iTunes 4.6 Now Available

[xsnightclub]

What are the minor enhancements

Why is this thread seem to concentrating on the audio out jack on the airport express? This is about the iTunes update. Does anyone know about the other enhancements?

 

[windowsblowsass]

btw, has anyone else noticed how on the picture of the AirPort Extreme it says the ethernet port supports LAN, but in the specs it says it is only a WAN port? Whenever I've tried to plug my ethernet router into my LAN and then my LAN into my AirPort Extreme's LAN port, my Mac complains I need to connect it to my WAN port to access the internet. However, once I do this other computers on the LAN are no longer accessable through the AirPort Extreme base station. The solution is to plug the ethernet modem into the WAN port and the LAN into the LAN port, however it's annoying having to have my internet go through the AirPort before going to the LAN because it means I have to have my AirPort by my modem.


So anyways the point was just to wonder whether AirPort Express will act as a wireless access point for a LAN or not, because if it is only a WAN point it may well not do.

thats because your using two routers you need to either just use your basestation or if you need more ports get a hub

 

[Elektronkind]

I'd have to have.. like.. a $1000 - 2000 converter minimum to process an optical digital out.

Also, in addition to my statement to whomever was branding me earlier, this technology will go hi-fi, it's just that apple will not do it. So I won't be enjoying my 'cabled' world for long.

Just because your standards are low don't mean that everyone's standards are low.

Also, if I'm going to keep hearing arguments about upsampling, why don't you go look it up before you keep arguing that sound can't be 'improved'.

Jesus HP LaserJet Christ, my man. Holster that gun and cool down for a sec.

Do you really think Apple started designing the APExpress with the intent to satisfy every listener from those with $20 bookshelf speakers to those with an array of studio reference monitors in a tuned room?

From the tone and pervasivness of your arguing, even if everything were up to your spec, you would still be the one complain about spdif jitter and whatnot. At this rate, you should just put the damn original CD in your system and call it a day.

BTW, for someone so nazi and onry about audio quality, why in hell are you using an m-audio audiophile of all things?

/dale

 

[spankalee]

I have a good A/D converter for listening (not recording) that does NOT have an optical in.

Of course it doesn't have an optical in, it's a Analog to Digital converter. But why would you have a A/D in your setup, if the signal is already analog you don't want to mess it up by going digital and back to analog to your amp.

I'm talking CD quality upsampled by my A/D converter.

This is really nuts here. CD players don't have A/D converters, and you wouldn't want to run a CD player through one, just use the digital out on your CD player. Your hi-fi CD player does have a digital out right?

For those of you arguing about upsampling, once again, look it up. Nabbing a 24-bit sample on a 16-bit encoded music file means that you are recovering a better sample of the original encoding, in a sense, a better representation of the 16-bit encoding than if you grabbed it using a 16-bit A/D converter.

<cough> bull***** <cough>

What are talking about? What nasty man played a trick on you by tell you this stuff?

I'm talking about it putting out the signal in another port that I can connect to a good $200 - 300 A/D converter.

Uh... You can apparently type, but can you read? At all???

Anyway, look up upsampling before you argue about it

Ok, well let me tell you something about upsampling. It has absolutely nothing to do with bit depths. It involves increasing the sampling rate (hence upsampling) via interpolation. This is typically done right before a D/A step, but is of dubious value because it's often done so that the D/A can skimp on the analog filter. (it's hard to make a filter that cuts out everythin above 22.1khz and nothing below, so they raise the sample rate so the nyquist freq. is much higher and then use a more gently sloped filter)

 

[SilentPanda]

Hmmm... now I'm sorta annoyed (although it *is* my fault). I was fairly against using Hymn as I had no need for it. From my understanding the first version of Hymn stripped the protection *and* your user name from the AAC files. The newest version does not strip your user name. I'm assuming that is what iTunes reads to find out if it's "hacked" or not. Not protected but has a user name? don't play it.

Why did I strip the protection from my AAC files you might ask? Please understand I know I don't have a right as far as the EULA to do as such. The reason I did this however was soley so that I could burn CD's via Toast with CD-Text. That's it. I couldn't get my protected music to burn in Toast and iTunes won't burn CD-Text to the CD. So I stripped all my songs of protection and burned some CD's. Just one CD a piece. Not anything even near excessive. Unfortunately now my songs won't play in iTunes 4.6 and sadly, only adds a feature that I have no intention of using. I guess I shoulda read the boards first. Now it looks like I'm going to have to use Quicktime/Audio Hi-Jack and strip them more. Apple did *not* do this to me and I understand that. I did this to myself. I just wish it didn't have to be this way...

 

[Elektronkind]

Also, if I'm going to keep hearing arguments about upsampling, why don't you go look it up before you keep arguing that sound can't be 'improved'.

Sounds like you need to be schooled seriously on this.

upsampling will not add any sort of quality. First, ask yourself where exacly the information would come from? you have a 44.1khz recording, and nothing will turn that 44.1khz wave form into something of better quality. period.

sampling is just that... how many times a second (measured in hertz) that a analog signal is "looked at" by a A/D convertor.

Now say a digital recording was recorded at a 44.1 sample rate. That recording now only has the information that the A/D collected from the analog signal at 44,100 times a second.

UPsampling that digital recording to, say, 96khz will not change a thing, quality-wise. There is no more information to fill that gap between 44.1khz and 96khz. You will still in the end have the equivalent to a 44.1khz recording. The only way to get a true 96khz recording in this case is to re-record the original analog audio source(s) at 96khz.

There is a saying in the audio world, something your self-proclaimed audiophilism seems to have missed - and that is you can't polish a turd.

/dale

 

[johnnyjibbs]

Scrolling through my library of 2421 songs is much quicker now (draws more frames). I like it. Maybe they have reprogrammed the way it accesses the database so that my PowerBook has to use the slow hard drive less to display my library list.

 

[Audiophile]

"I don't think you can gain quality that is already lost. Audio experts can flame me at will..."

Of course you can.
Audio Restoration doesn't always take the form of removing analogue damage. Interpolation is used to correct for analogue compression of old vinyl masters to restore the dynamic range.
Interpolation is also used to restore audio which has suffered damage from lossy compression.
This is particularly effective in removing layering artifacts.

However, this is obviously not practical for this discussion.

In this case, using a good tube amp *could* "gain quality" by colouring the sound to make it sound warmer and more musical.
Of course, this actually makes it technically lower-fidelity but unless you're mastering an album with the output, your ears will thank you.

"There is a saying in the audio world, something your self-proclaimed audiophilism seems to have missed - and that is you can't polish a turd."

And there's another one you obviously haven't heard of:
"If you want to polish a turd, you better freeze it first."
Yes, you can improve damaged audio whether its analogue compression/damage or digital. That's what audio restoration is all about.

 

[spankalee]

Why is this thread seem to concentrating on the audio out jack on the airport express? This is about the iTunes update. Does anyone know about the other enhancements?

I don't think there are many other enhancements other than AirTunes support.

One thing that disappoints me is that Apple is so close to giving me the multi-room audio system I want, but is missing the mark.

AirTunes shouldn't be just AirTunes, it should be StreamTunes or something. It should be a general protocol for sending lossless audio around a network, and actually I'm sure that's already what it is, but it's just not marketed as that now.

I'm working in an office right now where we all have Macs in two small rooms. We can all hear each others music, and when I tried to listen the the same internet radio station as the girl next to me the streams were very out of sync. If she could send her audio out to my computer and both were synced I'd be in heaven.

 

[Audiophile]

"How can you add sound quality that isn't there in the first place?

That's like saying why buy a 4megapixel digital camera when you can just buy a 2megapixel one and up the resolution when you put the pics onto your computer."

Yes, you CAN do that with pictures aswell!

Interpolation:
-calculation of the value of a function between the values already known

An oversimplified view of this:
You have a resolution which only shows two values in an angled line:
Value A: 1
Value B: 3
Now this line is aliased (as audio can be) because it takes a jump from 1 to 3. We can reasonably assume that an intermediary value would be "2" and thus your line would be 1,2,3 rather than just 1,3. You just effectively increased your resolution by 33%.
Or course, using complicated algorythms, this technique can works wonders.

Unfortunately, this is very much in the world of professional audio restoration at the moment.

 

[runeasgar]

1) I'm well aware of the fact that bit depth has nothing to do with upsampling, I was neither comparing the two or attempting to argue a similarity. I was arguing two seperate points.

2) I'm ignoring the comments from people who seem confused about what they are even talking about in the way that they speak it.

3) I never said I wanted airtunes to do what I'm talking about, I'm saying I want a product that does that. 'airtunes' just happens to be something apple put out that is very very very close to what I want, so based on that, I was representing an idea that could be based on airtunes technology.

4) I know exactly what upsampling does, I know exactly what bit depth and sample rate is. I know exactly the effect that plotting more points along a curve does, it adds a slight digital harshness in favor of a smoother wavelength. Hence, upsampling.

5) I'm running the sound through my laptop, I thought that was fairly obvious by this point. Duh? I'm using an audiophile because that is the cheapest decent A/D converter I can find. It's not a matter of wanting something better, I can't afford one better.

6) Once again, I'm playing music from my laptop. I'm not going to go through and respond to every innane argument about hi-fi audio vs. cd audio vs. compressed audio vs. whatever else. Half of you are making statements that are obviously unfounded.

For those of you who HAVE made logical arguments, I'm still soaking some of this up, but the above stands.

For those of you who are still apparently unaware of how the sound system works, here:

My Audiophile connects to coreaudio via a driver. It grabs a 24-bit 48kHz (up to 96kHz) sample of the digital information coreaudio sends it. This is the digital representation of a moment of the song (signal). It then converts this digital representation into an analog signal.

** STOP **
This is the part that I want sent wirelessly to my speakers. This OR for a lossless quality representation of the song to be output through a jack on the airport that could be then connected to a A/D that doesn't happen to have a digital optical in (you might take note, many A/D converters do not have optical digital in).
** OK, CONTINUE **

That analog signal is sent by two cables to my speakers which then turn the analog signal, derived from the 24-bit 48kHz (up to 96kHz) digital sample taken from coreaudio, which was recieved from itunes, which originated from an mp3 or aac file that was compressed from a cd that was created using 44kHz sampling into vibration, which creates sound.

 

[floatingspirit]

I guess I will just have to take out 10 hours to download it on my dial up connection.

I have a question for dial up users: how come it takes like 15 seconds before my modem starts dialing and my PeeCee takes only like 2 seconds?

I am talking about my iBook, specs below \/

Just wondering:
Why do such avid computer users still use dial up? And why download the updated iTunes because with dial up you can't take advantage of the wireless feature, can you?

 

[spankalee]

runeasgar, you're still way off on a few things here.

First no A/Ds have optical in, because optical carries a digital signal and A/Ds convert from analog to digital. Maybe you mean a D/A. You're Audiophile has both D/As and A/Ds.

I also think you're overestimating the quality of the audiophile. Regardless of the name those things aren't particularly high quality. They are the bottom of the line of M-Audio gear and often refered to as "audio piles" (I used to sell pro-audio equipment). The D/A in the AirPort express isn't going to be much different in quality, if at all.

Also you absolutely would not want to send an analog signal from your notebook to your stereo. Analog signals are much more susceptible to interference. The AirPort Express will exatcly duplicate the digital audio signal with no loss in quality whatsoever. It doesn't get any better than that.

If you don't want to use the AirPort Express D/A then go get a D/A with optical in, or get an optical to coax converter and use your audiophile. Or you can get a receiver with optical in, this will have the advantage that most will also decode surround sound.

So basically my answer is that Apple has released the device you want, but you just don't realize it yet.

 

[jtquick2001]

what can we expect when the anounce Eruo-iTunes?

This is strange that they are making these anouncements now and not at the keynote for iTunes Eruope. I mean surely there has to be something music related coming other then that. What about another anouncement for the americans on that day. Its like there are taking the fun away for us yankees!

 

[runeasgar]

Sounds like you need to be schooled seriously on this.

upsampling will not add any sort of quality. First, ask yourself where exacly the information would come from? you have a 44.1khz recording, and nothing will turn that 44.1khz wave form into something of better quality. period.

sampling is just that... how many times a second (measured in hertz) that a analog signal is "looked at" by a A/D convertor.

Now say a digital recording was recorded at a 44.1 sample rate. That recording now only has the information that the A/D collected from the analog signal at 44,100 times a second.

UPsampling that digital recording to, say, 96khz will not change a thing, quality-wise. There is no more information to fill that gap between 44.1khz and 96khz. You will still in the end have the equivalent to a 44.1khz recording. The only way to get a true 96khz recording in this case is to re-record the original analog audio source(s) at 96khz.

There is a saying in the audio world, something your self-proclaimed audiophilism seems to have missed - and that is you can't polish a turd.

/dale

I figured I'd reply specifically to this one, since it's the most illogical argument of them all.. You'll find several posts since this one explaining a very simple upsampling concept. Ever heard of bicubic resampling? interpolation? upsampling?

Apparently not. When an A/D converter upsamples a digital sample of a moment of a song, it plots more points on the wavelength, hence producing a curve to the sound. If you want proof of this, find some good speakers and an A/D converter where you can set the sample rate. Change the sample rate to something higher than 44kHz for a song from a CD.

If you can't hear the difference, well, nothing I can do for you. The difference is there. Everything sounds smoother. Your 48kHz soundcard in your computer upsamples everything that comes out of it by 4kHz. So despite your apparent disbelief in upsampling, everything you listen to IS upsampled, and it DOES have a very LARGE impact on the sound, which is very noticable on good speakers/monitors.

That being said, I don't use 96kHz very often because of the digital harshness it adds. BUT, I do use it occasionally for badly compressed music, and I'd like to have that capability in wireless audio.

Another note: Regarding optical in for A/D converters. Did a little more research. A/D converters, especially non-onboard / good A/D converters USUALLY do not have optical in. They can, yes, but I'd have to specifically go looking for one.

THAT being said, I think the proprietary technology should be left up to the A/D converters, not the streaming technology. I don't want to have to choose an A/D converter to work specifically with my wireless technology. I'd rather have a signal source that supports more formats. Wouldn't you?

 

[jsw]

Just wondering:
Why do such avid computer users still use dial up? And why download the updated iTunes because with dial up you can't take advantage of the wireless feature, can you?

As has been said often enough in this thread alone, not everyone can get broadband - even if they want it and can afford it. Satellite, maybe, but that's quite pricey and not available to everyone either (i.e., apartment dwellers in non-broadband territory).

Also, the quality of your internet connection has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to use a wireless signal in your home.

 

[runeasgar]

Nah.. you've obviously never heard the audiophile. I agree, it's not that great. But it has the exact same D/A / A/D converters as the Delta 1010, and it sounds infinitely better (on speakers where you can notice it) than any average soundcard.

I've been referring to Analog to Digital AND Digital to Analog using the term A/D. A/D converter just means it converts between the two. We probably just have conflicting terminology.

I did not know that the analog signal would be more succeptable, but I figured it would be, that's why you'll notice the big giant OR that I'm not going to repeat for the 3rd time.

Also, the airport express is $130, I don't want to spend an additional $300 - whatever dollars getting ANOTHER converter to SPECIFICALLY work with the airport express. Optical in is used for speakers, very rarely is it used for A/D|D/A converters, and that's what apple intended it for, direct input to speakers.

The airport express doesn't take external or alternative A/D|D/A conversion into account anywhere. The fact that a very small number of good D/A converters accept digital in is more likely a coincidence than intentional.

 

[parenthesis]

On the topic of iTunes 4.6...

I plugged my (brand new, just got it today *giddy*) iPod in, and got a message saying that my iPod software version was too old to use all of my songs.

This didn't happen before I upgraded to 4.6. Has anyone else had any problems?

 

[jsw]

I figured I'd reply specifically to this one, since it's the most illogical argument of them all.. You'll find several posts since this one explaining a very simple upsampling concept. ...

... When an A/D converter upsamples a digital sample of a moment of a song, it plots more points on the wavelength, hence producing a curve to the sound. If you want proof of this, find some good speakers and an A/D converter where you can set the sample rate. Change the sample rate to something higher than 44kHz for a song from a CD.

I'm going to stay out of the analog-to-digital/digital-to-analog/quality-of-equipment arguments. However, as runeasgar said, once something has been sampled at a certain rate, upsampling - and, in particular, upsampling with intelligent algorithms - can produce better sound, due to the fact that sound is easier to "guess" than, say, pictoral information. It's usually somewhat simple to determine what goes between the sampled audio bits - much easier than guessing what goes between sampled pixels. Is it guaranteed to be more accurate? No. But, the vast majority of the time, a well-upsampled audio stream will sound better and closer to the source sound than will the original stream. It isn't magic. And it doesn't work as well at the highest frequencies and - I think- at ones which are harmonics of the sampling rate. But it does produce better results. Ultimately, for sound, what sounds better is better.

 

[jaw04005]

Just wondering:
Why do such avid computer users still use dial up? And why download the updated iTunes because with dial up you can't take advantage of the wireless feature, can you?

Heh. Well because some avid computer users can't get DSL, Cable, and no wireless network is available in our area. The only alternative is Satellite, and that is very expensive. Yes, you will be able to take advantage of the wireless audio and file/printer sharing features of the Airport Express. You can have an 802.11g network running without the internet for file and printer sharing. You are not really using your base station to extent it was mean't to be used, but nevertheless it will work.

 

[CTerry]

I plugged my (brand new, just got it today *giddy*) iPod in, and got a message saying that my iPod software version was too old to use all of my songs.

This didn't happen before I upgraded to 4.6. Has anyone else had any problems?

Have you got the latest iPod Firmware update? It was only updated recently. If you've not got the latest firmware, and have Apple Lossless tracks they wont go on your iPod.

 

[Audiophile]

I plugged my (brand new, just got it today *giddy*) iPod in, and got a message saying that my iPod software version was too old to use all of my songs.

This didn't happen before I upgraded to 4.6. Has anyone else had any problems?

There was an iPod firmware update released when iTunes 4.5 came out. You need to flash your iPod.

 

[iChan]

Is this new? Album art with visualisations?

-A.

nah, it's been there for since version 3 or 4...

the version where they actually started letting you add album art

 

[spankalee]

If you can't hear the difference, well, nothing I can do for you. The difference is there. Everything sounds smoother. Your 48kHz soundcard in your computer upsamples everything that comes out of it by 4kHz.

That is very very untrue. A card that supports 48kHz will still play back 44.1kHz material at 44.1. It's actually up to the application to set the sample rate. A buggy app can sometimes play 44.1 audio through the card set at 48 and it will be noticeably sharp.

THAT being said, I think the proprietary technology should be left up to the A/D converters, not the streaming technology. I don't want to have to choose an A/D converter to work specifically with my wireless technology. I'd rather have a signal source that supports more formats. Wouldn't you?

There is nothing about AirPort Express that forces you to use a particular D/A converter. That why they have an optical out in the first place. Use it. It's not Apple's fault you don't have a D/A with optical. Optical is fairly common, especially with stereo equipment.

 

[iChan]

Scrolling through my library of 2421 songs is much quicker now (draws more frames). I like it. Maybe they have reprogrammed the way it accesses the database so that my PowerBook has to use the slow hard drive less to display my library list.

i agree with you... much quicker, smoother...

i also noticed that the library shows up quicker when you launch it...

i love the direction apple are going with all of their consumer apps for the past year... they have been adding feature upon feature and also making the programs faster!

i basically dreaded using mail a while back because it kept crashing on me, now it is a dream to use... also, iPhoto, i practically gave up on it just after I got my second digitcal camera and began using it a LOT... iPhoto slowed to a crawl, then i got iPhoto 4 and the dream has fully resumed...

it's amazing how much extra performance apple is able to squeeze out these apps with every update. just amazing! keep up the great work!