Why dont they upgrade the sound engine too so that we can stop using applications like Amarra or PureMusic in order to get some descent sound quality?
Probably because they (unlike some apparently) know that you can't hear the sonic information above 20kHz and so 192kHz sampling playback is a waste of freaking time (and iTunes already has Apple Lossless so FLAC is moot). By the way,
decent doesn't have an 's' in it.
I find it interesting that Pure Music also pushes Pure Vinyl when Vinyl has even less high frequency information than basic red book CD (there's a LOT of white noise up there, though if you like random static sounds, which the LP is famous for or should I say infamous? Personally, I think LPs sound like rubbish compared to a good digital recording as the slightest click or pop instantly reminds me I'm listening to a recording and not the real thing.
Feel free to respond with the usual gibberish audiophiles like to go on about with so-called "high resolution" playback formats. But people should keep in mind these groups are the same people that refuse to do proper double-blind ABX testing to actually PROVE they can hear ANYTHING what-so-ever when they make their often ridiculous claims of super-hearing and these are often the same groups that bought goofy snake-oil items like CD-mats and green CD pens back in the day that supposedly improved CD music, but in actual controlled testing the former made the player track WORSE and putting a green outline around your CD does absolutely NOTHING (except make you poorer for spending $40 on a 50-cent green marker, but then a sucker is born every day and a lot of people got rich off this nonsense).
If you want better quality mainstream music, tell the mixing and mastering engineers to stop listening to tone-deaf music executives that think "louder = better" so they can do their job properly and produce a quality product rather than something like the Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication album (the worst example I can think of offhand where an album was RUINED in the mastering stage for the sake of "loud" and just clips EVERYWHERE constantly.
BTW, I recorded my own album at 24-bit resolution, but it was for headroom purposes (release was 16-bit/44.1 and not there is no audible difference between the master and release). There's no need for >120dB volume swings. I'm not launching the Space Shuttle on my album and neither does anyone want to have their hearing destroyed in hearing such a thing at full volume to get that level of dynamic range. In fact, even well recorded albums typically have less than 90dB dynamic range for the most part. Anything beyond around 18-bit playback is pointless and anything beyond a 48kHz sampling is even more pointless. You'd do better to invest more money in room treatments or towards better speakers than wasting over $100 on software product that playback 192KHz recordings (and good luck finding them to purchase in the first place beyond the limited SACD and DVD-Audio catalogs out there).
iTunes (or any player) has not a bit perfect sound reproduction when you change the volume. The lower you set the volume the more bits will be rejected and you will end up with a dull sound when it plays in low levels. This can be addressed with sound dithering.
The idea that an analog volume control doesn't lose detail as it attenuates the signal, but a digital one does is absurd. Both methods are decreasing the real world physical volume and thus decreasing the maximum potential dynamic range in the room at the same time. It's an old Stereophile tale that you should buy analog pots rather than use a digital control. Analog pots have the additional negative aspect of adding noise to the signal in the analog domain (all analog devices add noise to the chain). You're far better off keeping things digital as much as possible in the chain. But like everything else, people "think" they hear a difference after it's been suggested to them. It magically disappears when they do an ABX test (they then start blaming the ABX boxes for nullifying the differences by polluting the chain somehow, unlike their analog volume knobs which apparently don't add anything to it).
Of course, any doubts (or paranoia) could be avoided with iTunes/AppleTV setups by simply keeping iTunes digital volume at maximum and using the analog or digital volume control on your receiver/pre-amp/speakers instead of using iTunes itself for volume control. I see no need for a 3rd party program to simply deal with volume control....
Funny thing that cover flow was removed... Steve was so happy about the cover flow on the phone when it came out. Surprised they are getting rid of this, even if "rarely used." If 1% of iTunes users loved cover flow, that's still a lot of people having to do without it.
I used it for movies (creates a nice list with a decent sized artwork preview) and albums when I wanted to see the art more clearly. I don't see any reason for them to remove an OPTION. It only makes the product worse, IMO.
Tim Cook claims to read his e-mails (at least some of them). People should start letting him know their feelings about Cover Flow being removed if it bothers them (I doubt general iTunes feedback would make as much an impact, but there's that option as well).
You got a Weiss Medea DAC?? With a pair of Tidals?? And using iTunes? Are you for real????
WTF does using iTunes have to do with anything? Apple Lossless serves just fine (and I've already explained the rest). Having a massive media library controlled from AppleTV is tres cool (with an iPod Touch remote as well). With my Gen1 ATV, I can even play my DTS music library through it with no issues (another thing they screwed up in sub-sequent versions).
