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

[boomish]

A very interesting point and I am glad Mr Young has been bold enough to speak out about it, he has a valid point, I'm no audio file or consumer but I am an audio engineer and understand both points, compressed MP3's are a very small portion of the original sound, like a jpeg of a picture, and hi sample rate formats can sound incredible. But can people hear the difference and will they pay for it?
I once tested the Sony SACD and that did sound incredible, I could easily pick out in a blind test from an MP3 and other formats, I expect like people would see HD over SD.
Which is a good example when I first got my Sky HD box to go with my 50" plasma I couldn't really see what the fuss was about, ok yes it's slightly better I would say, but now after years of watching I wouldn't watch anything else I love my HD and can see SD programmes poor quality immediately so I wonder how our bodies change to these more natural higher quaintly formats.

I do know our hearing is very underestimated, I explain to students I meet and my kids how our hearing even compared to our eyes are akin to a super power!
If our eyes were measured in a musical octave it could span something like one octave where as our ears are ten times that, our ear drums just moving a few microns can detect the lowest sound to a massive 120+db noise. They also have incredible filters we don't even understand, how over a large party noise of people and music we can hear a lower noise like a doorbell or our name being called, our brain can filter through and discern important noises to our brain. Our ears are really an incredible part of our body, doctors still don't really know how they work fully.

So with this in mind I do wonder by feeding our incredibly powerful listening ears a diet of highly compressed files how it affects us, I wonder if it causes bad moods and agitation , because of the lack of information in the signals, the small digital peaks, smears and spikes cause a loss of sensory feeling with the sound. Analogue distortion is often nice and warm sounding, digital is mostly always nasty so while we might be able to listen to an old beatles record or tape cassette listening to a poor res mp3 is just not the same.

just a few thoughts..

 

[flynndean]

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.

Sound is Analogue. A Vinyl is a true Analogue reproduction of the sound captured in a Studio (assuming the recording process is also analogue), it therefore the BEST reproduction of sound available.

Any Digital format (including CD, SACD, DVD Audio, DVD, Blu-Ray) is merely a snapshop/approximation of an analogue recording. In the case of CDs, the original Audio is captured at a 44,100Hz Sampling Frequency...it is by definition not as good as the original source.

In Photography/Movies, an Analogue Format (eg. Film) is a better reproduction of the captured image than a Digital Camera. Digital Cameras/Camcorders provide an approximation of the captured image by converting it into data and as such and by definition will always be worse than the an analogue original. When you buy into higher megapixel cameras...you're buying into the idea that a higher number of pixels = a better approximation of what we previously got from good old analogue film.

The advantage of CDs/Digital File Formats is convenience/durability. Vinyl takes a lot of care and attention to keep in prime condition or you will experience the notorious hiss/popping...but the fact is, when they are in good condition...they are a better reproduction of sound than any CD or Lossless Digital format in that they are an exact copy of what was produced in the studio (assuming analogue source). As soon as you go digital...there is fidelity loss (however minor).

The digital age has brought with it many things...but the fact is...what I was listening to in the 80s/90s on my beloved separates is better even than my Lossless Library I have now...providing your medium is in good condition.

Film > Hard Drives/Memory Cards
Vinyl > CDs/Lossless File Formats

 

[mijail]

I'm not mixing compression and loss at all. If anything, you are.

You did, exactly here (bolded):

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 were calculating uncompressed bitrate, and then jumped to a 5%, saying that this is a low-quality mp3. And the "less than 20% data (through compression)" further conflates compression and lossy coding.

It all comes to the difference between bitrate and information, and the process of reducing the original information (sound) to an interesting subset of data (digitized, filtered according to psychoacustic profiles) to a compressed bitrate.

Succintly explained in 4.2 of this document.

You can simply conflate (lossless) compression and lossy encoding by calling them together lossy compression, that's typical. But when you later add this:

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

...then sorry, you are conflating them in an wrong way. 256kbps AAC of course strips away different information than 256kbps MP3. They use different lossy encoding. They are lossy compression in different ways. That's the point of AAC, duh. Why else use AAC?

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but since you started whipping out numbers I thought precission would be appreciated.

 

[Lennholm]

Do people actually use the crappy headphones Apple ship? Mine always end up staying in the box...cant stand them.

I'd rather they didn't ship any at all and had a better selection of 3rd party headphones in store.

Unfortunetely they do, I see (and hear) those white headphones everywhere on the train. Not only are they crappy sounding, they also leak sound so severly that everyone around has to listen to their music (and oh the music people listen to...). It's basically as if they're using the speaker on the iPhone rather than headphones.

 

[Andretti]

Vinyl versus vinyl

I once had the opportunity to compare two versions of the same song on vinyl.

Layo and Buswacka's "Love Story" on two record players, playing simultaneous.

On one record player a "compressed" album version to be played at 33 turns.

On the other a 12 inch version to be played at 45 turns.

The difference in depth and overall sound quality was huge!

No compression please!!!

 

[flynndean]

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but since you started whipping out numbers I thought precission would be appreciated.

So essentially you are taking issue with my use of the word "compression" and the fact I didn't differentiate between compression that reduces the size of a file and compression that strips the fidelity of the music?

So what I said still stands unless the reader is being a completely anal-retentive pedant surely? All I was doing is suggesting to another person how Neil Young might have come up with his 5% figure.

The following statements are both true are they not?:

1) A 256kbps file contains less than 20% of the data of an uncompressed Lossless File Format.

2) A 256kbps AAC File strips away different information than a 256kbps mp3 but essentially represents the same loss of fidelity (though the sound might be better perceived to the listener) when compared to a Lossless File Format.

P.S. If you are going to pedantically complain about nothing, at least make sure to spell words correctly in your response, otherwise you leave yourself open to cheap shots from people who are pedantic about spelling. ;-)

 

[mijail]

Sound is Analogue. A Vinyl is a true Analogue reproduction of the sound captured in a Studio (assuming the recording process is also analogue), it therefore the BEST reproduction of sound available.

Wrong. Analogue mediums have their own resolution limits, they simply are less clearcut than on digital mediums. You can't record any arbitrary frequency on vinyl, for example.

Any Digital format (including CD, SACD, DVD Audio, DVD, Blu-Ray) is merely a snapshop/approximation of an analogue recording. In the case of CDs, the original Audio is captured at a 44,100Hz Sampling Frequency...it is by definition not as good as the original source.

Misleading. Any recording is by definition worse than the original source - unless we talk about digital recording of a digital source with known parameters. That's (one reason) why digital is used, it is more reliable.

You can't make a copy of the world to stash it away; you have to select a part of it. With digital, at least you can decide exactly which part you want to keep.

In Photography/Movies, an Analogue Format (eg. Film) is a better reproduction of the captured image than a Digital Camera.Digital Cameras/Camcorders provide an approximation of the captured image by converting it into data and as such and by definition will always be worse than the an analogue original. When you buy into higher megapixel cameras...you're buying into the idea that a higher number of pixels = a better approximation of what we previously got from good old analogue film.

Wrong. Case in point: the Lytro cameras make a much better copy of the world than any analog medium could.

The advantage of CDs/Digital File Formats is convenience/durability.

And precission, and ease of process and storage, and ...

Vinyl takes a lot of care and attention to keep in prime condition or you will experience the notorious hiss/popping...but the fact is, when they are in good condition...

Wrong. No matter how you take care of them, a vinyl is being touched physically by the needle. It will eventually degrade. The "infinite" precission of the analogue world is its very downfall. A small, molecule-sized hole in the vinyl represents a small wave in the sound. But was that hole there originally or was a molecule of vinyl scratched away by the needle?

Meanwhile, a digital medium can be checked and even corrected.

they are a better reproduction of sound than any CD or Lossless Digital format in that they are an exact copy of what was produced in the studio (assuming analogue source). As soon as you go digital...there is fidelity loss (however minor).

It's difficult to say "exact" and "analog" in the same sentence and keep making sense.

The digital age has brought with it many things...but the fact is...what I was listening to in the 80s/90s on my beloved separates is better even than my Lossless Library I have now...providing your medium is in good condition.

And therein lies (one of) the rub(s).

 

[/V\acpower]

Sound is Analogue. A Vinyl is a true Analogue reproduction of the sound captured in a Studio (assuming the recording process is also analogue), it therefore the BEST reproduction of sound available.

Any Digital format (including CD, SACD, DVD Audio, DVD, Blu-Ray) is merely a snapshop/approximation of an analogue recording. In the case of CDs, the original Audio is captured at a 44,100Hz Sampling Frequency...it is by definition not as good as the original source.

In Photography/Movies, an Analogue Format (eg. Film) is a better reproduction of the captured image than a Digital Camera. Digital Cameras/Camcorders provide an approximation of the captured image by converting it into data and as such and by definition will always be worse than the an analogue original. When you buy into higher megapixel cameras...you're buying into the idea that a higher number of pixels = a better approximation of what we previously got from good old analogue film.

The advantage of CDs/Digital File Formats is convenience/durability. Vinyl takes a lot of care and attention to keep in prime condition or you will experience the notorious hiss/popping...but the fact is, when they are in good condition...they are a better reproduction of sound than any CD or Lossless Digital format in that they are an exact copy of what was produced in the studio (assuming analogue source). As soon as you go digital...there is fidelity loss (however minor).

The digital age has brought with it many things...but the fact is...what I was listening to in the 80s/90s on my beloved separates is better even than my Lossless Library I have now...providing your medium is in good condition.

Film > Hard Drives/Memory Cards
Vinyl > CDs/Lossless File Formats

Vinyl still isnt a "true reproduction". Even if the medium is analog it doesn't make it "perfect".

To make an analogy, its like asking which have a better "definition", a Polaroid Picture or a 10 megapixel Camera ? In a sense one could argue that the Polaroid don't show any "pixel", that it is an analog "reproduction" of a real image at a precise moment, and that since by definition the 10 Mpx camera is a numeric reproduction, it will always barely be "squares" that try to make an approximation of a real life image.

However it isn't true that you capture "more info" necessarily on an analog recording. In the polaroid you can't see pixels, but there is still a limit to the definition, its just harder to measure and the limit is more "blurry". But it is there. Some digital cameras will capture way more details than a lot of analog camera.

Some peoples still prefer the "organic" feeling they get from analog recordings or photography, but to say that "Sound is analog, Vinyl is analog, therefore Vinyl is a TRUE reproduction of the original sound" is simply false. Analog also have limits, it just don't come in convenient numbers.

 

[useme2305]

to everyone stating that 5% is incorrect:

neil young is not talking about the (still lossy) 16bit/44.100Hz CD format versus mp3 (aac). he's talking about vinyl and studio masters (tape) versus mp3.

read my post on the previous page for more.

if you read up on his views on audio a bit more on the web you'll quickly come to the conclusion that he couldn't care less about CDs either.

 

[thatisme]

I remember an interview a while back with the dude that runs Beats Audio... can't remember his name, but he explained what the real problem is with audio today.

From that he mentioned that when a studio records an artist performing, during the recording and mixing phase of the production, the studio caps the highs and lows of the recording to bring the total range down more in line with the mids. He said it happens with all studio recordings, and that there are very few exceptions. This is the true bane of the sound quality issue. The file format of 256k or 128K is that the sound gets further compressed, but even offering 1,000K or higher files won't solve the issue that was introduced by the producer of the music.

True HD audio or Ultra-High audio would need to make sure that the total production of the music was done without compression. Mixing would need to be done with the entire range of sound.

Here in lies the problem. Most of todays musicians (if you can really call them that) would sound like crap if they weren't heavily produced. Many people would pass on a terrible sounding artist uncompressed and move to the heavily processed compressed version.

Just think... Kanye West, Aerosmith, Black Eyed Peas would make your ears bleed. Now, Norah Jones or Buble, etc with full accompaniment would fare well.

 

[mijail]

So what I said still stands unless the reader is being a completely anal-retentive pedant surely?

Oh, ok. Of course, if the reader doesn't care then you can say whatever pleases you. Go on.

The following statements are both true are they not?:

1) A 256kbps file contains less than 20% of the data of an uncompressed Lossless File Format.

I can't answer that if you don't define data.
If you are talking about initial vs. final bitrate, might be. (might because I didn't check the numbers)

2) A 256kbps AAC File strips away different information than a 256kbps mp3 but essentially represents the same loss of fidelity (though the sound might be better perceived to the listener) when compared to a Lossless File Format.

So, summarizing, "it's different but it's almost the same but might be different".
Ok. Whatever. We're not being anal-retentive, aren't we?

P.S. If you are going to pedantically complain about nothing, at least make sure to spell words correctly in your response, otherwise you leave yourself open to cheap shots from people who are pedantic about spelling. ;-)

Let'em have a shot, at least I will learn something. English is not my first language, and I am writing in a harry. ;P

 

[/V\acpower]

And also, one could make an argument about the fact that even "human perception", whether its sound or image, is not a perfect reproduction. If we take the eye for example, the retina is basically "pixels" on a membrane that react to light. however those aren't "perfect square", but the quality of the image you see is really defined by the density of those cells on the retina. Very dense in the center and way less as you move away.

Even the eye isn't a perfect reproduction of real life.

 

[Rogifan]

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

If Apple really cares about audio quality, they'd ship and sell better headphones. Music is only ever as good as the speakers being used.

If Apple sold good quality headphones I'd buy a pair. I had to return Monsters twice to BB. Now I'm using Klipsch, which aren't half bad.

 

[subsonix]

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.

I'm not pedantic, you are mixing things up that was the point of my remark. The fact that it's not as widely supported outside apple has to do with that it was open sourced just a few months ago. The fact that it is now open source means that it can be ported everywhere.

The current availability, or your opinion about feature set is completely unrelated.

It's a Closed-Shop format for a Closed-Shop Company.

It's open source, so by definition you are wrong. The Apache license is even more permitting than GPL which used for FLAC. The potential for ALACs spread is limitless.

 

[lamerica80]

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

QUOTE]

I disagree. I think a CD sounds better than Vinyl. No more crackle n pops. CD to Mp3 was initially a bad deal when the standard was 128kps, however these days im not sure i could hear much of a difference if the source material and speakers are good.

ITunes => Spotify..well Spotify offers up to 320kps for premium members unlike Itunes.

Also, digital recording hardware have improved greatly over the last 20 years providing much better compression possiblities.

 

[androiphone]

True HD audio or Ultra-High audio would need to make sure that the total production of the music was done without compression. Mixing would need to be done with the entire range of sound.

you mean the production has to be done 'without loss', not 'without compression', as you can have compressed lossless music (ALAC/FLAC)

 

[flynndean]

to say that "Sound is analog, Vinyl is analog, therefore Vinyl is a TRUE reproduction of the original sound" is simply false.

I completely agree with a lot of what you said and particularly liked the use of the Polaroid example! ;-)

Of course you're only as good as your medium's limitations and of course there are variables in the recording process that can distort the sounds that were actually made in the studio, but given perfect condition and high-end equipment...a Vinyl is an EXACT copy of the sound that the Producer had on his mixing desk and in his monitors.

Vinyl in perfect condition is better than any current digital format (Lossless/CD/SACD/DVD-Audio) by definition and Vinyl really is (if you can avoid the hiss and pop) the best format (in terms of representation of Artist vision) to listen to music via that has ever been commercially available.

Don't get me wrong...my house isn't full of Vinyl & Film Reels and I don't have a Dark Room...It's all about Digital Audio, Blu-Ray & Digital SLR. But I'm not so naive as to suggest I haven't compromised on absolute quality in favour of convenience.

I think we agree anyway...just needed a little wiggling on the details. ;-)

 

[KnightWRX]

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

Citation needed. The plain fact is, vinyl is a soft material, relies thorougly on mechanical parts and friction to achieve the proper effect and as such, gets worn over time. Not to mention it is quite imperfect to begin with (no, those "crackles" and "pops" aren't "better quality", quite the contrary). Also, vinyl is quite an analog medium and as such is vulnerable to all the problems that brings with it.

 

[gjwfoasfsaevg]

The biggest difference between a compressed and lossless format is the "audio fatigue" that sets in quicker when you listen to a compressed song.

Please cite a scientific study that found this result.

Compressed formats reduce filesize by eliminating the background noise and inaudible frequencies in music.

Wrong. They are quantized more coarsely, they are not eliminated.

you are subject to sound only from the audible range and the repeated sound from the same frequency range

This is pure fantasy.

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.

Yes, for the same reasons some people enjoy music more when they use golden cables: imagination.

 

[androiphone]

OK the ALAC file format supports:

1. Bit depths 16, 20, 24 and 32 bits.
2. Any arbitrary integer sample rate from 1 to 384,000 Hz. In theory rates up to 4,294,967,295 (2^32 - 1) Hz could be supported.
3. From one to eight channels are supported.

AFAIK the best music at the studio is captured in Stereo WAV DXD 24BIT/352.8kHz, this produces pretty large files (1GB per 10min), and WAV by design has no metadata.

so if we take the WAV DXD files put them in ALAC you would get the same quality files at a lower file size, plus you get full metadata support, which makes backing up and using your files easy.

this is the full feature set of ALAC: http://alac.macosforge.org/trac/browser/trunk/ReadMe.txt
I don't know what the full feature set of FLAC is but the point is moot as you can convert between them with zero loss so if ALAC isn't your thing then it's no sweat.

 

[KnightWRX]

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.

So like the Mad Mule said, It's called FLAC. If you're agreeing with him, why reply ?

FLAC supports any PCM bit resolution, 4 - 32 bits, and supports audio at sample rates up to 655,350 Hz.

I don't really get your point.

 

[d0nK]

mp3 and wav comparison:

http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2010/04/sound-test-difference-between-wav-vs-mp3/

Night and day.

 

[KnightWRX]

I don't know what the full feature set of FLAC is but the point is moot as you can convert between them with zero loss so if ALAC isn't your thing then it's no sweat.

FLAC is quite like ALAC in the specs, albeit, it's more widely supported outside the Apple eco-system.

Apple should just scrap ALAC and go with FLAC and get some industry support behind an open, lossless format.

 

[useme2305]

So like the Mad Mule said, It's called FLAC. If you're agreeing with him, why reply ?

FLAC supports any PCM bit resolution, 4 - 32 bits, and supports audio at sample rates up to 655,350 Hz.

I don't really get your point.

i was just replying to the 5% part. he actually answered his own question in his post by stating that there is flac with all of its bitrates and samplerates, yes. flac is not at all what neil young is trying to achieve, though.

and i'm not agreeing with the originally quoted poster at all. read my post again carefully.

 

[KnightWRX]

Yes, for the same reasons some people enjoy music more when they use golden cables: imagination.

What you mean my 3k$ Pear Anjou cables aren't (and I quote) "danceable thanks to their PRAT" ?

http://www.pearcable.com/sub_products_anjou_sc.htm

"In extended listening sessions, I found the cables' greatest strength to be its PRAT. Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace—these cables smack that right on the nose big time."

Yeah, I definately got that "audiophile" vibe from negativezero's post also.