Gotta love those people who claim FLAC is better quality then AAC lossless (ALAC)...
Last edited:
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 Once Again Rumored to Be Developing High-Resolution Audio Formats
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I need the performer in my house singing next to me. Compressed audio, lossless audio, or even original masters don't quite cut it. I won't be satisfied until Apple ships the performer to my house after I purchase the track. I won't even bother with your inferior algorithms.
You have no idea what you're talking about.Lossless doesn't cut it for me. I need the full raw uncompressed quality to hear it as it was mastered. Lossless dulls out some of the minute details, sharpness and punchy bass elements that you don't really get until you jump up past about 900k -- ALAC or FLAC is not good enough, you need AIFF or WAV to really hear it as it was intended...better yet, vinyl
Basically, anytime you add any kind of compression algorithm to the original it dumbs it down, fuzzes up the highs and makes the sharper elements of the bass less pronounced. It takes either a really good stereo system or high end speakers or headphones to pick up on this -- usually the larger ones with more bass response can differentiate the higher quality audio better from the compressed versions. With the bundled earbuds that come with the iPhone, they can't reproduce the higher end bass elements like a larger speaker system can, or even high end studio over-ear monitors, so you would not be be able to tell a difference.
WAV/AIFF and ALAC/FLAC are sonically identical. They're both lossless, hence the term.
Besides, AIFF isn't what's stored on a CD anyway. It's technically CDA or redbook audio (another uncompressed format). Ask anyone who has mastered CD's (process of actually flagging the tracks to split them and creating a CD Master, not audio mastering).
On topic, increased dynamic range will make the most impact for folks. Unfortunately many pop songs wouldn't take advantage of it as they're so compressed as to be almost unlistenable at length (causes ear fatigue).
The next best thing they could do is train engineers better. In all my years of listening I can only point out a few perfectly engineered and mastered albums. Crappy engineering and mastering causes more problems than lossy compression.
This is to shut down tidal and give them a edge on Spotify. I am guessing this was in there studio deals they already cut. This will let them spool up the service then upgrade the bandwidth used and improve sound quality and crush tidal with there exclusives. Bye bye tidal. Spotify may have to go back and rework there deals to offer something like Apple has and it may cause them to slip a little. This is a power play by tim. This will prove to be a master stroke if they do it a death blow and a step out of the head to head fight with Spotify.
As someone else mentioned, this is Apple's perfect opportunity to tie in with their acquisition of Beats. And it finally makes sense why they're ditching the 1/8" jack in favorite of the Lightning connector. I hope Apple isn't cutting off its nose to spite its face, though. The majority of people probably wouldn't want to buy expensive new headphones just to use their new iPhones. (I'm sure Apple will include a minimal quality set of earbuds, but if those break you're stuck.)
Also, what's going to happen with audio on MacBooks? None of Apple's computers has a lightning connector. Why wouldn't Apple just ditch Lightning and convert all of its devices to USB-C?
The fact is that Apple's format-jack of ".m4a" has been masterful, but there's no need to have any additional fidelity. Consuming audio at 48k with TRUE MAX VBR is absolutely indistinguishable from any higher source. 1000 times out of 1000, you cannot pick out a difference if you play back 192/24, and 48k max vbr. It's not humanly possible.
So if you want a "higher quality" audio product, you have to work on better DAC (not move them to headphones). You have to get better earphones, not crappy included ones, and you have to get more power to the cans themselves with the DAC. None of this is format related. The only thing a larger file is going to do is take up more space and eat more battery when played. Neither is desirable.
This discussion is stupid from the get-go. If Apple want to start distributing 48k true max vbr, awesome. Good for them. If they think they can get into the "sell 'em a new format" thing, they're going to go the route of their ping social media thing.
So if you want a "higher quality" audio product, you have to work on better DAC (not move them to headphones). You have to get better earphones, not crappy included ones, and you have to get more power to the cans themselves with the DAC. None of this is format related. The only thing a larger file is going to do is take up more space and eat more battery when played. Neither is desirable.
This discussion is stupid from the get-go. If Apple want to start distributing 48k true max vbr, awesome. Good for them. If they think they can get into the "sell 'em a new format" thing, they're going to go the route of their ping social media thing.
The problem there is does this really help. More so can people actually hear the difference. The extended dynamic range really won't do much though the higher sampling rate might help for people with extremely good hearing.
In the end we will have to see how well the format works in a world of compression and other comprimizes.
This is a perfect time to soft introduce the idea of a lighting cable headphone. This gives you a reason to want it. They will not toss the headphone jack out in the 7 but they will make it where you want to have all your headphone be bluetooth for aptX or lighting for high res. This is actually a good plan. Then when no one is looking in a future model of the phone dump the headphone jack overboard. I am ok with that idea. I want high res audio.
I would be completely happy with lossless 16/44.1.
Anything that means i get 16bit 44.1khz uncompressed is good. Anything above that is pointless but i do think apple's current 256kbps is lacking compared to the 1411.2 Kbps of CD quality waves. I'm up for lossless AAC FLAC or whatever but having some high end audio available is good, the difference is the last 2% for most, their audio equipment isn't up to representing it so even CD quality is a niche market.
Apple doing above CD spec like 192khz 24bit audio is so unbelievably pointless i would actually want to reconsider my opinions of people working there.
I also can't understand apple thinking the lighting cable is better for audio than their own DAC and 3.5 mm jack? The DAC quality is already superb and reproduces everything at better than CD specs. The lighting cable route is actually worse as the headphones have to include a DAC of their own and run off battery and be of variable quality too.
There isn't any way up from the current setup the iPhone has apart from increasing bitrates of compressed audio downloads/streams and even then the extra data is a real issue on mobile networks that are so data limited.
I hope apple don't try and go the snake oil salesmen route.
kewl...Hi-res
Even if the sampling rate is high on Apple music this will only mean more users wanting to lower the quality over cellular due to bandwidth constraints/cost
Even more so, since over slower connections because it would be bigger file size..
Hopefully by the time it does come, I'll have the NBN
so i can listen
I think i know why Apple's thinking lightening is better..3.5 headphone jack is analog... Lightning is digital, and so doesn't need conversion and thus quality loss.
This would also tie in as to why Apple wants to loose the jack in next iphones, and use lightning based headphones too. Its rumored, but if Apple is doing hi-res audio, then it makes perfect sense.
Even if the sampling rate is high on Apple music this will only mean more users wanting to lower the quality over cellular due to bandwidth constraints/cost
Even more so, since over slower connections because it would be bigger file size..
Hopefully by the time it does come, I'll have the NBN
so i can listenI think i know why Apple's thinking lightening is better..3.5 headphone jack is analog... Lightning is digital, and so doesn't need conversion and thus quality loss.
This would also tie in as to why Apple wants to loose the jack in next iphones, and use lightning based headphones too. Its rumored, but if Apple is doing hi-res audio, then it makes perfect sense.
Apple is reportedly preparing to launch new higher-quality audio streaming in 2016, according to industry sources who spoke to Mac Otakara at this weekend's Portable Audio Festival in Tokyo.The report also claims many audio equipment manufacturers are preparing their own third-party Lightning cables in anticipation of Apple's move toward improved audio quality.
Apple has long been rumored to be looking to introduce higher-quality audio formats for iTunes Store downloads and perhaps also Apple Music streaming. A year and a half ago, music blogger Robert Hutton claimed Apple was working to roll out high-resolution audio for the iTunes Store, and Mac Otakara made similar claims about an HD Audio format and new hardware being planned for release alongside iOS 8 later that year.
An even earlier flurry of rumors came in 2012 after Neil Young revealed that he and Steve Jobs had discussed ideas for improving the audio quality of iTunes Store content. Young ultimately went on his own in an effort to increase the quality digital music, releasing his PonoPlayer in early 2014.
Article Link: Apple Once Again Rumored to Be Developing High-Resolution Audio Formats
Cole on guys. I am regarded in France as one one the activist of extreme digital solutions in sound. I promote full digital from Mike to listener without any compromission.
But 96 or 192 is a waste.
First it multiplies by up to 4 the amount of data, for a difference only newborn babies might only just perceive...
The real difference is elsewhere:
More bits. When you move from 16 to 24 bits, you move from a resolution of only 64000 steps to a better 2 million steps in quantifying, and for only just an wheight aggravation of 1,5 ....
So let's move to 32 bits quantification, if not 40. My Lawo desk works in 40 floating.... And that mean 512 db of dynamics....
But the truth is, iTunes listeners are mostly headphone listener. And stereo is a waste.
PLEASE, log on to NOUVOSON , and listen to Binaural mixes. Then you'll understand what your daily sound experience, with your same pair of headphones can be.
Let's be immersive, and detailed.... Not just broader in spectrum
Bits or sample rate above 44.1/16 won't result in better sound quality for the consumer. There are other reasons studio engineers will use higher bit rates while recording (it allows them to record at very low levels and not have to worry about overloading or clipping converters) but for the end user...there are virtually no commercially available recordings that are so low in level that 16 bits aren't sufficient to accurately reproduce the music.
Apple gave us back when a very good counterpart to MP3 with their AAC offerings. At 256 bitrate, most people were pretty happy. I tend to prefer CD quality (or better) for various music I acquire (HDTracks etc.) and there are times when the difference is very much noticed and other times not. I have concluded (for myself) that the challenges remain in two areas that determine the final music file 1) original mastering and 2) conversion to a commercial file.
Some music no matter what bitrate sounds mediocre and this has something to do with the original master and/or remastering for digital. Case and point is the digital remaster of "Some Like It Hot' for iTunes. It is one of the worst recordings I have heard in many a year. I compared it to a much much older CD. The CD is a bit "flat" but clear and the iTunes 256 bitrate offering is over saturated, overly used echo and other effects. - Just terrible.
I'll be happy if Apple simply provides Apple Lossless at CD quality. While I have several 92/24 "albums" a well engineered CD can be wonderful at 44.1/16. I wont argue the merits of higher resolution as much of it is determined by who is at the helm for creating the higher resolution offerings.
Apple sat on 256 bitrate way too long. I don't get excited when Apple considers anything better than what they have but think "well, its about time damnit."
Some music no matter what bitrate sounds mediocre and this has something to do with the original master and/or remastering for digital. Case and point is the digital remaster of "Some Like It Hot' for iTunes. It is one of the worst recordings I have heard in many a year. I compared it to a much much older CD. The CD is a bit "flat" but clear and the iTunes 256 bitrate offering is over saturated, overly used echo and other effects. - Just terrible.
I'll be happy if Apple simply provides Apple Lossless at CD quality. While I have several 92/24 "albums" a well engineered CD can be wonderful at 44.1/16. I wont argue the merits of higher resolution as much of it is determined by who is at the helm for creating the higher resolution offerings.
Apple sat on 256 bitrate way too long. I don't get excited when Apple considers anything better than what they have but think "well, its about time damnit."
Yeah because the actual music sounds terrible! Hopefully, Apple gets this right and if it sounds as good as Tidal I'll be happy.
Lossless is just a term used to name it because most people will view this as no loss in quality...NOT TRUE -- it is compressed about 3x smaller size than the original using algorithms which change the audio - it is NOT the exact sound as the original but instead a 400kbps or 500kbps file, which will take less space than an AIFF substantially but is not the RAW quality of the master.
Why is everyone so pressed? If you're okay with listening to lossy formats, listen to lossy formats. If you'd rather listen uncompressed source quality, then get uncompressed source quality (whether that be: 16,24 bit / 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 192kHz). Who cares if you can't hear the difference. A lot of people here are just trying to show off their "knowledge" about sound quality and none of this really affects them.
Excellent point, a lot of that in this thread. For example, 'lossless' does not mean anything with regard to quality. All it means is that the original is recreated when the compressed data is expanded. If the original was poor resolution then the lossless version will be poor resolution.
While true, it is also exactly why a high resolution audio format is important. Once the masses her what that crap sounds like, they, hopefully, will demand better. Distortion (from mixing or mastering compression and limiting) at high resolution sounds really, really bad and can be very distracting.
Its not the engineers, its the people that buy the music regardless how bad it sounds. Most engineers, at least the ones I know, could certainly do better but the band or their marketing people don't want to take a chance on the music not being the loudest on the market. Today's pop listeners equate loud and compressed with good. They don't like subtleties, they want music in your face. They want to listed to the first few bars, bounce their body to the beat a few times to prove they are in the popular crowd, then forget about the music while they start texting or whatever.
Lossless doesn't cut it for me. I need the full raw uncompressed quality to hear it as it was mastered. Lossless dulls out some of the minute details, sharpness and punchy bass elements that you don't really get until you jump up past about 900k -- ALAC or FLAC is not good enough, you need AIFF or WAV to really hear it as it was intended...better yet, vinyl
Basically, anytime you add any kind of compression algorithm to the original it dumbs it down, fuzzes up the highs and makes the sharper elements of the bass less pronounced. It takes either a really good stereo system or high end speakers or headphones to pick up on this -- usually the larger ones with more bass response can differentiate the higher quality audio better from the compressed versions. With the bundled earbuds that come with the iPhone, they can't reproduce the higher end bass elements like a larger speaker system can, or even high end studio over-ear monitors, so you would not be be able to tell a difference.
I bet one million dollars you cannot hear the difference. This is why nobody can take audiophiles seriously.
Epic fail. Lossless compression recreates the exact same bit stream as the original. When you compress a MS word document and send it to a friend their uncompressed version is exactly the same as yours. That is lossless compression and it works exactly the same with music. You can compare the bit stream yourself. If you can hear the difference between two identical bit streams, then you are just fooling yourself.