Apple Had 'Worked On' Offering a High-Definition Music Format

[boomhaueruk]

How did he pull that number up? Maybe if the MP3 was @ 64kbps...

And there is a "high-definition music format." It's called FLAC.

Well, this was my question - where is the 5% coming from?
And - another question - by those standards, what % is CD?
Is Vinyl meant to represent 100%?

As for FLAC, I find it quite cumbersome due to lack of cross device support - so I plumped for Apple Lossless when encoding my cd library (after initial trials with 320Kbps Mp3), mainly so the files could sit happily on Itunes alongside any 'mp3 only' files I had.
All too often these days, a band will release a song only on download - no physical media - and that I hate, especially if it's only in 256Kbps - I suffer from some rather nasty tinnitus in my left ear and for some reason that makes me very sensitive to compressed formats now -a 256 is listenable, but the treble 'crunch' is still unpleasant to my ear (s). Anything less is horrible.

Anyway, back to the main question - what does 5% mean?
And what does a CD represent if (say) a 256Kbps apple download file is 5?

 

[zoozx]

Over-compression in the mastering stage almost always leads to inter-sample peaks which are highlighted by MP3 and AAC compression. In some ways, well mastered and recorded music will be less affected by the conversion from PCM/Lossless into MP3 or AAC than poorly recorded music.

This argument for more music-per-GB & bandwidth is moot for the majority of people using iTunes nowadays. With the amount of hard-drive space now readily available, there's no need to continue forcing consumers to listen to inferior quality audio.

Lossless DOES sound better than AAC by quite some margin in some ways (front to back imaging, space between instruments etc) and not so much better in other ways. Either way, it's still a step back from where we were ~10 years ago with CDs.

Vinyl -> CD was a step back in sound
CD -> iTunes was a step back in sound
iTunes -> Spotify was a BIG step back in sound

Sound quality has slowly been eroded by each 'advance' in audio technology over the last 25 years.

A lot of the people who are still spending money on music are the cohort who would be genuinely interested in listening to at least true 44.1k/24bit audio.

If most people heard what their parents' 1990s separates system sounded like with a properly set up and maintained turntable or even a CD player, they'd probably be blown away at just how much stuff they were missing out on with all these crappy iPod Docks, computer 'hifi speakers' which are littering the market and the vast majority of headphones (Beats, Skullkandy, even most Sennheisers etc) which seem to be absolutely rubbish...

All I'm saying is, why not give people the option - you never know maybe people will realise everything they've been listening to isn't quite as it should be.

Just my 2c.

+ 2 more cents.

 

[Codestud]

For years, Super Audio CDs and DVD Audio have both offered quality meant to exceed the standard CD but neither have taken off in the mass market.

So I wouldn't expect music downloads at that sort of quality (which would inevitably attract a premium price) to be taken up with any greater enthusiasm.

I also agree with the comments on mastering. The "loudness" war in mastering means that sound engineers are over compressing music and reducing the quality before it even gets anywhere near our playback equipment.

 

[flynndean]

Apple Lossless is open source under the Apache 2.0 license.

It's not Open Source in the sense that not as many decoders/amplifiers support it as support FLAC.

I have to call out Neil Young on suggesting it would take 30mins to download one song in Lossless format. I do have a very healthy 100mbps connection...but I just downloaded a 70min+ album in a little over 30secs. I doubt it would take as long as 30mins even to download a Lossless Album. The internet can support Lossless and storage is not so much of a problem now that Cloud is truly taking off in the consumer space.

 

[BobbyRond]

Vinyl -> CD was a step back in sound
CD -> iTunes was a step back in sound
iTunes -> Spotify was a BIG step back in sound

Genuine question here: I agree that iTunes and Spotify are both a step back in sound quality, but is CD really a step back from Vinyl?

Yes, vinyl has a certain warmth and depth to it that a CD can't deliver, but without the emotional aspect of it all, is a CD not better in quality?

I don't consider myself an audiophile, but do enjoy music a lot!

 

[subsonix]

It's not Open Source in the sense that not as many decoders/amplifiers support it as support FLAC.

That makes no sense what so ever.

 

[negativzero]

As someone who greatly appreciates high fidelity audio, I've got to say, high definition (aka. lossless) music is rather pointless.

The difference between a 256 kbps AAC file and a lossless file is incredibly minor - especially with the audio equipment that the vast majority of people use. Even to a discerning listener with high quality speakers or a great pair of headphones, the difference will still be very minor. Once you've reached 256kbps, you've passed the point where diminishing returns has taken over any additional data is hardly noticeable - even to an audiophile.

Besides, as long as record producers keep releasing overly compressed, loudness war'd garbage, most music will continue to sound horrible regardless. In most cases, upgrading to lossless music would be like offering a multi-vitamin to someone who has just had his legs blown off. The level of dynamic range compression that exists throughout the music industry is many orders of magnitude more significant in harming overall sound quality than the 256kbps bitrate is.

I disagree on this. While I do concede that at higher bitrates, the sound quality is almost indistinguishable the difference is still monumental, especially if you've got yourself a decent setup. Its not all about listening to the quality and details in music, but a quality-of-life aspect comes into play as well.

The biggest difference between a compressed and lossless format is the "audio fatigue" that sets in quicker when you listen to a compressed song. Compressed formats reduce filesize by eliminating the background noise and inaudible frequencies in music. Sound is captured as vibrations in the eardrums and processed, this includes the inaudible sound which is captured but not processed by the brain.

Listening to a compressed format deprives the ears and brain of those inaudible frequencies and you are subject to sound only from the audible range and the repeated sound from the same frequency range tires out the ears pretty quickly. If you listen to music in a lossless format or from vinyls you would notice you would enjoy music for a far longer period and not tire your ears so easily.

 

[davie18]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple does offer lossless music on the iTunes Store. As part of their agreement with the Beetles, Apple can only sell their music in lossless.

The Beetles?

 

[flynndean]

Well, this was my question - where is the 5% coming from?
And - another question - by those standards, what % is CD?
Is Vinyl meant to represent 100%?

Anyway, back to the main question - what does 5% mean?
And what does a CD represent if (say) a 256Kbps apple download file is 5?

Neil Young didn't say 256kbps is 5%. Although a CD isn't truly Lossless for some Ultra-High Fidelity Music...we can safely assume for our purposes that "Red Book" CD is being referred to as the Standard for Lossless.

2 channels × 44,100 samples per second per channel × 16 bits per sample = 1,411,200 bit/s = 1411.2kbps

1411.2kbps x 5% = Around 70kbps (which admittedly is a low-quality mp3)

Even a 256kbps file has less than 20% of the data (through compression) that a Lossless file would have.

 

[mijail]

The biggest difference between a compressed and lossless format is the "audio fatigue" that sets in quicker when you listen to a compressed song. Compressed formats reduce filesize by eliminating the background noise and inaudible frequencies in music. Sound is captured as vibrations in the eardrums and processed, this includes the inaudible sound which is captured but not processed by the brain.

Listening to a compressed format deprives the ears and brain of those inaudible frequencies and you are subject to sound only from the audible range

Sounds somewhat between interesting and snakeoil copy. Can you point to some source, please?

the repeated sound from the same frequency rangetires out the ears pretty quickly. If you listen to music in a lossless format or from vinyls you would notice you would enjoy music for a far longer period and not tire your ears so easily.

Yep, tose "tired ears" really make me long for some source.

----------

If most people heard what their parents' 1990s separates system sounded like with a properly set up and maintained turntable or even a CD player, they'd probably be blown away at just how much stuff they were missing out on with all these crappy iPod Docks, computer 'hifi speakers' which are littering the market and the vast majority of headphones (Beats, Skullkandy, even most Sennheisers etc) which seem to be absolutely rubbish...

All I'm saying is, why not give people the option - you never know maybe people will realise everything they've been listening to isn't quite as it should be.

Just my 2c.

If you show people how amazing coffee tastes when you grow, select, toast, grind, and brew it yourself, they would not settle for those nasty, convenient capsules!

(my point being: a convenient and reliably "good enough" option can have its merits against a more fragile, more difficult to maintain, arguably better option)

 

[captmatt]

Lossless is not high definition music. CDs are not high definition music.

SACD is high definition music. CDs are 44.1 kHz. Hi-def music starts at 88.2 khz. It gets really good at 176 khz. Most hi-def is available only via download and usually in FLAC (which indeed is a PITA on Macs). Also, an external DAC is required to properly get hi-def music off a computer.

For analogy, if music were video, MP3s would be analog, CDs digital, 88.2 kHz 720P, and 176 kHz is like 1080P.

With the right equipment there is an incredible difference in soundstage and texture.

 

[KnightWRX]

Young claims that MP3s have just "5 percent of the data present in the original recording." Young is concerned that there is no suitable high definition available to consumers.

Young needs to learn about Apple lossless and FLAC.

 

[mijail]

Neil Young didn't say 256kbps is 5%. Although a CD isn't truly Lossless for some Ultra-High Fidelity Music...

And how would you define "Ultra-High Fidelity Music"?

At what point would we accept that you are not hearing the same thing that a good violinist hears while he himself is playing? There are always losses.

2 channels × 44,100 samples per second per channel × 16 bits per sample = 1,411,200 bit/s = 1411.2kbps

1411.2kbps x 5% = Around 70kbps (which admittedly is a low-quality mp3)

Even a 256kbps file has less than 20% of the data (through compression) that a Lossless file would have.

You are mixing compression and loss. Doesn't make sense.

 

[negativzero]

Lossless is not high definition music. CDs are not high definition music.

SACD is high definition music. CDs are 44.1 kHz. Hi-def music starts at 88.2 khz. It gets really good at 176 khz. Most hi-def is available only via download and usually in FLAC (which indeed is a PITA on Macs). Also, an external DAC is required to properly get hi-def music off a computer.

For analogy, if music were video, MP3s would be analog, CDs digital, 88.2 kHz 720P, and 176 kHz is like 1080P.

With the right equipment there is an incredible difference in soundstage and texture.

And vinyl is like imax

 

[KnightWRX]

Well, this was my question - where is the 5% coming from?
And - another question - by those standards, what % is CD?
Is Vinyl meant to represent 100%?

Vynil has worse quality than CD based on the intrinsic nature of the medium. It also loses quality each time you listen to it, unlike CD.

 

[Xcallibur]

How people can think 256kbps is acceptable I do not know. I mean if you use the standard headphones included with iOS devices then you wouldn't hear a difference anyway, but when you start to listen to music on high-quality speakers with subwoofers I can definitely tell the difference between 320kbps and lossless audio.

The fact that 256kbps is the best iTunes can offer is what stops me from purchasing digital albums. Its why I still order my CD's to arrive in the post, at least then I know its the best sound I can get.

 

[negativzero]

Vynil has worse quality than CD based on the intrinsic nature of the medium. It also loses quality each time you listen to it, unlike CD.

Not true. A well taken care of vinyl blows anything out of the water.

 

[flynndean]

That makes no sense what so ever.

Stop being so pedantic. "Open Source" is both a description of the nature of something's development but it is equally (if not more so) about a philosophy/ethos. Apple Lossless might be Open Source technically in the sense of it's development...But it's stinks of "walled garden" approach and as such it's decoder/unpacker is not as widely supported as FLAC's by many (especially older) amplification equipment. It simply isn't feasible as a genuine Lossless Format for many. It's also not as flexible as FLAC, as unless something has changed...I can't even dictate the level of compression that I desire.

It's a Closed-Shop format for a Closed-Shop Company. I understand the arguments about battery concerns on mobile devices...but it should be my choice (such is the spirit of "Open Source") as to what I want to do with MY music. FLAC is the single most popular Lossless file format and it's an absolute crime that Apple still stubbornly refuses to support it.

 

[tom vilsack]

To all the young people out there...if you get the chance at a local flea market,craigs ect...go buy a nice tube receiver,a record player,some nice large wood box speakers,and a album like boston (self titled boston) and you will have a moment! You won't believe what you have missed all these years with your gadgets!

 

[Xcallibur]

Not true. A well taken care of vinyl blows anything out of the water.

Vinyl's are definitely less quality than CD's, yes they are good but they definitely do not carry the same amount of high/low frequencies than in CD audio.

 

[arbitter]

I know the artists want good quality. But it's a fraction of the filesize, and only a minority of people will notice the difference. Especially with normal earplugs.

Isn't it the same as a store having a DVD of a movie, but there isn't a Blu-ray version? And otherwise, playing a Blu-ray on a non-high-definition display is pretty useless as well. Ofcourse you wouldn't pay more for the blu-ray in that case and just get the DVD. And well you wouldn't have a blu-ray player eather.

 

[captmatt]

Its why I still order my CD's to arrive in the post, at least then I know its the best sound I can get.

Actually, CDs are a middling sound source. The best sound available (outside of a well kept vinyl disc, or premium seats in the auditorium) is only via download--but it has to be from certain sites that specialize in it.

----------

The most easily identified sound quality is sibilance. Lower quality sources have harsh "s's". On higher end headphones, low quality sources are painful.

 

[flynndean]

And how would you define "Ultra-High Fidelity Music"?

At what point would we accept that you are not hearing the same thing that a good violinist hears while he himself is playing? There are always losses.



You are mixing compression and loss. Doesn't make sense.

As "negativzero" says in the post below yours...you need to start looking at 88.2 khz (as supported by SACD/DVD Audio) for Ultra-High Fidelity music. Of course, the higher-quality you get...the more the law of diminishing returns comes to the fore.

I'm not mixing compression and loss at all. If anything, you are. A 256kbps file is a 256kbps file. 256kbps AAC might have a "better quality" of encoding than a standard 256kbps mp3 making the audio sound less like it's coming from a lossy file format...but you're still stripping away the same amount of data and the file is still only an approximation of what a true Lossless Format sounds like.

 

[Gugulino]

I often listen to classical music and there it would make perhaps some difference, if the audio-file is compressed or not. There must be a loss of information when you can shrink an Audio-CD with 700 MB music on it to 100 MB. But, I don't think that is as much as 95% as stated by Young.

 

[useme2305]

How did he pull that number up? Maybe if the MP3 was @ 64kbps...

And there is a "high-definition music format." It's called FLAC.

we're talking about a format that contains ALL of the sonic information of studio tape. not just 16bit/44,100Hz WAV. contrary to popular believe The "CD format" still is a highly lossy format. that's not what Young compares MP3s to. he's talking about what comes from the master tape of a studio mixdown.

Neil Young wants a format that pretty much sounds like 24bit/96kHz but small enough for portable devices and digital online retailers.

there is a group of people on the web that specializes on 24bit/96kHz vinyl rips. these are proven to sound pretty much (some might say "almost") as good as pure vinyl when played through decent enough converters. the files are huge though.

on a pure scientific level these 24bit/96kHz provide enough depth and space on a timeline to host audio data that can come from a vinyl disc without sonic AND beyond sonic loss. (Source: Professional Audio Magazine Germany)