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.
iTunes 4.6 Now Available
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
runeasgar said:
You're incredibly missing the point. The Audiophile is what is considered PROSUMER. It's much better than a sound card from Best Buy, but it sure isn't anywhere near the top of the hill in terms of quality. If you want top of the hill, get a Metric Halo ULN/2 or a Digi 002. Then go learn about near-field monitors and room acoustics.
You are all high and mighty on your $920 investment in what you think is top notch, and it may well be compared to what you have had in the past, but it's still a hobbyist card with hobbyist speakers, and probably not in an acoustically condusive room. So your rantings about optimal quality re: APExpress are pale in light of this.
/dale
Just some info
Hi,
I thought I'd try to add some more info to anyone following this thread about digital audio, upsampling, conversion, and so on. Some of you obviously know all this; I just wanted to consolidate things which came up for anyone not versed in audio.
1. First, this is pretty basic and I think folks are clear on this now, but:
-- A/D means analog-to-digital (usually for recording)
-- D/A means digital-to-analog (usually for playback)
Pros will often refer to both as simply 'converters' and the context should make it clear which direction it's going.
2. Pro recording systems often have digital inputs. This is different that having A/D converters or D/A converters. Optical inputs on recording systems allow you to use whatever outboard converters you like. It isn't too hard to spend $25k on a good microphone, mic preamp, and A/D converter. In fact, with this gear, you can then plug it right into any crappy soundcard with digital input and have *recorded* sound quality as good as plugging the same gear into a pro system with digital inputs. Obviously if you do *playback* of youur perfect signal through your crappy soundcard, you won't be able to tell how nice your recording is, but that's a different point.
3. Oversampling, upsampling and filtering.
-- Oversampling means increasing the effective sampling rate of a file, and usually implies some interpolation is done. If you take a file sampled at N samples per second, you can easily convert it to 2N samples per second just by adding a second sample for each sample in the file and playing it back twice as fast. This obviously does nothing for you in terms of quality, good or bad. As discussed above, if you interpolate data points this may improve the perceived sound quality, though the biggest benefit is that you don't need to use a crappy filter to chop off frequencies above N/2 Hz.
However, if you go from N samples per second to 1.1N samples per second, it's not so clear how to convert the file without artifacts (since the sample boundaries don't line up nicely). For example, doubling every 10th sample will produce a file at the desired effective sampling rate, but that'll sound terrible. So you probably end up doing some something reasonably sophisticated to more closely approximate what you think the original (anaog) signal must have been, given the digital samples you've got, and thus introducing artifacts (which can be good or bad). In general, you oversample to an integer multiple of the original rate to avoid such issues.
-- "Upsampling" refers specifically to oversampling when you do it before sending the signal to the output D/A converter. This may improve sound quality, perhaps because you're sending the upsampled signal to a better D/A converter than you would be otherwise. The D/A converter can be considered a filter of sorts, and if you've got good filters, you can make audio more listenable. As an analogy, consider photoshop filters. If you edge enhance an image, you haven't actually added any new information to the image. But you've modified it to make different use of the bits available in the file format. You've used the original file's information, but presented it in a way which exaggerates things which the human visual system is sensitive to. For an extreme example, just consider normalizing an audio or image file. You haven't added any information; you've just made better use of your available bandwidth.
-- So anyway, point is that there's no theoretical magic to upsampling. It doesn't add anything to the signal. But in practice it may turn out to improve perceived audio quality on existing hardware.
4. mp3 and aac, while quite practical, introduce significant artifacts. Everybody knows this. Will mp3 files sound better through better hardware? Of course. Will they sound as good as vinyl or CD audio with good converters? Of course not. Can people actually tell the difference? Yes, it's not that hard, especially if you can A/B them.
5. It is CLEARLY impossible to have both digital and analog output from a single connector and anyone who suggests otherwise is a mouth-breathing cretin.
Just kidding about #5. 🙂
Anyway, I hope someone finds this useful.
Hi,
I thought I'd try to add some more info to anyone following this thread about digital audio, upsampling, conversion, and so on. Some of you obviously know all this; I just wanted to consolidate things which came up for anyone not versed in audio.
1. First, this is pretty basic and I think folks are clear on this now, but:
-- A/D means analog-to-digital (usually for recording)
-- D/A means digital-to-analog (usually for playback)
Pros will often refer to both as simply 'converters' and the context should make it clear which direction it's going.
2. Pro recording systems often have digital inputs. This is different that having A/D converters or D/A converters. Optical inputs on recording systems allow you to use whatever outboard converters you like. It isn't too hard to spend $25k on a good microphone, mic preamp, and A/D converter. In fact, with this gear, you can then plug it right into any crappy soundcard with digital input and have *recorded* sound quality as good as plugging the same gear into a pro system with digital inputs. Obviously if you do *playback* of youur perfect signal through your crappy soundcard, you won't be able to tell how nice your recording is, but that's a different point.
3. Oversampling, upsampling and filtering.
-- Oversampling means increasing the effective sampling rate of a file, and usually implies some interpolation is done. If you take a file sampled at N samples per second, you can easily convert it to 2N samples per second just by adding a second sample for each sample in the file and playing it back twice as fast. This obviously does nothing for you in terms of quality, good or bad. As discussed above, if you interpolate data points this may improve the perceived sound quality, though the biggest benefit is that you don't need to use a crappy filter to chop off frequencies above N/2 Hz.
However, if you go from N samples per second to 1.1N samples per second, it's not so clear how to convert the file without artifacts (since the sample boundaries don't line up nicely). For example, doubling every 10th sample will produce a file at the desired effective sampling rate, but that'll sound terrible. So you probably end up doing some something reasonably sophisticated to more closely approximate what you think the original (anaog) signal must have been, given the digital samples you've got, and thus introducing artifacts (which can be good or bad). In general, you oversample to an integer multiple of the original rate to avoid such issues.
-- "Upsampling" refers specifically to oversampling when you do it before sending the signal to the output D/A converter. This may improve sound quality, perhaps because you're sending the upsampled signal to a better D/A converter than you would be otherwise. The D/A converter can be considered a filter of sorts, and if you've got good filters, you can make audio more listenable. As an analogy, consider photoshop filters. If you edge enhance an image, you haven't actually added any new information to the image. But you've modified it to make different use of the bits available in the file format. You've used the original file's information, but presented it in a way which exaggerates things which the human visual system is sensitive to. For an extreme example, just consider normalizing an audio or image file. You haven't added any information; you've just made better use of your available bandwidth.
-- So anyway, point is that there's no theoretical magic to upsampling. It doesn't add anything to the signal. But in practice it may turn out to improve perceived audio quality on existing hardware.
4. mp3 and aac, while quite practical, introduce significant artifacts. Everybody knows this. Will mp3 files sound better through better hardware? Of course. Will they sound as good as vinyl or CD audio with good converters? Of course not. Can people actually tell the difference? Yes, it's not that hard, especially if you can A/B them.
5. It is CLEARLY impossible to have both digital and analog output from a single connector and anyone who suggests otherwise is a mouth-breathing cretin.
Just kidding about #5. 🙂
Anyway, I hope someone finds this useful.
ingenious
macrumors 68000
BornAgainMac said:
Yes, I just wish broadband was a feasable option for me. Luckily, we have underground phone lines, so I can connect at a whopping 54.6 kb/s and like 33.6 kb/s upload. It's nice that the Apple Stores will let you do that... if there were any in the MidWest.
jsw
Moderator emeritus
Calebj14 said:
Where, roughly, are you? My parents live outside Peoria, IL, and my relatives are in Keokuk, IA, and both can get braodband, so perhaps it isn't going to be long for you. However, it does seem like Apple Stores aren't growing too prolifically between the coasts.
jsw said:
AirTunes support is the only /visible/ change I see.
The other bugfixes must have been to the various itunes internals.
/dale
nagromme said:
This isn't necessarily true - it all depends on how you use it. I used to pay $20 for dial up, $32 for local phone, and another $30 for long distance. That is $82 per month I was paying. I now pay $45 for cable internet, and since I have a broadband connection I use VOIP for phone (local and long distance) that costs me $27. That is only $72 per month I am paying now, so I am saving $120 per year by using broadband. Even if my dial up had only been $10 per month, I would still be breaking even to have everything much faster.
nagromme said:
Sorry - no dial up is universal (unless you are willing to dial long distance in some cases). The closest is probably AOL - which is almost as expensive as broadband these days. I have been many places where my dial up provider didn't have a local number. Also, most of the places I have travelled to recently have hotels that have some form of broadband connection.
I can think of several things I would give up before giving up my broadband access - my wife could not have completed her master's degree without that broadband. Once you get used to it, I just don't think you can go back.
runeasgar
macrumors regular
Elektronkind said:
Amazing how you managed to miss the point completely. I don't have more money to spend, and you didn't answer the question OR address the point. Congrats. Never said mine was top notch. For the FIFTH time, I want the best sound out of what I have, not to be argued with about spending more money.
Also, once again, if you can't tell a markedly improved difference from a basic or medium grade or even 'high' grade consumer system to my sound system, you must be deaf.
Wake up timer
You should be able to do this when airtunes express comes out doing the following, https://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14529&stc=1
Provided that iTunes allows you to default to an airtunes express, as it currently does at launch when it goes to the last library selected.
ccuilla said:
You should be able to do this when airtunes express comes out doing the following, https://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14529&stc=1
Provided that iTunes allows you to default to an airtunes express, as it currently does at launch when it goes to the last library selected.
Attachments
I'm missing something (a tenth of a point)
I am a X.2 user and the first thing I noticed was you need X.3 to use AirTunes. So I really do not have a problem with that new features for the new OS seems okay. But!! AirTunes working for Windows XP and not Other Mac OS's is completely absurd. Anyone know why it is only available to 10.3 and higher?
I am a X.2 user and the first thing I noticed was you need X.3 to use AirTunes. So I really do not have a problem with that new features for the new OS seems okay. But!! AirTunes working for Windows XP and not Other Mac OS's is completely absurd. Anyone know why it is only available to 10.3 and higher?
brentski said:
Because perhaps the facilities needed for AirTunes functionality in iTunes may not be present in anything before X.3?
/dale
morespce54
macrumors 65816
Apple Lossless encoding is the only functionality needed, and that's available under X.2Elektronkind said:
iTMS buttons in Norwegian
A notice from Oslo, Norway:
I may be right, I may be wrong, but I'm perfectly willing to swear: With version 4.6 of iTunes, the "Buy song" buttons are in Norwegian (that is: "Kjøp sang"). I don't think they were in Norwegian before. At least not before v4.5. If it's new in 4.6, it might just mean that iTMS Europe is coming close.
A notice from Oslo, Norway:
I may be right, I may be wrong, but I'm perfectly willing to swear: With version 4.6 of iTunes, the "Buy song" buttons are in Norwegian (that is: "Kjøp sang"). I don't think they were in Norwegian before. At least not before v4.5. If it's new in 4.6, it might just mean that iTMS Europe is coming close.
runeasgar said:
Rune, the whole point of this was there aren't any converters in the APE if you're outputting to digital. So you'd rely on whatever external converter you want.
-Matt
For using different music libraries with different music folders?evil0ne said:
What I'm looking for is the optimal way to remap pathnames of songs that were originally in two locations (internal iBook and external FireWire drives, outside the iTunes Music folder) to their new "permanent" location on an eMac internal volume (still outside the iTunes Music folder)... without losing play counts, date added, and other library information. Any pointers for how to do that would be appreciated. Nothing I've found so far has seemed quite right but I may have overlooked something obvious. Thanks!
That's how I got into my predicament with a library that now can't find songs that are finally in a single location. Once I get that resolved I'll figure out a strategy for managing libraries when copying songs from the eMac to iBook for mobile access...spankalee said:
Actually, that has been there since 4.5. I know since our Mac club at school put on an iTunes party and I recall seeing the artwork for the song's album in the visualizer. And Apple obviously knew we were having a party that Friday back in April sicne they promptly released a new version erlier that week 😀nesbitt_a said:
i think iTunes 4.6 is free, and panther is 129 dollars, and THAT is why it only works with panther.
🙂
the joys of version creep. MS seems happy to give us 6 years to get used to an OS.
and sjk, you're right, except that "fair use" is the legal matter in question, and the DMCA is valid only so long as it does not interfere with "fair use"
everyone is using vagaries to define their arguments in court, the RIAA, the MPAA, consumer activism groups, file sharing networks, judges, senators, everyone. people are making things up because legislating this system/medium/technology is in truth not possible at the level that is being attempted. digital music and video, and the internet will eventually force the reshaping of the ideas of creative copyright and intellectual property.
we're on the verge of a Brave New World. It will just take a while for the billionaires and the old men to realize that/die.
🙂
the joys of version creep. MS seems happy to give us 6 years to get used to an OS.
and sjk, you're right, except that "fair use" is the legal matter in question, and the DMCA is valid only so long as it does not interfere with "fair use"
everyone is using vagaries to define their arguments in court, the RIAA, the MPAA, consumer activism groups, file sharing networks, judges, senators, everyone. people are making things up because legislating this system/medium/technology is in truth not possible at the level that is being attempted. digital music and video, and the internet will eventually force the reshaping of the ideas of creative copyright and intellectual property.
we're on the verge of a Brave New World. It will just take a while for the billionaires and the old men to realize that/die.