How did you use XLD to compare, does it include ABX functionality? I don't see it in the app.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Had 'Worked On' Offering a High-Definition Music Format
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How did you use XLD to compare, does it include ABX functionality? I don't see it in the app.
Unbelievably, you've misunderstood the meaning of compression, only a few posts after someone explained it all for you.
Sure, Vinyl sounds worse, especially after a few playbacks. Quite easy to tell a pristine CD from a vinyl. Oh and we do have better CD sources, they are called in no particular order : DVD-A, SACD.
Yes. But can you tell the difference between vinyl and a digital recording of vinyl? Because I bet you can't. The 'analog' sound of vinyl can be replicated in a digital recording if that is your goal.
You can make a digital recording sound like vinyl if that's your intention. There are filters for that.
In any case, there's no need for a new format, as KnightWRX has already stated in this thread. The only remaining question is whether there's an advantage to (at least slightly) raising either the sample rate or bit depth, although I personally don't really see the point. CDs already deliver much better specs than vinyl, and people apparently seem to be content even with vinyl.
Very well said. Young's argument obviously comes from a place of misinformation. 5% my donkey. The amount of over-compression in commercial recordings, combined with the amount of digital processing and synthesizing that happens in the studio - is a much bigger problem in the opinion of anyone who is actually properly informed. The old "vinyl" argument is always trotted out but how many of us, even back in the day, actually got to play good vinyl on a turntable and speakers good enough to hear "audiophile" music at its best. I can remember only 2 or 3 times in my life. Sure it was awesome, that "first played" Pink Floyd album on your rich friend's dad's vacuum-tube amp when he wasn't home from work. But Neil Young is talking out of his donkey for the most part, until music is made the way it was back then!
The "Point" is that I don't want to sit here like a complete plum converting my entire Library of music from FLAC just because Apple doesn't think I should be allowed to use anything other than their ALAC Format for my Lossless Music needs. So if I want to have lossless music on my Apple Devices as well as my home...I'm going to need a 2nd Library just so that I comply with Apple's "Walled Garden" ecosystem.
The other advantage is that with FLAC...I get to choose the level of file compression that I desire...so as to best take advantage of my set-up/available storage space. Unless something has changed, ALAC dictates that the Lossless file is squashed to about 50% of it's original size. A lot of people will sacrifice a small delay in decoding (or will have the equipment to make additional file-size reduction arbitrary) and will want to set compression-rates of closer to 70%.
The "Point" is that like in many aspects of their portfolio of products...Apple seems to think it knows what is good for me and won't accommodate any variation from their thinking.
That is certainly true, with all the pops and scratches. It's also true that vinyl has a clearly different tone than CD, which is what I believe is the effect sought by audiophiles that prefer vinyl. That may be less an artifact of the compression and remastering that you find on CDs, and just personal preference between the two formats (like the difference between film projection and digital projection in a movie theater).
Lossless option would be amazing. If your going to offer "HD Movies" offer some AIFF. I like FLAC better but AIFF is fine. I'm sort of an audiophile but not to the insanity of some. Most of my BluRay rips are stored with 384kbps AC-3 and that's fine for my usage almost always...but if I run into a BluRay or DVD with 24-bit DTS I will almost always keep that DTS track untouched...and yes I can hear the difference between DTS-MA/Dolby TrueHD and some "high quality" AAC file. In everyday listening I don't need nor do I even want Dolby HD/DTS HD audio for the sake of size but with even some low end audio monitoring headphones you can hear the difference between 48khz and 96khz sound tracks as well as distortions on the lossy tracks. Point overall: If I'm listening to music normally it doesn't need to be insane but if I am listening to music or watching a movie with the home theater set up, I want lossless/high bit rate.
I don't know. I bet I could tell the difference between vinyl and a digital recording of vinyl much easier than I could tell the difference between CD and a 256kbps AAC rip of a CD.
In any case the vinyl issue is besides the point, which is that there is a much greater difference between the source and a CD than there is between a CD and all the various digital formats derived from it. Neil Young's point is that we need a format that better reproduces the artist's music itself, which I agree with.
For example, I think moving from stereo to multi-channel sound would be a much larger improvement to songs bought from iTunes than increasing the bit rate. I'm sure there are many other ways to improve quality to produce a more natural sound. I'd much rather see improvements along those lines.
That's because vinyl reduces the bass and high pitches to produce thinner records. The same effect can be achieved on a CD, but the peaks and valleys for the digital bits don't have such a physical limitation.
There's also the background static generated from the friction of the needle on the vinyl surface as it makes sure that your vinyl record loses a bit of its quality for the next playback.
All things reproducible on a digital recording... but why bother lowering its quality like that when you don't have to ? So in essence, "audiophiles" prefer lower quality recordings. The problem most will tell you is that CD is too perfect, to the point it's not "natural" sounding.
----------
Unless your turntable can output quality that is higher than 32 bit, 650 khz, no you won't.
Again, ALAC already offers pretty much arbitrary sample rates and bit depth, and supports multichannel to boot. It would certainly be nice if the iTunes Store offered that format, but it already exists.
The thing is, I have classical and Jazz CDs that sound amazing on my living room stereo, almost as if there was a live concert in front of me. But most (pop) artists simply do not either record or master their music in a way that the CD is able to play out its strengths. Some others in this thread have mentioned the sometimes insane dynamic range compression going on for example. So it is really up to the artists to create better recordings and improve their mastering. The format - if Apple used ALAC - isn't the problem here. Not sure whether AAC256kbps really sounds worse, I myself don't actually expect to hear a big difference if any, but I haven't really tested myself. Of course, I still like lossless for the peace of mind it offers...
o)How is lossless a step back from CDs, if it is just a lossless compression of CD audio?
Almost 100 posts later and I'm still baffled by the number of people confusing the terms "high definition" and "lossless". Lossless is NOT necessarily Hi-Def. Although Hi-Def is no doubt lossless by definition, that is certainly not its only defining quality, and completely ignores the increase in bit-depth (and therefore dynamic range) and sampling rate as compared to a standard CD-quality audio format. To miss this point is to completely undermine the rest of whatever point it is that you are trying to make.
----------
On another note,
This is completely dependent on how the .wav was encoded. There are plenty of 16bit .wav files in existence, and there are also 32bit wavs.
----------
On another note,
This is completely dependent on how the .wav was encoded. There are plenty of 16bit .wav files in existence, and there are also 32bit wavs.
We do have the option (for now anyway): buy the CD and rip it yourself to lossless, uncompressed, whatever. And if you have vinyl and a great setup, you can rip that with external equipment to 88kHz / 24 bit or more easily enough - and that is sufficient to capture everything vinyl has to offer; you can even capture at 192/24 to go well beyond what vinyl (or the 2" analog masters) could reproduce. All it takes is space and some equipment.
But (imho, sadly), the market has demonstrated that most music consumers these days prefer quantity over quality; and with much of it being stolen anyway (the price being zero), CDs are likely going away and we won't even have that work around.
Eddie O
PS: I've done the test with ALC and FLAC of losslessly compressing CD tracks, then decompressing back to AIFF or WAV and doing bit for bit comparisons with the original: zero differences, so ALC and FLAC are truly lossless. The same is true for the higher definition audio lossless compression MLC (Meridian Lossless Compression) for audio up to 192/24 at at least 5.1. But I've not found a reasonable consumer compressor / playback for that format for computers.
Like I said, the vinyl issue is beside the point. If you want to find someone to argue the merits of vinyl versus digital you'll have to go elsewhere. You'll be spoiled for choice in that area.
Hi-Def does not have to be lossless, only high definition. The point is, FLAC, ALAC are both high-definition.
Why are people not getting this ? The lossless codecs can losslessy reproduce high-definiton audio because FLAC/ALAC support the higher sampling rates/frequencies found in high definition audio.
----------
Then what is the point ? Analog vs Digital ? I think we've already talked about that...
This isn't necessarily true. Given that they are effectively containers for the audio which can be encoded at a range of bitrates and sampling frequencies, it's what goes inside them that dictates their HD status. If you encode a red-book CD to FLAC at 24/96, it doesn't make it HD. Now, if you were to have said "The point is, FLAC, ALAC are both high-definition-capable" you'd have no argument from me, but they are most certainly NOT high definition by default.
Regardless, your comments in this thread have been pretty informed, and I wasn't taking issue with any of your posts. All that is required though is a cursory scan of the past few pages to pick out numerous examples where people have been misinterpreting Young's requests for Hi-Def audio as simply a request for making standard lossless files available through iTunes.
Last edited:
I find it fascinating in general how the human race has often sacrifices quality for convenience. The same thing that has happened to the music industry is what has happened to the photography industry.
Though I admit, not as dramatic.
I do agree that we need to have a way to get high quality audio formats quickly and easily. Like Young said in the video. It doesn't need to be inconvenient.
Though I admit, not as dramatic.
I do agree that we need to have a way to get high quality audio formats quickly and easily. Like Young said in the video. It doesn't need to be inconvenient.
Fine, be pedentic. FLAC/ALAC are HD capable. BTW, they are not containers, they are codecs.
Powderfinger
Great discussion. Much better subject that some stupid iPad 3 dock surfacing in some obscure media outlet.
Watch TV on a nice big high def set. (I see ads for cell phones with Star Wars playing) how sick is that?
Listen to music on a good quality system. (Compression is indeed evil, avoid it)
Great discussion. Much better subject that some stupid iPad 3 dock surfacing in some obscure media outlet.
Watch TV on a nice big high def set. (I see ads for cell phones with Star Wars playing) how sick is that?
Listen to music on a good quality system. (Compression is indeed evil, avoid it)
You beat me to this as I was editing my post!
And I'm not trying to be pedantic. It's a pretty important distinction.