This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. "CD mastering is converted from source mix into 16 bit after processing. Unlike AAC which during the conversion from 24bit to AAC the extended dynamics is preserved.".
Seriously I can't argue with illogic like that. It's seriously troll-worthy. Let's take up the argument on a Hi-Fi forum and see who comes off better off. You're seriously trying to say to say 256 kbps AAC with Apple marketing can be better than uncompressed CD. Bizarre.
Yes, 256 kbps AAC encoded from a 24bit source (Mastered for iTunes) is a higher resolution than an PCM at 44.1k 16bit (Tidal High Resolution).
I'll show you:
I've attached 6 images
The first is a 25hz sine wave at -95db at 24bit. The second photo is the same freq at 16bit.
Image 3 says it all: The 25hz tone at 24bit at -95db was exported as 16bit 44.1k wav and AAC 256kps from a the 24bit source.
The Oscilloscope for both files (wav file on the left, AAC 256kps on the right)
At 16bit low frequencies at low volumes (that are not filtered out as DC noise) end up aliasing creating digital harmonics which are partially alleviated with oversampling and filters. This issue diminished greatly when encoding the lossy format from a 24bit mastered source (which is not possible in PCM format). Despite it being a lossy, format its still a higher resolution than CD.
But this effect low volume quantization all around which is demonstrated in the next 3 photos:
3 images are a 440hz tone at -66db izotope's codec test. One is 16bit PCM, another is 24bit PCM and lastly a 24bit AAC at 256kps. of course at 440hz the filters will smooth this out considerably, but we're still talking about massive stepping at -66db.
Thus proving that the Mastered for iTunes specification is a higher resolution than Tidal's high resolution CD quality format.
Now that I've proven you wrong......
A Sidenote: I was being cordial and trying to help others realize that the Tidal high fidelity format is an inferior format compared to what Apple offers. I'm not infallible and welcome debate. However you were rude and insulting while being wrong. Just because you're incapable of understanding the difference is not my fault. Insulting me because of your shortcomings is troll-worthy. You need a little humility in your life and perhaps in your profession. You obviously have at least a rudimentary understand of how digital audio works, perhaps you should have taken 3 minutes to test what I had stated instead of making a fool out of yourself. I don't need to go to a "hifi" website to discuss such issues as I have already with Apple's engineers and scientists during development of the standard. I don't know if this is still going over your head or not, but I would recommend losing the arrogant attitude if you do not have cognitive prowess to back it.
Attachments
-
Screen Shot 2017-04-09 at 8.28.36 PM.png144.5 KB · Views: 159
-
Screen Shot 2017-04-09 at 8.29.11 PM.png137.2 KB · Views: 121
-
Screen Shot 2017-04-09 at 8.34.57 PM.png91.5 KB · Views: 118
-
Screen Shot 2017-04-09 at 10.35.17 PM.png717.9 KB · Views: 107
-
Screen Shot 2017-04-09 at 10.35.30 PM.png719.2 KB · Views: 101
-
Screen Shot 2017-04-09 at 10.35.42 PM.png714.5 KB · Views: 104
Last edited: