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

[tkermit]

The very definition of analogue means it is better than Digital bits & bytes (which are after all...a digital approximation (however good) of analogue waveforms)

You don't seriously believe that the waveform that can be obtained from vinyl is identical to the recorded one, do you? The waveform that can result from a digital recording is a much much much closer approximation of the original one. In fact, using a digital recording, you are theoretically able to approximate the original signal to an arbitrarily high degree of accuracy.

 

[Xcallibur]

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.

Yes, I know they are not the best, but for the music I buy, they are generally the best quality source. I agree that higher quality sound systems make lower quality audio sound horrible, you can literally hear the lack of frequencies in the audio file.

 

[locust76]

Sure it does. Whereas digital is bits, peaks and valleys, Analog is a waveform. Waveforms are mathetimatical and can be expressed as... *drumroll*, specifications.

In addition to that, Analog waveforms can still be measured in dynamic range and frequency response, which is analog (pun not intended) to bit-depth and sampling frequency, two key factors that determine "quality" of an audio recording.

 

[KnightWRX]

You don't seriously believe that the waveform that can be obtained from vinyl is identical to the recorded one, do you? The waveform that can result from a digital recording is a much much much closer approximation of the original one. In fact, using a digital recording, you are theoretically able to approximate the original signal to an arbitrarily high degree of accuracy.

Given infinite storage, digital can reproduce pretty much exact waveforms.

 

[mwulf67]

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

No, his premise was and is perfectly correct...a useful/correct premise only has to be logical and reasonable, not necessarily factual....

Whereas, ALAC is not factually limited to CD quality, it is correct that most people believe ALAC is synonymous with CD quality....therefore, it is a perfectly reasonable starting premise when discussing the different between CD quality and SACD/high definition...

 

[Hberg]

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 have to disagree, and the value that one places on the audio quality is subjective.

The quality of one's listening is only as good as the weakest link. I consider myself somewhat of an audiophile. I have a Classe' equipment with B&W 800 Series Speakers, and I use Shure Earphones for use with my iPhone. I record all my music files in a lossless format from the CDs that I have purchased. I've listened to the music using the 256kbps AAC format, and I can definitely hear the difference that a lossless format offers. This is true whether I am listening to it on my home system or on my iPhone.

If I was to use a lesser quality headphone or used a lesser quality speaker in my home system, I may not be able to tell the difference, but I have chosen not to make that sacrifice.

I am not the norm when it comes to digital music, and there is a market out there for the higher quality digital music.

 

[BubbaMc]

Given infinite storage, digital can reproduce pretty much exact waveforms.

And for band limited signals like music, you can get away with very modest storage requirements and still have a pretty much exact representation.

 

[tkermit]

Given infinite storage, digital can reproduce pretty much exact waveforms.

Even in practice, using dithering, you're basically reproducing the exact waveform as long as it's less than half the sampling frequency, only with random noise added, that, even at a sample depth of 16bit, will be far below the audible threshold. Certainly, the SNR of CD is much much higher than on vinyl.

 

[Riemann Zeta]

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)

If we were dealing with 128 kbit/s MP3 this might be an issue, but 256 kbit/s MP4/AAC is pretty much transparent compared to WAV.

 

[KnightWRX]

No, his premise was and is perfectly correct...a useful/correct premise only has to be logical and reasonable, not necessarily factual....

Whereas, ALAC is not factually limited to CD quality, it is correct that most people believe ALAC is synonymous with CD quality....therefore, it is a perfectly reasonable starting premise when discussing the different between CD quality and SACD/high definition...

Only if you're going to be discussing your opinion, not facts. If you're discussing facts, you start with not a "reasonable" premise, you start with a factual one, or your facts will crumble apart like bad cookie dough.

 

[flynndean]

If by theoretical analogue you mean being at the live performance. Yes I'm sure Live Performance > Digital.

Yes...I would agree with the assertion that Live Performance > Digital Recording.

IMO the whole point in a recording music should be that it is the capture of a "performance" and not anything else. Part of the pro-analogue recording argument is that you are capturing a performance "warts & all" (complete with people coughing in the background/breathing/variations in tuning etc.) in order to capture a moment/a talent, but I guess it comes down to your thinking on what Studio Recording should represent.

Personally, I'm not a fan of excessive digital manipulation (in pre or post) as part of Music production...the question being: Should a recording be the most perfect possible presentation of sounds possible? (including the use of every available manipulation technique, Pro Tools etc to best represent the artist's vision)...Or is music more about performance capture? (complete with noise etc.)

I've been to far too many gigs in the last decade where you wouldn't believe that the band performing were the same individuals who produced the digitally recorded and augmented album...and yes it does get me hankering for the "Good Old Days". But then people like "The Beatles" and "The Beach Boys" and "Led Zeppelin" were masters of utilising the recording techniques that were available to them...and I suppose the very nature of there being designated tracks on recordings is in itself a "con" of sorts.

Maybe I'm just a sentimental dinosaur? I'm ready to accept that...which brings it all back to subjectivity, and nobody here can account for personal preference.

----------

You don't seriously believe that the waveform that can be obtained from vinyl is identical to the recorded one, do you? The waveform that can result from a digital recording is a much much much closer approximation of the original one. In fact, using a digital recording, you are theoretically able to approximate the original signal to an arbitrarily high degree of accuracy.

No I don't.

 

[milo]

Young claims that MP3s have just "5 percent of the data present in the original recording."

Young is wrong, since a CD is at 1411k, a 128k mp3 is about 9% of the data and the 256k ones apple is selling now is 18%.

While an option of lossless or higher quality would be nice, I'd be surprised if he could pick out the difference between 256 AAC and CD in a blind listening test.

 

[no-one]

And for band limited signals like music, you can get away with very modest storage requirements and still have a pretty much exact representation.

Band limited does not mean limited in resolution. You set your sampling rate according to the nyquist frequency, but the absolute quantification error is set by the converter resolution (16-20-24bits).

Even better, if you raise the sampling frequency you can lower the quantification error for a given resolution, that's what DSD does. (see "noise shaping", "dithering")

But this discussion will be steril as long as people will use "pretty much" and "exact" next to another in the same sentence.

 

[RobNYC]

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.

+1 to this. As someone who does own a good turntable and a crate full of records I definitely understand the love of vinyl. But the truth of it is, the physical format has limitations that CD's don't have. There's no doubt a record can sound amazing on a great system assuming the record itself is in great shape. But with each play, it degrades a little. CD was a step forward, not backwards. I totally get the argument being made today about the mastering process and the volume issue but we didn't start going backwards until MP3s.

 

[doctor-don]

And then be sure to go out and buy a vehicle from the '50s or '60s with the heavy metal bodies, spark plugs, points, rotor, and carburetor, all of which require frequent adjustment and replacement.

Tube receiver? You've got to be kidding!

My 2011 truck has spark plugs.

Why did you truncate my comment?

all of which require frequent adjustment and replacement.

Today one does NOT have to regap plugs every one to five thousand miles. My '67 Mustang and '69 Ford Econoline both required frequent tune-ups that today is not required. I've got 75,000 miles on my Le Sabre with the original everything (except oil and filters).

 

[hayesk]

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.

Actually, yes I do need a study for this. Otherwise it's your word against someone else's. I don't get tired from listening to MP3s. Therefore your argument is plain wrong. You don't need a scientific study to say that you are wrong.

What? You disagree? Maybe there should be some third party way to test this objectively? I know - how about a scientific study?

 

[KnightWRX]

Why did you truncate my comment?



Today one does NOT have to regap plugs every one to five thousand miles. My '67 Mustang and '69 Ford Econoline both required frequent tune-ups that today is not required. I've got 75,000 miles on my Le Sabre with the original everything (except oil and filters).

I replace and regap spark plugs on my cars at regular intervals. Always have.

Spark plugs are still a wear item on a car. Unless you have a diesel or electric vehicule, you still have spark plugs.

And metal bodies.

 

[peccles]

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)

www.hdtracks.com is a good source for lossless 24-bit recordings.

 

[hayesk]

S
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.

Not true. 2kbps is achieved not only through throwing away information, but through a compression algorithm.

An Apple Lossless file is about half the size of an uncompressed CD track. It's about 700kbps. Does that mean 50% of the information was thrown away? No, it hasn't. You are confusing downsampling with lossy compression.

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.

Not really, no.

----------

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.

No, you don't understand the definition of Open Source at all. It's not about philosophy, it's about what your legal rights are with respect to implementing the format.

Apple refuses to support it because its GPL license is more restrictive than Apple's license. Why should they support a less open format?

 

[416049]

I like HDtracks.com but they don't offer files in ALAC only in FLAC... yes i know you can convert the audio type in XLD but i was wondering has anybody found a HQ audio site with ALAC?

 

[milo]

Rust Never Sleeps.
Compression is evil.
Carry on...

You mean data compression, or reduction in dynamic range? I'd argue that the latter is much more evil.

Vinyl -> CD was a step back in sound

While it's probably true that vinyl sounded better than the first CDs, there's a huge difference between the sound quality on a CD released 20 years ago and one released today. Digital recording technology simply wasn't that good when the first CDs were released but there have been huge improvements since then.

I still find it shocking that anyone would pay money for an mp3.

A major reason is the ability to buy one track. When someone only wants the one good song on an album, it's hard for a $12.99 CD to compete with a $1.29 download.

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.

You obviously don't understand how the process works. Inaudible frequencies are stripped out, but they are frequencies that are inaudible because they are masked by other frequencies in the recording. So the stripped out frequencies are constantly changing, it's not like there is a constant set of frequencies that is always stripped out.

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.

Pontificating about sample rate, not even mentioning bit depth? Fail.

 

[mwulf67]

Only if you're going to be discussing your opinion, not facts. If you're discussing facts, you start with not a "reasonable" premise, you start with a factual one, or your facts will crumble apart like bad cookie dough.

The fact he was presenting was that CD quality is not the High Def quality that Mr. Young was refereeing to...along with his opinion that High Def quality sounds better than CD quality...or is that also a fact?

Do you disagree that most people believe that ALAC = CD quality? You nitpicked his post because he failed to explicitly write "The best you will currently and readily get with a Lossless file is CD quality"....I think your failure to comprehend was greater than his to express himself...

 

[mijail]

No, you don't understand the definition of Open Source at all.

Looks like he only understands how to go on and on without learning anything new.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple refuses to support it because its GPL license is more restrictive than Apple's license. Why should they support a less open format?

What does the GPL have to do with the FLAC format ? Are you mistaking FLAC the format and some of the FLAC tools ? Heck, even the FLAC library, the reference implementation of the format, is not under the GPL...

And the GPL garantees the software remains available to everyone. Technically, with "less restrictive" licenses, I can fork ALAC, implement ALAC-KW, get it adopted by hardware and software vendors in favor of the open source ALAC and keep the source closed forever and let ALAC die.

 

[rhett7660]

And then be sure to go out and buy a vehicle from the '50s or '60s with the heavy metal bodies, spark plugs, points, rotor, and carburetor, all of which require frequent adjustment and replacement.

Tube receiver? You've got to be kidding!

Maybe a tube amp? If that is the case those sound incredible. Can be very expensive but they do sound nice.

You do know cars still have spark plugs, You do know this right. Unless you are running a diesal or electric car.