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

[mijail]

Since you seem to just repeat without answering any corrections, I'll just re-remark the wrongs. Which are more than 1 per sentence, man.

of course there are variables in the recording process that can distort the sounds that were actually made in the studio,

If you go digital ASAP, no unwanted distortion can happen.

but given perfect condition and high-end equipment...

Perfect doesn't exist.

a Vinyl is an EXACT copy of the sound that the Producer had on his mixing desk and in his monitors.

Wrong, even absurd. You can't even really compare them to find the differences. (but digitally, you can!)

Vinyl in perfect condition is better than any current digital format

Measured how?

(Lossless/CD/SACD/DVD-Audio) by definition

Absurd. Care to point to which definition you keep referring to?

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.

Von Karajan, that little-known classical music conductor, begs to differ.

 

[flynndean]

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 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.

No word-war intended my friend. I come in peace!

The fact it wasn't an Open Source project from the beginning means it's all too little, too late. Apple knows that Apple Lossless' restrictions put the Audiophile Community off precisely because those sort of people were also intelligent enough to realise that it all smelt too much of selling one's soul to Mr. Jobs & his cronies and submitting yourself to a world of Apple with little or no room for expression of difference/manoeuvrability/customisation.

I didn't mix anything up at all, I just obviously give more weight to Open Source as meaning something more than the programming/licensing aspect. Open Source is more a cultural thing for me (as it is for many) and the fact that Apple has opened up their lossless format is nothing more than a token gesture at this stage to a community that still sees a company steadfastly refusing to compromise and adopt any standard that they cannot control with a vice-like grip (as shown by the refusal to support FLAC which is as close as we have to a standard Lossless Format)

They may have opened-up Apple Lossless as a file format...but what they haven't done is open-up the infrastructure that supports it (which they also control).

We'll have to agree to disagree I feel...but I know that for a lot of people, encoding into an Apple Format ("Open Source" or otherwise) will happen over their cold, dead bodies and that sadly, this restricts them from fully utilising what otherwise might be a VERY useful suite of products.

 

[Takeo]

Apple Lossless is low definition. We're not talking about bit rates and such. We're not talking about lossless. The best you will get with a Lossless file is CD quality. CD quality is NOT high definition. I have an SACD player. That is a high definition format from Sony that is basically dead. I am NOT an audiophile. Not at all. I just have a basic theatre amp and some okay but FAR from audiophile speakers (some Infinity towers I paid about $1000 for). The difference between CD and SACD is simple breathtaking. Unbelievable. It really is like the band or singer or whatever is right in the room. It's amazing. THAT is what Young is talking about.

 

[negativzero]

Please cite a scientific study that found this result.



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



This is pure fantasy.



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

You don't need a scientific study for this. It's just as common sense to know that you get tired from listening to music or watching the tv for long periods. You don't need a phd study to tell you that. And it doesn't matter if it's eliminated or quantized more coarsely, the detail is still being stripped, loss of detail means repeated sounding leading to audio fatigue. Say what you want, but it's a fact. Quite similar to the phenomenon where people sleep better when subject to white noise from a tv or the hum from the air conditioner as compared to sleeping in a completely silent room. It's all about the quality of life and what we are used to and human ears need that in audible noise because minute changes in pressure in the ear can have an impact on our life.

 

[stordoff]

Apple Lossless is low definition. We're not talking about bit rates and such. We're not talking about lossless. The best you will get with a Lossless file is CD quality.

Not true at all. ALAC can easily handle bit and sample rates far beyond what a CD can. If you could find a way to rip the SACD to a PC (not easy AFAIK), you could compress it with ALAC and get exactly the same quality.

 

[KnightWRX]

I didn't mix anything up at all, I just obviously give more weight to Open Source as meaning something more than the programming/licensing aspect.

I'll state that I agree with you on ALAC. FLAC is it. It should be it. Apple should drop ALAC like a bad habit.

However, you should definately shift your view on Open Source. It means nothing more than a licensing model. The Open Source Initiative started by Eric S. Raymond only qualifies projects based on their license choice or the wording of the license if it is a new license.

The APSL 2.0 is a OSI recgonized Open Source license :

Open Source Initiative OSI - The Apple Public Source License 2.0:Licensing

 

[mijail]

You don't need a scientific study for this.
...
Say what you want, but it's a fact.
...
It's all about the quality of life and what we are used to and human ears need that in audible noise because minute changes in pressure in the ear can have an impact on our life.

You finally moved into snakeoil / Oprah land there.
(mhm, wondering if there is some Ayurveda rule against digital thingies? ;P)

 

[KnightWRX]

You don't need a scientific study for this. It's just as common sense to know that you get tired from listening to music or watching the tv for long periods.

Sure I do, but that isn't dependant on the medium. I'd get as tired listening to vynil as I do a CD or a mp3 or whatever.

----------

flac is not at all what neil young is trying to achieve, though.

Yes, it is. He wants lossless, studio fidelity. You can't invent things that aren't there on the studio tape and FLAC can reproduce every last bit of information there.

So really, what is Neil Young trying to achieve then if not FLAC/ALAC ? Sounds like Neil Young doesn't understand that it's already here. He's an artist, not a techy, it's alright that he doesn't know about tech that is already out there.

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

Yeah, I read your post and it seems to me you agree. You just don't want it to be true.

 

[righteye]

QUOTE ma2ha3 "Steve Jobs listened to vinyl at home... because it sounded better than his iPod" by Lydia Warren

maybe so but when mobile i'am sure he used a pod/phone as does the rest of us.

Apple will eventually sell higher res files as people move to FLAC or buy higher res file from elsewhere they will see sales dip and give us what we want.
Personally i have started buying CDs again using max to convert to FLAC or buying FLAC and then listen through Decibel on my B&W MM1 speakers and there is definitely a better sound than Tunes+MP3

 

[negativzero]

Sure I do, but that isn't dependant on the medium. I'd get as tired listening to vynil as I do a CD or a mp3 or whatever.

----------



Yes, it is. He wants lossless, studio fidelity. You can't invent things that aren't there on the studio tape and FLAC can reproduce every last bit of information there.

So really, what is Neil Young trying to achieve then if not FLAC/ALAC ? Sounds like Neil Young doesn't understand that it's already here. He's an artist, not a techy, it's alright that he doesn't know about tech that is already out there.



Yeah, I read your post and it seems to me you agree. You just don't want it to be true.

No but my argument was that you get tired faster from listening to compressed audio.

 

[Takeo]

Not true at all. ALAC can easily handle bit and sample rates far beyond what a CD can. If you could find a way to rip the SACD to a PC (not easy AFAIK), you could compress it with ALAC and get exactly the same quality.

Okay well I was half right then The point being the Apple Lossless is generally synonymous with being ripped from CD... and CD is not high-def.

SACD is 1-bit by the way... which you may know. Not sure of the science behind the format but the sound really is night and day even on a normal system.

 

[KnightWRX]

No but my argument was that you get tired faster from listening to compressed audio.

Having been listening to MP3s for about what... 15 years now, I will have to ask for a citation on that one.

I don't get more or less tired no matter the medium in my own experience.

----------

Okay well I was half right then The point being the Apple Lossless is generally synonymous with being ripped from CD... and CD is not high-def.

No, you were wrong since you based your comment on a flawed premise. ALAC is not CD.

 

[flynndean]

One thing we can see from where this thread ended up is that the age-old Format War argument is still alive and well.

Analogue vs. Digital is an unwinnable war as there are people who will steadfastly defend both sides to the hilt and will refuse to see the logic in subjectivity. I like analogue recorded music, mixed analogue and committed to analogue format as I believe it offers a better end product than digitally recorded music, mixed digitally and committed to digital format (though I accept that my Vinyl will degrade over time).

To all the Digital Medium Nazis out there...I call Godwin's Law on this one!

 

[Winni]

Finally some one that speaks my language. I'm 31 and in remember that in past people used to have an hi-fi system an listen to vinyl and CD. Today people listen to music in crappy pc speaker and ipod headphones. Most people don't have hi-fi system. That's not evolution!

I turn 42 in March and have evolved over the years into a person that only listens to music in the car and on "crappy" PC speakers and subwoofers. I don't miss my old hi-fi systems, I don't miss vinyl. Because, you know, after more than 30 years of Heavy Metal and other loud music, my ears simply don't hear the difference anymore. I also cannot take self-proclaimed "audiophiles" serious; these people usually debate over stuff that not even my dogs with their perfect ears could hear or that probably even a spectrum analyzer could not measure anymore. But apparently everybody needs some sort of cult, so let them have theirs.

 

[d0nK]

... The point being the Apple Lossless is generally synonymous with being ripped from CD... and CD is not high-def.

Maybe not, but lossless CD quality is certainly hi-res compared to lossy mp3 format. I think this is the point that Neil Young was making; mp3's are "21st Century Low-Res" and lossless is the high-res that we should be using. Sure, I'd be happy with lossless 24bit/48000Hz, but even 16bit/44100Hz is a night and day difference when compared to an mp3.

 

[jowie]

Vinyl -> CD was a step back in sound

I really hate this argument.

I *love* vinyl. But there is no way that vinyl quality can beat a high-end CD player. It's just not technically possible.

 

[firestarter]

Screw Apple Lossless though...What we need is support for FLAC or some other true Open-Source Lossless format on iPod/iPhone. I will pay more and should be the one to decide on how much I'll compromise on Fidelity vs. Space-Saving.

Apple open-sourced the ALAC codec.

It's lossless, so you an move it to and from ALAC and FLAC with no degradation.

----------

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

Well, that's not the definition of open source.

 

[KnightWRX]

Analogue vs. Digital is an unwinnable war as there are people who will steadfastly defend both sides to the hilt and will refuse to see the logic in subjectivity.

There is no logic in subjectivity. That's the point of subjectivity. If you want logic, you go with objectivity.

And really, if Analog vs Digital is quite winnable. Show me the specs where Analog wins. It's that easy. Digital can reproduce with 100% fidelity whatever comes out of the studio. Show me an analog medium that can then bring that 100% fidelity from the studio master to your home, and I will definately back you up that analog is as good as digital.

 

[Sol]

Finally some one that speaks my language. I'm 31 and in remember that in past people used to have an hi-fi system an listen to vinyl and CD. Today people listen to music in crappy pc speaker and ipod headphones. Most people don't have hi-fi system. That's not evolution!

You are romanticising the past. There is still a hi-fi market and iPods gave it a boost. People are listening to music more than ever today and they need good systems to hear it. If quality is irrelevant today as you claim then why are there so many headphones and high-end hi-fi with dock inputs? Today you can hold a modest library of lossless files that are CD-quality in your phone and that is a better option than FM radio or any walkman in the 80s and 90s.

Inevitably iTunes will have better-than-CD quality files and iPods will have HD audio hardware, if they do not already.

 

[janstett]

Apparently a lot of people here don't seem to know the difference between

• Compression -- generally lossy such as MP3 and AAC. Works by eliminating information that is not likely to be heard but also means quality compromises to adjust to given bit rates (which is why 320kpbs and 96kbps MP3s do not sound the same) and plays numerous psychoacoustic tricks based on human hearing.
• Dynamic Range Compression -- The loudness war, pumping up the silent areas to maximum loudness and leads to clipping -- everything is loud for listening on crappy car stereos and earbuds
• Lossless Audio -- Still compressed but no information is lost. However, in general we are still speaking of CD quality audio (44-16)
• High Definition Audio -- such as on Blu-Ray, DVD-A, SACD. 24-bit samples and sampling rates > 44 kHz, typically 96 kHz. These are also stored in a lossless format such as FLAC. And these high sampling/bit rates reproduce the vinyl experience better. Not only includes stereo but surround sound audio as well.

Neil Young is talking about the latter.

There are already sites such as HDTracks that offer HD audio in FLAC. But it would be a great thing for Apple to adopt both lossless CD quality and HD audio in the iTunes store and make high quality audio mainstream.

 

[subsonix]

We'll have to agree to disagree I feel...but I know that for a lot of people, encoding into an Apple Format ("Open Source" or otherwise) will happen over their cold, dead bodies and that sadly, this restricts them from fully utilising what otherwise might be a VERY useful suite of products.

I'll go ahead and agree with ya on this, it is rather sad if this is the case, why choose this self imposed restriction?

 

[jowie]

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.

This is only true if the process of creating the vinyl and the vinyl record itself were of such an amazing quality that it could cover the full frequency response and dynamic range of the human ear. Which it can't.

Just because the recording process is analogue, it doesn't mean that analogue-to-analogue = best reproduction. In fact, with each analogue transfer in the chain, you are adding more noise and destroying definition. The only truly 'lossless' transfer from recording to hit the customer's ear is digital.

If the recording was done using some multi-track tape machine, then this machine itself introduces its own noise into the process, albeit very low. Noise floor, wow & flutter, etc. Then it is mixed-down to stereo on a different tape machine, again, more noise added to the floor. Then mastered for vinyl disc pressing adding more noise, and then possibly copies made of the master, which then are duplicated, then the duplicates are duplicated... With every step, you are adding more and more noise. With pure digital, even in the mastering and duplicating process, the sound can be reproduced with enough perfection that no human ear could hear the difference.

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.

Even if the original had a higher frequency response, the only reason for this is so that less noise is introduced in other analogue stages of the process. Any noise produced by converting a higher frequency response to digital is not an issue, because it is outside the human hearing range. The only reason to say analogue is better than digital at this stage, is because you don't like the idea of missing information you cannot hear anyway.

 

[Sol]

I really hate this argument.

I *love* vinyl. But there is no way that vinyl quality can beat a high-end CD player. It's just not technically possible.

You are right. I think some audiophiles say "better than" meaning "preferred to". The vinyl experience is different to CD or iPod and if that is your bag then good for you but newer technology wins the quality of audio debate.

 

[KnightWRX]

[*]High Definition Audio -- such as on Blu-Ray, DVD-A, SACD. 24-bit samples and sampling rates > 44 kHz, typically 96 kHz. These are also stored in a lossless format such as FLAC. And these high sampling/bit rates reproduce the vinyl experience better.
[/LIST]

Neil Young is talking about the latter.

So again, Neil Young is talking about FLAC/ALAC. There is no need to "work on a new format", we already have 2 perfectly good ones. I think some people do actually understand what is going on. Someone wants to reinvent the wheel again.

 

[jowie]

There is no logic in subjectivity. That's the point of subjectivity. If you want logic, you go with objectivity.

And really, if Analog vs Digital is quite winnable. Show me the specs where Analog wins. It's that easy. Digital can reproduce with 100% fidelity whatever comes out of the studio. Show me an analog medium that can then bring that 100% fidelity from the studio master to your home, and I will definately back you up that analog is as good as digital.

Agreed. It's like people saying the Evolution/Creationism debate is un-winnable. The only reason it's un-winnable is because some people would prefer their beliefs win over the scientific facts...