaptive Streaming'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
----------
Sadly, I think you may be right.
You're answering your own question. For those who want to playback in an environment where you might be able to tell the difference AND in an environment you probably can't tell the difference (eg, apple headphones), you'd need to store copies of the same song.
Wouldn't it be better to store it in just one format and "call up" the parts you require based on the situation?
Very ambiguous (as always) as to what Apple is doing but for me:
1: MUST be lossless (use ALAC since don't see the need for a new codec). I have no need for any lossy codec.
2: Offer iTunes music in 16/44.1 or 48 Lossless at a minimum.
3: Offer 24/96 Lossless (could offer at a premium price, but hope not).
4: Offer (some) 5.1 24/96 Lossless mixes for Apple TV/iTunes HTPC use.
1: MUST be lossless (use ALAC since don't see the need for a new codec). I have no need for any lossy codec.
2: Offer iTunes music in 16/44.1 or 48 Lossless at a minimum.
3: Offer 24/96 Lossless (could offer at a premium price, but hope not).
4: Offer (some) 5.1 24/96 Lossless mixes for Apple TV/iTunes HTPC use.
There's already quite a niche market in the audiophile circuit for 24bit/96 lossless FLACS (hdtracks.com) and extremely expensive components to stream those files to your receiver.
Having the files available in iTunes and the ability to stream them to a cheap $100 AppleTV would really shake the market.
Most recordings are already in 24bit anyhow so it would just take the studios re-encoding the masters.
Actually it's DTS MA that has a legacy DTS core. TrueHD doesn't have a DD core and must include a separate DD track (that can be hidden).
Yep, I edited my post. I completely misunderstood how it might work. Eliminating converting is great and I like the idea of storing a low-fi "core" part, and then adding the required extra data for lossless playback (I assume ALAC?). I got confused because the post I was referring to mentioned converting from 128kbps AAC to 256kbps, which is not HD/lossless.
Core 128kbps AAC + Extra data to bring it up to HD = Brilliant. Look forward to it.
-------------
If it stores ALAC and it can be used on Pioneer DJ gear still, I'll possibly never look at flac again.
this is very much desired. especially if you want to play in a better equipped hifi-system!
"Most recordings are already in 24bit anyhow so it would just take the studios re-encoding the masters." agree and 24 bit sounds much better than 16bit. especially when u got the right rig
i just bought myself a pair of these: http://www.whathifi.com/review/monitor-audio-platinum-pl300
and trust me...they will reveal any bad encoding
"Most recordings are already in 24bit anyhow so it would just take the studios re-encoding the masters." agree and 24 bit sounds much better than 16bit. especially when u got the right rig
i just bought myself a pair of these: http://www.whathifi.com/review/monitor-audio-platinum-pl300and trust me...they will reveal any bad encoding
Match
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.
So does this mean I'll have to re-purchase all of my iTunes music that I already bought from the iTunes store?
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. Apple won't use Flac, for the same reason that they don't support flash in iOS. I haven't had issues playing back Flac as such, but I have had issues with cover art. As in: File A works on player X but not player Y, file B works on player Y but not player X. Apple likes standards that are actually "standard", without choices (you can't choose compression level on ALAC i iTunes, for example). There might be other considerations as well that we as users don't necessarily worry about, such as CPU usage during playback (which would translate into battery life), although that's just a guess. AAC on the iPhone is hardware assisted, perhaps Apple don't find it easy providing hardware support for FLAC files. There's a mighty big difference in battery life on my iPhone when playing AAC files using the standard music player, and playing AAC files in a software app. Just another guess, but all I'm saying is that sometimes there are perfectly good reasons for these decisions that isn't obvious to the end-user.
If Apple really had a choice, I don't think they would support MP3 either, but that would be pushing it. FLAC is nowhere as widespread as MP3, so they can get away with not supporting it. The way I see it, Apple only supports poor standards if they undoubtedly need to.
I was under the impression that home sound systems were actually becoming less popular with average joes...?
If I go into a Best Buy now, the proper stereo systems are shoved in the back on one shelf, covered in dust and nobody buys them. The iPod and iPhone dock systems however are up front and center. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but we continue to trade quality for convenience.
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.
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.
ALAC is an open standard now.
You can redownload at 256K. I would guess that when the new format is implemented, it would download at a bitrate appropriate for your listening device to minimize bandwidth while maintaining best performance for your device. It's a great idea.
So does this mean I'll have to re-purchase all of my iTunes music that I already bought from the iTunes store?
Of course. You really must repurchase it all over again. It's just a trick to make you pay for iTunes Match.
But then I thought nowadays you could re-download purchased music anyway?
Didn't have that problem with any purchased songs. And I suppose that Apple can match matched songs as well
Please explain what happened. I've heard of people not having as much success as they wanted with matching, but never heard of a messed up library.
That happened to me for a few albums, but when I checked it turned out that European and US versions of the albums were different. With most songs matched, but any songs that were only in the European version unmatched. Another case was an LP with 3 of 11 songs matched, and it turns out that these three songs were on a "best of" album", and the rest not available on iTunes at all.
Last edited:
I think the Mastered for iTunes program is trying to discourage that somewhat.
http://images.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/docs/mastered_for_itunes.pdf
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!!
Harmonics anyone?
The frequencies beyond 15khz affect the frequencies we hear, thus altering the musical perception of an instrument!
Care to give references to scientific publications for that?
How did you read "Apple developing an HD audio format" into the actual news "Apple developing a new audio format with 'adaptive streaming'"?
No one claiming stuff like this ever passed a blind-test, no one ever could even tell 256kb/s AAC files and a CD apart. Frequencies you don't hear don't alter the perception of frequencies you hear, that's audiophile mumbo-jambo.
*edit* Also, even higher or lower frequencies are probably not even recorded by a standard studio microphone in the first place, because recording equipment is based on scientific knowledge about acoustics as well.
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!!
No one claiming stuff like this ever passed a blind-test, no one ever could even tell 256kb/s AAC files and a CD apart. Frequencies you don't hear don't alter the perception of frequencies you hear, that's audiophile mumbo-jambo.
*edit* Also, even higher or lower frequencies are probably not even recorded by a standard studio microphone in the first place, because recording equipment is based on scientific knowledge about acoustics as well.
Last edited:
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.
True, but what format Apple creates now will most likely affect what features they MIGHT release with iTunes in the future. They're not going to release one format they can use on their servers, and then a whole new one for desktop computers if they decide to make it available to the public.
adaptive streaming...
will users be able to stream music from the cloud then or just get better HD sound?
Sorry im a little confused...
will users be able to stream music from the cloud then or just get better HD sound?
Sorry im a little confused...
You are entitled to your own opinion I suppose, but it just happens to be wrong. Apple's worst product ever!