or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple rumored to be developing new audio format designed for iCloud streaming
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple rumored to be developing new audio format designed for iCloud streaming

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
Apple is said to be working on a new audio file format that would help to bolster its iCloud service by focusing on "adaptive streaming" for users on the go.

In addition to improving streaming of music, the new audio file would also offer "high-definition" quality to users who have more bandwidth and storage available on their iPhone, iPad or iPod, according to The Guardian. The new file type is reportedly expected to upgrade the $24.99-per-year iTunes Match service as well, which allows users to access music they obtained from sources outside of iTunes over the iCloud service.

"A source with inside knowledge of the process says Apple has asked a London studio to prepare audio files for a new streaming format that will adapt to bandwidth or hardware capabilities," the report said. It quoted an unnamed person who said users' libraries would "improve in an instant," and nothing would need to be done to upgrade files from the current AAC format to high definition.

With the new method, users will reportedly be able to obtain high quality audio when they are over a faster connection, like Wi-Fi. But when on the go using 3G, bandwidth could be conserved by automatically accessing a lower quality file.

The U.K. publication said the timing of the rumor "suggests it will showcase the new streaming technology alongside the announcement of the third generation of its iPad tablet." Apple is expected to hold a media event on March 7 to unveil its next iPad.

The first indication that Apple was working on a high-definition audio format came from artist Neil Young, who said at a conference last month that he worked directly with late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs on the project. Young indicated the new music format would offer fans uncompromised studio-quality sound in the form of digital music downloads.




"Steve Jobs was a pioneer of digital music," Young said. "His legacy is tremendous. But when he went home, he listened to vinyl. And you gotta believe that if he lived long enough, he would have eventually done what I'm trying to do."

Rumblings of a high-definition audio format from Apple are not new. Last February, one report claimed that the company was in talks with record labels to improve the quality of song downloads available from the iTunes Music Store. Current downloads from iTunes are 16 bits, but it was said that Apple wants to increase them to a 24-bit high-fidelity format.

Apple previously upgraded the quality of the audio files it sells in 2007 with the release of iTunes 7.2 and iTunes Plus. iTunes Plus tracks feature high-quality 256kbps AAC encoding and are void of any digital rights management protection.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 48
Freaking awesome news! Too bad my hearing isn't what it used to be.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #3 of 48
*sigh* Still no ALAC.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #4 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple is said to be working on a new audio file format that would help to bolster its iCloud service by focusing on "adaptive streaming" for users on the go.

...

The first indication that Apple was working on a high-definition audio format came from artist Neil Young, who said at a conference last month that he worked directly with late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs on the project. Young indicated the new music format would offer fans uncompromised studio-quality sound in the form of digital music downloads.



Just what we need - another proprietary Apple format.

And the Neil Young thing has nothing to do with what Apple is said to be working on. Neil wants a high definition recording - while the Apple thing is a method for streaming variable quality renditions of existing recordings. It has nothing to do with making recordings in a higher quality than at present.
post #5 of 48
Who cares. With data caps in the US, what's the point? You'll still run into a wall.
post #6 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Freaking awesome news! Too bad my hearing isn't what it used to be.

May be the adapative nature of the format will deal with this as well !
post #7 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

*sigh* Still no ALAC.

ALAC is unnecessary for high quality audio. Anything above 160 kbps AAC sounds good to most people.

Anyway, the whole cloud concept is hugely oversold as it is of very doubtful utility in many cases.
post #8 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Who cares. With data caps in the US, what's the point? You'll still run into a wall.

^^^^Didn't read^^^^

Quote:
With the new method, users will reportedly be able to obtain high quality audio when they are over a faster connection, like Wi-Fi. But when on the go using 3G, bandwidth could be conserved by automatically accessing a lower quality file.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

ALAC is unnecessary for high quality audio. Anything above 160 kbps AAC sounds good to most people.

Yes, most people.

Quote:
Anyway, the whole cloud concept is hugely oversold as it is of very doubtful utility in many cases.

Indeed. I find it wonderful that they now allow redownloads of purchased music, but I couldn't care less about actually storing my music in the cloud. All on my computer, period. That's still the only place I'll trust the actual files.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #9 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

*sigh* Still no ALAC.

And if it doesn't support Ogg Vorbis then forget it.
post #10 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

And if it doesn't support Ogg Vorbis then forget it.

I mean for purchase from iTunes.

And the difference here is that ALAC's actually a good format.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #11 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

^^^^Didn't read^^^^

Yes I did. It said could conserve over 3G....but I doubt that a song that takes 3 megs (random number) to stream will go down to 50k.
post #12 of 48
It's called HE-AAC. Apple has been putting support for this on the iPods and iPhones for a couple years, but went largely unused and un-noticed. It makes sense for Apple to use it for the streaming service due to the lower bitrate.
post #13 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I mean for purchase from iTunes.

And the difference here is that ALAC's actually a good format.

The ironic thing about the ALAC/FLAC wars is that we're pretty much talking about the exact same data (ripped CDs...previously known as AIFF). The only difference is the file structure and method for lossless compression. Once uncompressed, both formats should be identical.

For this audiophile, if Apple can actually do a streaming file with better resolution, than hallelujah! As it stands now, even CDs aren't giving you the whole picture of the recording. That's what we had SACD, DVD-Audio and now Blu-Ray audio. And of course, there's still some vinyl out there.
post #14 of 48
It's not a rumours, it's already available and it's not a new format either

here is some good reading:
http://images.apple.com/itunes/maste...for_itunes.pdf

Right now it's doesn't change a lot the quality, but it open the way for the future. Apple will archive every Mastered for itunes song in full 96khz/24bits and compress on demand to feed the user.
post #15 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab View Post

May be the adapative nature of the format will deal with this as well !

That would be something
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #16 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post

Apple will archive every Mastered for itunes song in full 96khz/24bits and compress on demand to feed the user.

Perhaps with this new format they're working on it'll be dynamically scalable, but my understanding of the Mastered for iTunes thing was so they would have the best quality masters available to them. This way, they could always go back to it as processing power and storage continues to improve (this is what they say in the PDF) to create files with bitrates that improve upon iTunes Plus (256kVBR). Either way, it's cool news.

I'm doing something similar with my personal collection where I'm re-ripping all my CDs (again) in ALAC. I'll be keeping that on a separate drive for archival purposes and creating more "portable" versions (256k & 320k VBR) for use on my iDevices.
post #17 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Indeed. I find it wonderful that they now allow redownloads of purchased music, but I couldn't care less about actually storing my music in the cloud. All on my computer, period. That's still the only place I'll trust the actual files.

But that's the beauty of iTunes Match. All of the music is still on your computer, but you can also stream and download from other devices connected to the cloud.
post #18 of 48
Steve was one of my role models, but he did not pioneer digital music. He just made it popular.
post #19 of 48
If true this would the most important announcement of the year for me. Better than CD quality lossless music available to buy on iTunes would be fantastic news. Just what I've been waiting for to finally make the switch from CDs to iTunes.

I'd all but given hope, thinking the "you can't hear the difference" brigade had won the day. Try getting a decent effing HiFi system before making any such comments to me.

I wonder if those people look out of the window and say to themselves "we don't need any sunshine it's warm enough for most people".
post #20 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

Steve was one of my role models, but he did not pioneer digital music. He just made it popular.

Steve preferred analog sources.
post #21 of 48
Neil Young is seeking to bridge the quality gap by raising the standards well beyond CD quality but at the a same time having a flexible playback mode mode for low bandwidth.
"CD quality" is a massively dumbed down recording format from the Master Tape or even consumer analog (Vinyl/tape). The CD, with 16 bits and 44.1kHz sampling sound, leaves the listener well short of a fully emotional engaging reproduction of the original performance. Please read the Tim de Paravicini interview for a great explanation:

Uber Pro Recording Guru Tim de Paravicini interview:
"When it comes to digital, it's how to operate it, how many bits we devote to it, and the sampling frequency, as to how we store that information. The original digital system of CD, with 16 bits and 44.1kHz sampling, was what the mathematicians deemed to be the minimum acceptable to human hearing for so-called hi-fi. They never looked at all the artifacts and all the problems. And they never did enough analysis of the human hearing mechanism to realize that we don't stop hearing at 20kHz; people can discern and detect sound up to 45kHz. We have, as I say to people, an equivalent risetime of 11 microseconds in the hearing mechanism. And the ability to resolve detail in those digital systems wasn't quite good enough.

"In analog, you can change the thing and keep on aspiring to perfection without a compatibility issue. With digital, once you change any parameter, you've got a compatibility issue. Now, you can record on ProTools at 24-bit/192kHz, but it's not compatible with CD. I did my own summation, and this is from 20 years ago, that if we did 384kHz at 24-bit, we'll have a system that will resolve on a par with the best analog. That's the holy grail. And the problem, for the computer people, is having the balls to go that whole hog.
post #22 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

If true this would the most important announcement of the year for me. Better than CD quality lossless music available to buy on iTunes would be fantastic news. Just what I've been waiting for to finally make the switch from CDs to iTunes.

I'd all but given hope, thinking the "you can't hear the difference" brigade had won the day. Try getting a decent effing HiFi system before making any such comments to me.

I wonder if those people look out of the window and say to themselves "we don't need any sunshine it's warm enough for most people".

It's not "better than CD quality" according to this technician who "proves a vanilla iTunes AAC encoding with default settings sounds closer to the original CD than songs that were specifically Mastered for iTunes.

http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/28/master...ser-to-the-cd/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It's not "better than CD quality" according to this technician who "proves a vanilla iTunes AAC encoding with default settings sounds closer to the original CD than songs that were specifically Mastered for iTunes.

http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/28/master...ser-to-the-cd/

I think the OP was referring to Apple Lossless as being better than CD if submitted with better resolution / Mastered for iTunes.

The article you cite makes the wrong comparison, or rather points out that consumers are likely to make the wrong comparison.

Of course the Mastered for iTunes version is going to sound less like the CD than the encoding ripped from the CD. That's most likely, not a bad thing. The Mastered for iTunes encoding has the ability to sound more like the original master than the encoding from a CD rip (not necessarily the CD itself).

With Apple Lossless, the Mastered for iTunes version would have the potential to sound better than the encoded CD rip as well as the CD itself.

PS: It's worth noting that in October 2011, Apple made Apple Lossless open source and free, which may be an indication of what it's intending.
post #24 of 48
Thank you for the additional clarification.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #25 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It's not "better than CD quality" according to this technician who "proves a “vanilla” iTunes AAC encoding with default settings sounds closer to the original CD than songs that were specifically “Mastered for iTunes.”

http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/28/master...ser-to-the-cd/

There is one oversight in the YouTube video, which is that it assumes that the 96k/24bit masters used for the "Mastered for iTunes" version of that Chili Peppers song is for some reason supposed to be identical to the CD masters. If the 96k/24bit masters are able to realize more of the potential of the original recordings, then it stands to reason that it would be slightly different (even subtly so) from the CD masters because it presumably has more "information". As such, it comes as no surprise that the MFI version was slightly different from the CD track or "vanilla" AAC version. They came from different masters after all. As the video mentions, any number of factors could account for this difference including variations in EQ, compression, levels and of course, the fact that it came from a different master.

In the comments following the article, a commentor named Jack puts it well by saying, "Well, this is just silly and OF COURSE it sounds different than the CD. That's the whole point of mastering it again. The fault lies in the assumption that this is supposed to sound like the CD."

All that said, I'm not necessarily defending MFI either. Like many others here, I'm waiting for the day when Apple will offer the complete contents of the iTunes Music Store in higher resolution. Establishing the requirement for masters to be 96k/24bit is just the first step. On a side note, I'm going to try the test demonstrated in the video except with a 96k/24bit AIFF file and a 44.1k/16bit AIFF file to start from. I'll create an iTunes Plus file using the Apple droplet and a "plain vanilla" file using iTunes and then compare everything in Logic. Should prove interesting.
post #26 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

*sigh* Still no ALAC.

That would be nice but you need to have a quality source to make that codec worthwhile. Those in-the-know assume that when you suggest a lossless codec you are implying a quality source but I think there are many who don't realize how the source data is the underlying factor.

PS: I always thought iTunes LP would have worked to restore full album sales if Apple would have offered ALAC files with the albums. That would have been something I would have seriously considered investing in.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pika2000 View Post

It's called HE-AAC. Apple has been putting support for this on the iPods and iPhones for a couple years, but went largely unused and un-noticed. It makes sense for Apple to use it for the streaming service due to the lower bitrate.

Apple added ALAC support to the iPod Shuffle and that went unnoticed, too, in every review I read. I'm thinking people really don't care about audio quality a much as they like to complain about it.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #27 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It's not "better than CD quality" according to this technician who "proves a vanilla iTunes AAC encoding with default settings sounds closer to the original CD than songs that were specifically Mastered for iTunes.

http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/28/master...ser-to-the-cd/

I'm not talking about the Mastered for iTunes crap. That's just a con IMHO.

The article states that we might be getting HD music sometime soon - which means ALAC or some other new high quality 24 bit lossless format. Hopefully if this is correct I can stop buying and ripping CDs at last.
post #28 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

PS: I always thought iTunes LP would have worked to restore full album sales if Apple would have offered ALAC files with the albums. That would have been something I would have seriously considered investing in.

Bingo! That would have sold me on it.
post #29 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

That would be something

What? Speak up. I didn't catch that.
post #30 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Apple added ALAC support to the iPod Shuffle and that went unnoticed, too, in every review I read. I'm thinking people really don't care about audio quality a much as they like to complain about it.

The iPod Shuffle??????????

Are you having a laugh. How many ALAC songs could you fit on that thing - 100?

People who copy ALAC to their iPod have an iPod Classic.

It's not just about that though. I have an expensive top of the range set of speakers linked to my Mac to listen to my iTunes library at home. You think I want to listen to some compressed crap? Noooooooooooooooooo. I'm not a 16 year old kid listening on crappy iPod speaker dock in their bedroom.

All we want is to buy ALAC via iTunes instead of having to go to the record store, buy the CDs, get home, rip the CDs into iTunes, etc. What's so wrong with that? You don't and all the other doubters don't have to join in. Keep buying the AAC versions if you want. I don't care. But don't limit the choice of other people.

Do you buy or rent HD movies or TV shows? Why? What's wrong with SD quality? It's the same argument.


Edit: Sorry if I'm a bit blunt but this topic more than any other makes me so frustrated.
post #31 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Edit: Sorry if I'm a bit blunt but this topic more than any other makes me so frustrated.

Yes, it is frustrating. Except instead of going to the CD store, I order them via Amazon, wait for them to arrive, rip onto iTunes and then file away somewhere to collect dust.
post #32 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

The iPod Shuffle??????????

Are you having a laugh. How many ALAC songs could you fit on that thing - 100?

People who copy ALAC to their iPod have an iPod Classic.

It's not just about that though. I have an expensive top of the range set of speakers linked to my Mac to listen to my iTunes library at home. You think I want to listen to some compressed crap? Noooooooooooooooooo. I'm not a 16 year old kid listening on crappy iPod speaker dock in their bedroom.

All we want is to buy ALAC via iTunes instead of having to go to the record store, buy the CDs, get home, rip the CDs into iTunes, etc. What's so wrong with that? You don't and all the other doubters don't have to join in. Keep buying the AAC versions if you want. I don't care. But don't limit the choice of other people.

Do you buy or rent HD movies or TV shows? Why? What's wrong with SD quality? It's the same argument.


Edit: Sorry if I'm a bit blunt but this topic more than any other makes me so frustrated.

1) ALAC is typically around 1Mbps or 125KBps so a 3.5 minute song would be about 25MB per song, give or take a few MB. The iPod Shuffle is 2GB BASE10, but lets say 1.8GB BASE10 for data. That's 4.2 hours of music or 72 songs at 3.5 minutes per song. I personally don't exercise nearly that long or often enough that ALAC as an option for those that don't want to use low quality audio or converted and downgraded audio in their Shuffle is a nice addition. iLounge has shown that the Shuffle's quality is on par with other iPods so the only lacking element is the headphones, but I have a couple nice pair of Shure that I use. That said, I do use my iPhone because Nike+GPS is awesome.

2) I don't mind people being blunt. if I did I would be a hypocrite.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #33 of 48
The all important DAC (Digital Audio Converter)
All the iPhone/iTouch/iPods have fairly good built-in DAC chips especially for the size of the devise. The Shuffle's DAC isn't comparable to the larger, better iPhone/iTouch/iPod's built-in DAC chips.

Use an audiophile outboard DAC:
Apple worked with Wadia to create the iTransport 170. It is a "pre DAC out" dock that allows the signal to skip the built-in Apple DAC. The digital signal is fed into a stand alone audiophile DAC to translate the digital files into analog audio files. In my listening I have found that an iTouch/iPod/iPhone on a Wadia dock in conjunction with an audiophile tube or solid-state DAC will compare and even surpasses many $5,000 audiophile CD players.

Playing high quality music out of a computer:
To play music from my Mac I use "The Brick" USB DAC by Wavelength Audio. No I'm not a shill for audio peddlers but I have been enjoying the new options evolving for high end audio via the computer industry. Keep up the good work Apple. Digital audio file quality is one of the last stumbling block to getting Master Tape quality sound at an affordable price.
post #34 of 48
Mastered for iTunes makes no sense to me - if its purpose is to help alleviate the noticeability of AAC as a lossy format, isn't it a bit of overkill? It seems to me like the are changing the master to compensate for problems in the way people listen to the music, which should be problem of the consumer, not the person who masters the album. Or, even in the future, if Apple will make a lossless format available via the iTunes Store, what's wrong with a higher quality 96/24 or 192/24 of the original master?
post #35 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by pika2000 View Post

It's called HE-AAC. Apple has been putting support for this on the iPods and iPhones for a couple years, but went largely unused and un-noticed. It makes sense for Apple to use it for the streaming service due to the lower bitrate.

"HE-AAC! And The Masters of the Universe!!"

Slightly OT, but I always felt that iTunes-LP should have been more "Portable". I mean, it may not make sense on an iPhone or iPod, but on an iPad I should be able to comfortably read the liner notes and the booklet that constitutes the "LP" part.

The Music.app on the iPad is the one thing that has been neglected for so long. Adding support for iTunes LP would be a welcome change. Apple should also allow for users to add their own meta-data, similar to adding cover art. That is for people who do not have access to iTMS.

Back to the topic, I currently import my CDs into iTunes at 320 kbps VBR MP3s. I must say that I find it satisfactory enough for portable music. My earphones themselves are no great shakes - just a Klipsch. Given my setup, I am not too sure I can hear any significant difference using ALAC.
post #36 of 48
Anyone who thinks they can't hear any difference between a 256 kbps AAC file and and "HD" file, do this: go to HD Tracks, which has a bunch of downloadable music in 96kHz/24bit. Pick a song to sample that's also on iTunes, so you can A/B them. Most importantly, get a pair of decent headphones (they don't have to be crazy audiophile, just decent, say Sennheiser HD280s for a hundred bucks). The average ear bud isn't really going to let you hear much.

Listen. Notice how much more emotionally involving the HD tracks are. Notice how you can hear the instruments as instruments, in their own space, instead as just part of a kind of allover sound. The AAC tracks sound OK without anything to compare them to, but the HD tracks sound like being in the vicinity of musicians. It makes you want to stop and listen to the music, not just use it as a soundtrack to other activities.

I've heard it claimed that "audiophiles" have been stumped by blind A/B testing between a good quality AAC track and a 24bit track, I think that's a lie. I don't claim to be anything like an audiophile, do not own any expensive equipment. But the difference is palpable, and I'd bet real money I could pick it out in a blind listening test.

If Apple offers HD tracks on iTunes, I'd be all over that. It would be so nice to reacquaint myself with some old friend I really haven't had a chance to hear in quite a while.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #37 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

If true this would the most important announcement of the year for me. Better than CD quality lossless music available to buy on iTunes would be fantastic news. Just what I've been waiting for to finally make the switch from CDs to iTunes.

I'd all but given hope, thinking the "you can't hear the difference" brigade had won the day. Try getting a decent effing HiFi system before making any such comments to me.

I wonder if those people look out of the window and say to themselves "we don't need any sunshine it's warm enough for most people".

For over a year now, I have been searching for someone who can prove they can hear the difference between 223 kbps AAC and the uncompressed source. No one has yet managed to. I am sure your listening pleasure is enhanced by the belief that you can hear a difference. So that is good. But objectively, you are probably just like myself and most other people and cant really hear a difference.
post #38 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Anyone who thinks they can't hear any difference between a 256 kbps AAC file and and "HD" file, do this: go to HD Tracks, which has a bunch of downloadable music in 96kHz/24bit. Pick a song to sample that's also on iTunes, so you can A/B them. Most importantly, get a pair of decent headphones (they don't have to be crazy audiophile, just decent, say Sennheiser HD280s for a hundred bucks). The average ear bud isn't really going to let you hear much.

Listen. Notice how much more emotionally involving the HD tracks are. Notice how you can hear the instruments as instruments, in their own space, instead as just part of a kind of allover sound. The AAC tracks sound OK without anything to compare them to, but the HD tracks sound like being in the vicinity of musicians. It makes you want to stop and listen to the music, not just use it as a soundtrack to other activities.

I've heard it claimed that "audiophiles" have been stumped by blind A/B testing between a good quality AAC track and a 24bit track, I think that's a lie. I don't claim to be anything like an audiophile, do not own any expensive equipment. But the difference is palpable, and I'd bet real money I could pick it out in a blind listening test.

If Apple offers HD tracks on iTunes, I'd be all over that. It would be so nice to reacquaint myself with some old friend I really haven't had a chance to hear in quite a while.

See my post above. Audiophiles have been stumped. It is not a lie. Public listening tests involving many listeners using foobar and its blind ABX module have proven that except for a microscopic number of tracks which tripped up the codecs.

Take a look at the tests and the results: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...p?showforum=40

I created a file which interleaves 223 kbps AAC and source. No one, particularly HiFi buffs who say the difference is like night and day, chalk and cheese, have been able to hear a difference.
post #39 of 48
One thing I like about Apple is that they use Progressive Download instead of Streaming. I don't want my music to sound different depending on how my network is performing at the moment, what a horrible thought.
post #40 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

See my post above. Audiophiles have been stumped. It is not a lie. Public listening tests involving many listeners using foobar and its blind ABX module have proven that except for a microscopic number of tracks which tripped up the codecs.

Take a look at the tests and the results: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...p?showforum=40

I created a file which interleaves 223 kbps AAC and source. No one, particularly HiFi buffs who say the difference is like night and day, chalk and cheese, have been able to hear a difference.

Out of curiosity, would you mind providing some additional details about your double-blind tests? I know you're using Foobar and the ABX component, but what about the hardware? I'm genuinely interested to know.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple rumored to be developing new audio format designed for iCloud streaming