Apple promises an unforgettable iTunes announcement coming Tuesday - Page 6

"Huge" and "a lot of money" are relative terms. Relative to anything I'll ever see in a lifetime, you are undeniably correct. But relative to the amount of revenue and profits that Apple makes already from current products, serving up Beatles on iTunes will be "in the noise" as far as Apple is concerned.

Now, would it make headline news? Certainly, as does everything Apple announces these days, whether it deserves it or not.

Would it be "unforgettable"? Unclear. If others here are correct, the Beatles actually have a following even with youngsters. Prior to hearing that my hunch would have suggested that if this event was about the Beatles becoming available on iTunes and you took a poll to get folks opinions, there would be two distinct reactions:

(1) holy cow, finally the Beatles on iTunes! This is an unforgettable day!

(2) what's so unforgettable about THAT!?!?!? You've got to be kidding me.

And I thought that the second reaction would outnumber the first by a significant factor. (FWIW, I would be in the first category.) But now, I'm not so sure.

Thompson

Billboard is chiming in saying Beatles is Best bet

That in itself would be worth an announcement.

I am NOT talking about the frequencies that sound is on - the 20-20k stuff (the "low end" and "high end"). I'm talking about how often digital makes a sample of said sound. The sampling frequency is NOT the same thing as sound frequency.

Digital INTERPOLATES what is in between the samples. But it's not the actual signal.

DVDAudio has a higher sampling frequency, which gives it a MUCH better idea of what is in between those samples - better interpolation.

Say for instance, digital had a 2 sample rate per second. It makes a recording at the 1/2 second mark and the 1 second mark. So what does digital do about 1/4 and 3/4? It INTERPOLATES. If it had a 4 sample rate, it could sample at 1/4 second, 1/2 second, 3/4 second and 1 second. That gives it a MUCH better idea of what is at, say, 3/16 seconds.

Analog does not interpolate. It has everything between 0 and 1 second.

Oh and thanks... I figured it was only a matter of time before someone had to resort to personal attacks.

I don't know anything about sampling (or, maybe, now, not much) but the sampling article on Wikipedia, assuming it's pretty much correct, should help clear this up for most everyone. This is the important part, I think:


I hadn't ever really seriously thought about this before, but had always assumed that analog to digital conversion results in loss. Now I'm convinced that it doesn't necessarily. (Which isn't the same as a perfect recording, but analog recordings aren't perfect either.)

why would they make big deal about the release of 4.2 when they release every other iOS update subtly (at most on the bottom of the homepage). And with the second Gold Master candidate out, I don't think we will see any surprises.

The billboard article is funny, it looks like they just read forums like this and MR and turned the anonymous speculation into an article.


Apple is one of the most profitable companies in the world, so relative to that, any one thing they do is going to be relatively tiny. But in terms of sales compared to other artists on iTunes (or really any music sales in general, let's not forget that iTunes is the biggest music seller), it will be a big one.

Gruber is a pretty smart dude and he is doing some Beatles speculation. He is calling it a guess

Several clues:

The Beatles were taped on November 16, 1963 for the first US television appearance which aired on November 21.

Also on November 16...

In 1974 John Lennon released his only solo #1 "Whatever gets you through the night"

In 1979 Paul McCartney released "Wonderful Christmas"

In 1984 John Lennon released "Every man has a woman who loves him"

In 1987 Paul McCartney released "Once upon a long ago"

Coincidentally, Beatles Ltd. and Apple Music Ltd. swapped names on November 17, 1967.

About time.

Well, you're not disagreeing with anything I've said yet so I don't know why you keep repeating that. But in the case of digital the sampling frequency tells us what frequencies can be recorded so any discussion of it is going to include both (specifically, digital sampling allows recording up to half the sampling frequency, so a sample rate of 48k allows recording up to the frequency 24k).


No it doesn't. That's the armchair assumption of what happens.


Wrong. It gives a recording of HIGHER FREQUENCIES. And nothing more. What is "in between the samples" is just frequencies higher than what can be recorded by a given sample rate. And those higher frequencies aren't recorded by analog recordings either.


Again, wrong and ignorant of how sampling works. Any frequency that can be recorded by a given sample rate (half the sampling frequency) will be captured accurately by a digital recording. No "interpolation" is going on, and sampling more often isn't going to give a better picture of that frequency. It is only going to allow recording HIGHER frequencies if they are present (and if they are not present it will just be redundant data and make ZERO difference in sound quality).


What you are talking about is higher frequencies versus lower frequencies. If a signal is unable to be captured accurately by a given sample rate, then it it is one of the higher frequencies that isn't recorded. But if a signal falls within the range that can be recorded, you don't need more data points. The frequency can be recorded and played back completely accurately and sampling more often is going to give the exact same result.

I know it's not intuitive and I know since you're completely uninformed about how sampling works that you're not going to believe it, but that's how it is. Digital audio isn't like digital graphics where you can put your nose to the screen and see the little dots (yet people constantly wrongly assume it is).


Well, I'll agree that it doesn't "interpolate" but since it has limitations on the high and low end of what frequencies it can record, it doesn't have "everything" that the vibration in the air and the electrical signal coming from the mic have. To be more specific, if an analog recording device records up to 20k, if there is an input waveform that goes up to 30k, it will lose that high frequency information (which is what happens with digital). And since people generally can't hear much over 20k, that's not a big deal.

I see what you're trying to say here.

That is the reason iTunes store can't be my main source of music unless Apple offers lossless format.

Interesting stuff about the digital vs analog recording in this discussion, but as someone who has had stereos the size of dorm refrigerators in the past, i happily went to digital for these two reasons alone:

1. LP's crackle after repeated use.
2. Tapes hiss after repeated use.

Both 1 and 2 eventually sound much worse than sampling problems from digital recordings.

I REALLY hate to bring in wikipedia, but regardless...

Mindbender, please explain this:



Those vertical lines are where digital samples. Between those lines, digital does NOT record. It interpolates what is there.

Analog does not interpolate that. It records the entire wave.

The part you quoted is exactly what is relevant here. There is going to be loss when recording or when transferring from one medium to another simply because no recording technology is perfect. But the notion that one is "continuous" while the other is pictured as stairsteps or connect-the-dots is simply false (and sadly reinforced by crappy "explanations" that use those sort of graphs).

If someone has trouble understanding it conceptually and needs a mental comparison, better off not thinking of it like pixels on a screen, more like a vector drawing. Once you've specified a straight line between two points, adding more points on the middle of it isn't going to make that line any more accurate, it's just redundant data, same for a curve with defined endpoints and a mathematical formula between - neither is "leaving out/skipping over" just because there aren't tons of data points along the line. Probably not the best analogy, but the best I can come up with without doing a whole tutorial on digital sampling.

No, most would agree that it should have been "Think differently".

I think the "Just another day" reference has something to do with Paul McCartney. McCartney recently released new remasters of "Band On The Run" in various special editions and this is supposed to be the first of a series. This announcement may be that all of the upcoming McCartney remasters will be available on iTunes. And this would also be something for which a press conference would be unnecessary.

And I agree with those who feel that a Beatles announcement, if that's what it is, will not have the impact that it would have had ten years ago, since anyone who wanted the Beatles music has purchased it on CD and transferred it. Especially since there are so many great tracks on most Beatles' albums, it's generally less expensive to purchase on CD than it would have been on iTunes anyway.

One thing in favor of a Beatles or Beatles solo announcement is that November is a critical date for many of their releases. "With the Beatles" was released in the UK on 11/27/63. "Beatles For Sale" was released in the UK 11/27/64. "Magical Mystery Tour" was released in the US on 11/27/67. "The White Album" ("The Beatles") was released in the UK on 11/22 and in the US on 11/25/68. Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" was released 11/27/70. Lennon's "Double Fantasy" was released 11/21/80. McCartney's "Band On the Run" was released 11/12/73 in the UK and 12/7/73 in the U.S. Or, it could all be coincidence. There's so many releases between them all that some of them had to fall in November.

Personally, I couldn't care less. More than 95% of my iTunes music is transferred from CDs. Better quality, less expensive, better packaging, liner notes and automatic backup copy.

Again, I'm not an expert on, or even all that knowledgeable about, this topic, however, from my brief reading, it seems that there is interpolation, but, because of the nature of sound and the sampling process, the reconstruction process is able to precisely and correctly interpolate the missing pieces of the sound wave -- i.e., there is "loss", but the lost parts can be perfectly recreated.

Hopefully it'll be iTunes cloud/iTunes.com and you could upload all of your music and access it where ever you want.

Tomorrow is just another day.

That you'll never forget.

Yes, I've seen the animation at apple.com

There have been numerous comments on this. I understand points about Apple attempting another catch-phrase like 'Think Different'. But 'That you'll never forget.' is in a League of Awfulness all on its own.


I offered some alternatives earlier, here's another one:


I think someone offered this earlier, stating that the 'That' in the second line refers to 'tomorrow' - so 'That' becomes the required subject for the sentence rather than just a conjunction. But, this doesn't really work unless there is a comma after the 'That'.

That you'll never forget.
That, you'll never forget.

You see that the second example reads more like:
"That tomorrow, which is just another day, is one you'll never forget.

But even that is still uncomfortable. I'd prefer the animation to show:

Tomorrow is just another day...

that you'll never forget!

True.


Beatles on iTunes will not only be tiny relative to the whole enchilada, as you correctly point out, but it will probably be tiny even relative to the individual contributors, completely overshadowed by iPhone, or iPad, or iPod, or Mac, or the App store, etc. In other words, from an earnings standpoint, I expect the availability of Beatles on iTunes to be inconsequential for Apple. It would at best be a symbolic victory. (Which I probably should not under-appreciate.)



Well, relative to any other given artist on iTunes, making the Beatles available would instantly take them to number one for some amount of time. How long that would last is anybody's guess. But even if it went on indefinitely, I don't think that the Beatles' contribution would amount to much relative to the entire combined catalogue of the other artists (and movies, and apps, etc). So on a percentage basis, it would barely move the needle for iTunes, and that is already a small player in Apple's quarterly profit.

I suspect that a Beatles announcement would originally make a big splash, but then ultimately reveal itself as not that big of a deal in the long run.


Thompson

You still haven't seen the explanation for why use of "different" is fine in the context that Apple intended?

Thompson

Indeed, and even the original analogue "Golden Master", from which all copies derive, may endure some loss of quality over time, as its components deteriorate...

Digital rules!

Thompson

Uh NO!

First, there is NO interpolation between data points, other than the analog output signal of the DAC "smoothly" transitioning from one data point to the next.

The sample rate and the frequencies captured are directly linked. Look up Nyquist. Basically in theory you can only reproduce frequencies up to 1/2 the sample rate. This is a theoretical maximum. In practice with digital music, we have timing issues referred to as "jitter" that mean you can not accurately recreate the music up to the full Nyquist frequency. It is a bit of a simplification, but if you push the sample rate up, you can push the jitter errors up above the range of human hearing.

Did you actually read ANY of that article (much less all of it) or just grab the first picture you saw?

As quoted above:


Yes, it reconstructs the data between the points. But it's not guessing or estimating or averaging, it's (according to the page you just linked to) perfectly reconstructing the input signal. Of course the recording process itself isn't perfect (none is, analog recording has plenty of limitations as well), but the problem isn't having too few samples of the frequencies we're trying to record.


But it doesn't record the entire wave. If the frequencies are beyond what analog can record, those frequencies are lost. Meaning that the waveform is different from the original - you keep pretending that analog recording has the ability to somehow magically recreate any waveform but that's simply false.

You managed to find that article. Now if you want to continue discussing the topic, please actually read it. And bear in mind that it flat out contradicts what you keep repeatedly claiming (which I assume you just came up with off the top of your head based on a tiny bit of knowledge about sampling).


Exactly. In discussions like this when people say "interpolation" they mean that it doesn't have enough data so it's averaging or making a guess to fill in or whatever, but that's not the case at all - it's actually reconstructing the exact same waveform that was at the input of the sampling process.

One can only hope. One can only hope.

If you look at iTunes, they look like they're already available there.


And that wouldn't be a huge thing for iTunes?


I can't tell you how nice it is to read someone actually totally getting it.

No no no. Digital does not interpolate at all. When Digital is converted back to analog in the DAC it simply connects the dots with a curve, the curve being based on the physical capabilities of the DAC to change volatages, and the DAC design.

Analog does not capture the entire signal either. Just as there can be small wave changes in between the digital samples, there can be changes (high frequencies) that are too small to record on the tape or LP or whatever the analog medium. All the devices in the chain, from the instruments, to the microphones, to the recording medium, to the mixing panel, to the master, to the duplication machine, to the customer medea, to the playback devices etc. ALL have frequency response limitations. They don't capture the entire curve, but if they are high quality, they capture the portion of the curves we can hear.

Digital is the same way. No different except how the data is stored and read. For a digital source to be indistuinguishable from a very high quality analog source, you simply need high enough sampling rates and high enough bit depth, and equipment capable of turning the bits back into an analog signal that is accurate (including jitter free) at frequencies that humans can hear. On this point, BTW, the 20hz-20khz numbers are based on typical hearing at a certain db level. Many people can hear beyond this range at higher volumes, especially those younger than 25 who can often hear into the low to mid 20's (khz). Also, most people can "hear" a 10 hz signal if it is loud enough, and we certainly can feel it.

Not necessarily, no. If all of the other artists combined still outsell the Beatles by a thousand to one even during that initial frenzy (which I find likely) and if the frenzy eventually settled down...

Let's just say that years later, if you plotted the iTunes daily revenue, I suspect that you would be hard pressed to identify the day at which this event occurred (assuming you had forgotten it!).

Thompson

Ive got it!

Steve Jobs is going to raise John Lennon and George Harrison from the dead!

"Just Another Day" ....

The clock hand positions on the face kinda/sorta similar to the "Help!" cover ....

But why we would "never forget" it is beyond me.

That's partially correct. Digital (CD digital anyway), records at 44,100 samples per second. People like you claim that's not enough and that's why analog is better. The Nyquist theorem states that the sampling rate has to be (a minimum of) twice the highest frequency you wish to record. Since human hearing (of an infant) extends to 22KHz, 44.1 KHz was chosen (for commercial CDs) as the sampling rate. In part, this was a compromise so that at least 70 minutes of stereo music could fit on a CD.

Analog does not "record" the entire wave any more than a Xerox machine makes an exact copy of a document. Analog reinterprets and reformulates the entire wave through electro-mechanical means. That's why each time you make a copy, you have severe generational loss. You also have errors that aren't generational. For example, how well does the stylus track an LP groove? If the stylus can't accurately track it, you get distortion of the original wave form. If the stamper used to press that waveform into the vinyl is worn, you get distortion. If the vinyl itself has flaws, you get distortion. (And by distortion, I don't just mean harmonic distortion, like when you turn the volume up too loud --- I mean any variant of the original wave form.) In analog recording, if the level is set too high, you get tape saturation - a distortion which some engineers will use for creative purposes, but distortion nonetheless.

There are digital systems with higher sampling rates. Some systems sample at 96,000 times per second instead of 44,100. For an original live recording, especially an acoustic recording, it can sometimes make a difference that can be perceived. I have a CD-recorder that is capable of recording 96/24, but frankly, when making copies from LPs, even LPs that were recorded in analog, I can't hear any difference whatsoever.

However, digital does interpolate in the Y axis of your diagram. CD digital is a 16 bit system. In a 16 bit system, there can be 65,535 different values of "level" (actually voltage). When an analog signal is converted to digital, one of those 65,535 levels must be chosen even if the actual level falls in-between. This process is called quantization. When the exact level isn't "chosen", there is what is called quantization error. If the process is upgraded from 16 bit to 24 bits, there is much higher resolution in the voltage domain - 1.67 million different values or 256x the voltage resolution as compared to a 16 bit system.

(There are other factors, such as what happens when not enough bits of the system is used and noise is generated. "Dither noise" is introduced to compensate, but I won't get into those issues for purposes of this discussion. Analog has its counterparts, such as Dolby noise reduction.)

There are plenty of people who swear that analog is a better recording process, but at least insofar as recorded content is concerned, if I playback a vinyl LP recorded by analog means and a CD-R of that same album in sync and switch between them, you will not be able to tell which is which, especially in a double-blind test. Now there are those "subjectivists" who don't believe in double-blind testing, but I don't want to get into that argument here.

I am a vinyl fan and still have several hundred vinyl LPs in my living room, but those who claim that analog is always superior to digital are fooling themselves, IMO. All I remember back in the 70s, before the advent of the CD, is how much we used to bitch about poor pressing quality and the lousy sound of LPs, especially in the U.S. Every time I hear a CD that to my mind, sounds inferior to the way I remember the vinyl, I go back to the vinyl and listen and inevitably, the vinyl sounds far worse. There are those who swear that the original British pressings of Beatles LPs, for example, sound far superior to the recent remasters on CD. I don't happen to think the remasters are as much as an improvement as was claimed, but I also don't think they sound worse than the original LPs.

Yes, under absolutely perfect conditions ($20,000 turntables, $50,000 speaker systems, perfect pressings), vinyl can sound terrific, but we have to deal with the real world.

I think what we're remembering when we think analog sounds better are those terrific tube-based amplifiers and original model loudspeakers from the peak of the hi-fi era, from such manufacturers as AR, Advent, McIntosh, Dynaco, etc. as well as our emotional response to hearing that music for the first time. There's nothing wrong with digital audio recording, except for the way it is used. Because every group wants to be the "loudest", the dynamic range of most CDs is far less than it was in the vinyl days, even though CD is capable of 96db dynamic range. We're usually using only about 25 to 35db of it.

40 years from now, little CaryMG III will be sitting on your lap and will ask his beloved pappi, “Grandpa, where were you when the iTunes Store got the Beatles catalog?” …and you’ll know.

It's official. It's the Beatles. Big deal. I have them all (09-09-09, mono, stereo, the whole catalog everything).

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3bdf08e2-f...#axzz15Oj8pRHe

I agree. I hope apple explains the tease.

It is a big deal to get those songs into itunes. but a day you will never forget? Us beatle fans are so old we don't remember what happened last week.

Apple. Will announce. That they've created an. Entirely new Language. Called iSpeak. Apple will. Promulgate. This new language. Maximum plus infiltration.

Once again, the hopes and dreams and every wishlist demand of thousands of people are projected onto Apple's plans. Many will be disappointed. We'll know soon enough.

From the Flaming Pie


Beatles finally for sale on iTunes store

By Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New York

Published: November 15 2010 22:48 | Last updated: November 15 2010 22:48

The Beatles look set to make their music available for the first time on Apple’s industry-leading iTunes digital entertainment store, the company behind the iPod and iPhone is expected to announce on Tuesday, signalling an end to the company’s disputes with the best-selling band.

Otherwise you have to register to read the article.

I just ripped my 62-66 and 67-70 cds bought recently, waiting for iTunes to finally recognize them as albums with cover art work.

Oh and check this:

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-...eatles+catalog

2,190,000 references. as of time of posting.

BEATLES.

You guys are cracking me up on this topic. I went to school for this. Everyone who thinks they can hear the difference between analog and digital is completely correct. Now, I implore you, please go listen to say 'Muddy Waters' singing the "Good morning blues" which was recorded in analog, and then listen to "The sky is crying" from Stevie Ray Vaughn. I don't care what medium you even listen to it is. Lossless comes down to recording. Every mic has its limitations. I can understand audiophiles, but analog vs. digital... please go to school and learn about recording before you start talking about real "Lossless" audio.

I also have to add that I sat through hours and read countless articles stating many of the facts that Zoetmb is presenting. Consider yourself as getting as crash course.... He's right, at least from what I learned, as far as PRESENTATION goes. Recording is a different matter. Different engineers will choose either analog or digital to suit the situation or the sound they want to capture.