Most blu-ray movie tracks are 24/48kHz. "Essentially equivalent" almost surely means "measurably degraded", much like 320k MP3 is "essentially equivalent" to a lossless track. Why they would need a new version of ALAC when ALAC already supports 24/96kHz natively is unclear.
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
...
Either you are trolling or lying.
Lossless is lossless, ie. no loss. Like Zip compression. The data is intact. Claiming that a lossless version is less than the uncompressed version is delusional.
Before you claim about "dull" sounds, "sharp/punchy," do an A/B blind test.
Cds and redbooks are actually compressed down to 16bits most music in the studio is recorded In 24 bits due to headroom...
256kbps aac is already overkill.
a higher bitrate is pointless even on highend systems and is only used to serve the clueless wannabe audiophiles.
a higher bitrate is pointless even on highend systems and is only used to serve the clueless wannabe audiophiles.
Dependent upon the ears of the individual and the equipment they are using, I would largely agree. Higher quality equipment will increase the potential to expose weaknesses in recordings and transcoding, but there's really a factor of diminishing returns at both ends of the price spectrum. To mostly focus on the headphone market, it's not limited to the consumer with earbuds or the trendy but weak Bose and Beats headphones, but also to those spending upwards of $1k on their portable or semi-portable rigs.
no.
again. higher quality equipment does not benefit from something higher than 256kbps aac. and those who are scammed into the high bit rate stuff are sold stuff that exceeds lossless 16bit 44.1k sound anyway.
Many of those who listen to lossless-only or higher quality insist that the 'loudness'-enhanced audio of today is the real issue, not necessarily the compression quality. I've noticed that myself, in that if I use iVolume or iTunes built-in soundcheck to increase volume, I hear artifact clipping (sounds like scratching or clicks in a record). I think that is the main difference between the 'warmth' of vinyl and the harshness of CD's, but other than that, I really wish I perceived what other audiophiles do when it comes to listening to music. I have great hearing.... I have heard a phone ring at my job three departments away on multiple occasions when people think I'm nuts... but I can't for the life of me distinguish any diminutive differences in audio quality between lossy and lossless files on what the average consumer uses everyday. I do get that there are audiophiles, professionals, etc... but I have been in more than one music studio where the equipment to get the singers voice from the mic to the headphones costs more than what I make in 6 months and I'm still hearing the same music, the same way, streamed live losslessly, and it sounds no different than an mp3 track. But, I have no qualms admitting it my 'just be me'.
When it comes to true pros.. people in the industry who record and produce music... engineers, songwriters, etc... I try to be skeptical because many of them want to sell something. But many of them flat-out know what they're talking about. But when it comes down to it, a lot of people have opinions, but when it comes to blind testing, the amount of true audiophiles vs. perceived audiophiles, there's a huge difference. It seems that once people understand what lossless is, they suddenly think they can hear a difference. Opinion is one thing, true testing is another. My only word of caution is, don't cheat YOURSELF. Forget opinion, the truth is, what do you hear?
When it comes to true pros.. people in the industry who record and produce music... engineers, songwriters, etc... I try to be skeptical because many of them want to sell something. But many of them flat-out know what they're talking about. But when it comes down to it, a lot of people have opinions, but when it comes to blind testing, the amount of true audiophiles vs. perceived audiophiles, there's a huge difference. It seems that once people understand what lossless is, they suddenly think they can hear a difference. Opinion is one thing, true testing is another. My only word of caution is, don't cheat YOURSELF. Forget opinion, the truth is, what do you hear?
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
You don't know what you are talking about, do you? Lossless is exactly what is it... There's no loss whatsoever when compression is applied. There is zero difference between raw and lossless data. Lossless compression is just what it means - compression without losing details.
wardc is the typical costumer for high bitrate. very confident, zero knowledge.
I have extensively been writing about this in several other threads on here...
Apple needs to make raw uncompressed, full-quality AIFF versions of their music available to download at the Apple Music Store. I would not have a problem paying extra for the higher quality audio, much like Beatport already has available,
The audio quality difference IS noticeable on good speakers, or good studio monitor headphones, but it is neglibible if none on the standard white earbuds,
I listen to all my music on a Yamaha speaker system. Recently I downloaded two versions of an album, one from iTunes at 256k AAC and one from Beatport at 1411k AIFF uncompressed. The difference in the quality, the sharpness, and the detail throughout the tracks on the album is astounding. Even the artist said in an interview he was upset about the compressed version only being available in this format from the Apple Store, mentioning that "two of the basslines in one of the tracks were just not even there" -- The difference is real, and 256k AAC just isn't that great compared to the original full-quality. You would be even better using your ripped CDs at Apple Lossless or raw than downloading the music from Apple.
So, I hope that Apple will start selling full quality uncompressed versions of the music. It's something I really hope will happen. Maybe like "iTunes Plus," they can do an upgrade fee if you already have an AAC file to get the AIFF for llike $1.00 extra. I would gladly pay extra for higher quality. I think other people feel the same way about this.
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.
Unless your player is faulty there is no way to get a different result from an AIFF, WAV, FLAC or ALAC file. Just like a zip file doesn't randomly lose words in your doc file, FLAC/ALAC doesn't randomly lose fidelity in your audio file.
The old debate between people that are happy with what they have and claim you can't hear anything better and the people that want to hear better.
At the end of the day I don't see the fuss, i mean it is good to have choices, you do not want hi res or can' t hear the difference? save space and money and use the "low res"version (if you cannot afford a high res file you probably do not have the right equipment anyway) want to hear the full high res file? you can (if you have choice).
Debating if you can hear or you cannot is kinda pointless, different equipment, file format and set of hears can make a huge difference, and just because one individual cannot distinguish A from B doesn't mean there is no difference for the rest of the world.
Personally i bought a Fiio X3 (bear in mind it is a very cheap player) last year, and have been listening to flac and DSD/DSF (real high quality not conversion) and I can tell the difference between the "hi res" mp3 and the flac (soundstage and clarity are really different) so i would be happy to have the option to download high res file from Apple, and i'll surely be happy if Apple allows others to have a "low res" version for people who want to save some money.
The world does not have to be either A or B, it can be both!!
Usually i use either the Shure SRH 440 or the Se 425 (IEM).
EDIT:
It's funny how people want choices and options, but when they are given the options they simply label them as "useless"
At the end of the day I don't see the fuss, i mean it is good to have choices, you do not want hi res or can' t hear the difference? save space and money and use the "low res"version (if you cannot afford a high res file you probably do not have the right equipment anyway) want to hear the full high res file? you can (if you have choice).
Debating if you can hear or you cannot is kinda pointless, different equipment, file format and set of hears can make a huge difference, and just because one individual cannot distinguish A from B doesn't mean there is no difference for the rest of the world.
Personally i bought a Fiio X3 (bear in mind it is a very cheap player) last year, and have been listening to flac and DSD/DSF (real high quality not conversion) and I can tell the difference between the "hi res" mp3 and the flac (soundstage and clarity are really different) so i would be happy to have the option to download high res file from Apple, and i'll surely be happy if Apple allows others to have a "low res" version for people who want to save some money.
The world does not have to be either A or B, it can be both!!
Usually i use either the Shure SRH 440 or the Se 425 (IEM).
EDIT:
It's funny how people want choices and options, but when they are given the options they simply label them as "useless"
Not quite the same thing. We're used to our eyes not being perfect instruments, and our brains filling in information. We don't readily have a "live" comparison (theatre is quite markedly different to a two dimensional screen).
But mostly, we are mostly used to massive, significant imperfections in non-digital formats with video. Broadcast often suffered ghosting, etc., and (consumer) video tapes were massively low resolution.
Digital artefacts are present in video, but the most obvious, irritating effects are few and far between, otherwise it clearly looks better than the analog we are used to seeing on a screen.
After all, nobody complains that CD is a lower quality than compact cassette.
Yep! Redbook Audio/CD is created using (AIFF) files. They originate from a stereo masters (such as 24/96 or 24/44.1 or as I did last year 24/88.2) the masters are bit-rate-reduced to 16 bit/44.1 kHz using an added noise signal (very low-level -probably imperceptible) called dither in the process so that the 24 bit file isn't truncated. -It's like sawing a 1/3rd off of a boardboard, but filing the edges smooth so you don't get splinters.
So, if I were providing master files for Redbook CD, I'd have to do this (see screenshot) on the master bus to accommodate the dynamic range of about 34 channels of 24/44.1 audio. Note the session setup is 32 bit float.
Sorry, this was meant for QuarterSwede.
And then you can have a quiet word with Taylor Swift in person.
"Now, about that letter".
If that is true, -and I have no reason not to trust you- then I should be able to take one of my 24/44.1 .WAV masters, convert the file to Apple Lossless, import both files into a new Pro Tools session, flip the phase switch on of of the stereo tracks... And hear nothing and see no signal (-∞ dBFS) on the master fader, because the signals will cancel/null.
I'd be happy perform this experiment/stunt, and we won't even have to get a license. I can also put up a sample of the difference file -if there is one. What do I need to do? YouTube or Dropbox? Can I "screen record" this without bringing the 2012 Mini to its knees? Please advise.
I wish I had your terrible musical ear. I demand everything to be in solid gold too as we all know gold sounds better right?
That depends on what you consider as lost. Sure, if you sample at 44.1khz, then you categorically lose any frequencies above 22khz - it is impossible to sample them at that rate.
But our own hearing sensitivity falls off above 5khz. And instruments don't really go above that - a pianos highest note is below 5khz, as is the primary frequency of a hi-hat (although there will be resonances up to 15khz).
If you were sampling a 100hz signal at 44.1khz, you would be hard pushed to say that you have lost anything. Pretty much true of 5khz too. Above 5khz, then you are just hard pushed to hear it anyway.
An LP is an analog recording format, but when you really think about the processes that have to go into creating a master, pressing the vinyl, the variance in needles / pickups, regulating turntable speed, the accumulation of dust particles and that every playback causes some amount of wear, you really can't describe LPs as a lossless format.
So much comes down to the production steps, and whether the signal has been manipulated to throw information out, but if your goal is to most accurately capture the acoustic performance, it is *impossible* for an LP to have a more accurate representation than a 16-bit / 44khz sampling.
The question there is whether you are comparing apples to apples. What you hear during playback is not just the technical capability of the format, but every step that was ever taken to produce the audio before it is pressed to the final media. If more care was taken over the production of the HD audio format because they know that it is targeted to a market that is appreciative of dynamic range, etc., and the CD has been deliberately compressed and made louder so that it sounds better on low end audio equipment than it otherwise would, then you are going to hear a difference which has nothing to do with the audio formats.
I also have the equipment to properly reproduce it, but it's basically irrelevant.
Neither of us have the equipment to hear it. We would be deaf (and have seriously pissed off our neighbours), before we could fully utilise the dynamic range of 16bit, let alone 24bit, and our hearing sensitivity drops off above 5khz.
A properly record and mastered performance, distributed at 16/44 would be a revelation.
16 bit has around 90db of dynamic range.
Sustained 85db SPL is sufficient to damage your hearing.
75db is the reference for surround sound setup.
50-65db is typically the level I playback at home - above that I find too loud, and would be disruptive to neighbours.
30db is the background noise of a quiet room.
You can't practically make use of much more than 40db of dynamic range, much less the 90db that 16bit offers.
I just want 16bit recordings that preserve the dynamic range, not deliberately compress it for punch.
YES! Multichannel done creatively is great! I love my SACD and BD Audio for their multichanel mix more than for the high resolution. Try Pink Floyd.
About damn time. Maybe Apple with its billions could develop a lossless streaming compression...
Pied Piper to the rescue?
If this happens Beats within the next three years should become truly decent.
Pied Piper to the rescue?
If this happens Beats within the next three years should become truly decent.
Last edited by a moderator:
Great troll. I almost took the bait. The bit about vinyl gave it away. (For those who do not know: the quality of Vinyl is MUCH less than CD)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