or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Rumor: Apple to offer hi-res 24-bit tracks on iTunes in coming months
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Apple to offer hi-res 24-bit tracks on iTunes in coming months - Page 4

post #121 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

And jazz

It's the place for that, too.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #122 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Analogue is better than digital.

 

Probably, but we'll never know since every analogue delivery medium is so fraught with fatal flaws.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #123 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post

The super-deluxe editions of the first 3 Zep albums coming out in June also have a code to download a digital copy of the album and the extra tracks on the second disc. It would be great if, like the rumour, the code allowed us to download a hi-res digital version from iTunes!

Or somebody has been reading the comments on this forum and decide to spin it into a rumour.

As if you need a high quality version of some jangling guitars!
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #124 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

AAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUGHHHH! Not again! I thought we resolved all this crap in the 90s?

I am so SICK of people who have never even READ Nyquist's sampling theorem, who have ZERO understanding of the math, regurgitating utter nonsense like "rounding off the steps" as if there were some validity to their meaningless remarks!

Here's the bottom line: Increasing the sample rate above 44.1 KHz increases the highest frequency the system can store. That's it. It does not improve the resolution of lower frequencies, reduce the size of the steps or any other meaningless gobbledygook. This increase in high frequencies does NOT affect audible frequencies through additional frequency interactions because those, if they existed, and if they were audible, were CAPTURED BY THE MICROPHONE AT THE TIME OF RECORDING. If you think there's something going on above 22 KHz (this world contains almost nothing over 10 KHz much less 20) and you think you can hear it (and still thing so after listening to a tone generator sweep up to that point), by all means, buy high sample rate recordings. Otherwise, refuse to be sucked in by marketing bullshit.

More bottom line: Increasing the word length from 16 bits to 24 bits lowers the volume at which the signal turns to noisy hash. Period, The End, nothing else. For a classical piece with 100 dB dynamic range this can be beneficial because the really, really, really, really, really quiet parts will sound less grainy (and if you can hear them, you better have a seven thousand watt amplifier for when the loud part comes in -- do the math: twice the power for every 3 db). For a Pop piece with the dynamics compressed so hard that the waveform looks like a cylinder, the net benefit of more bits is zero zilch nada FA poodly. Nothing. Increasing dynamic range doesn't magically improve other characteristics.

If you want something that sounds better, start with reducing the or removing the data compression. Apple's move from 128K to 256K some years ago was a really good one. Another step like that would be good.

But If someone tells you a recording sounds better because it has more bits and higher sampling rate, tell them to save that bullshit for distant recordings of bats. You don't have to have golden ear training to see though the marketing hype, you just need a working calculator. Don't let them sucker you.

In theory, anything above 20K or so shouldn’t make any difference because we can't hear it. But I don't think it's quite as simple as that. Sound is a complex thing, and harmonics affect each other across the spectrum. So my feeling is that very high frequencies probably have an effect on the lower ones and vice versa. Just because you can't hear those high notes doesn't mean that they don't alter your perception of the lower ones. Similarly for very low frequencies-with those, you can sometimes feel them, even if you can't hear them.

But yes, you'd probably get far more improvement from reducing the compression.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #125 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I just want to know what is the best way to listen to Mylie Cyrus and Justin Bieber. (expecting some fun answers)

In hell, at least for the former.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #126 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

NO!!! Don't! You'll be sorry!

Seriously. I came home from a night at the symphony orchestra all excited about one of the pieces I'd heard so I put it up on the stereo.

ew...

The stereo system I love sounded as much like that orchestra as a photograph looks like a person. Blech. I was so disappointed.

That's what comes from being greedy. You should have savoured the performance, rather than sully its memory with an inferior recording.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #127 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

Improvements in recording technologies primarily benefit styles that feature a wide sonic range. By definition, that is classical music and to a lesser degree jazz.

If you listen to contemporary music (rock, pop, rap, country, whatever), the benefits are nearly non-existent. 

For sure. This is really all about classical music. Pop music was invented for small tinny speakers in noisy environments. It couldn't be better suited to compression, like speech.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #128 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

You are asking the impossible.  Most of the 16 bit CDs that have been on the market were done years ago compared to the newer 24 Bit masters, so you asking for something that's almost impossible to verify.  the only comparison I can do is listen to a 16 Bit CD vs a 24 Bit version on the same stereo side by side at the same volume level.  If it's noticeable, then it's noticeable and every one I've compared so far has been noticeably better sounding.  Most of the time it's DRASTICALLY better sounding.   Some of the recordings I can hear the buzz coming from the guitar amps in the faint background right before a song starts. They aren't using hardly any compression. I asked one of the mastering engineers that has done HD Tracks and he told me his process.  He said there was very little, if any compression used, almost no eq, he was very careful as to not tarnish the transfer.  Bob Ludwig also has been interviewed as he did the entire  Rolling Stones 24 Bit remasters.  A lot of these mastering studios have been upgrading the converters with much better dynamic range, S/N ratios, etc. etc.  But I look at the final end result from a consumer's standpoint.  Does the 24 bit AIFF sound better than a 16 AIFF from CD?  If so that's all I need to compare and the differences I've heard is so noticeable from the first couple of seconds.  Some blew me away at how much better they sound. Cymbals aren't harsh and distorted, transients are much clearer, it's like a whole new experience.  Obviously, how much better will sometimes depend on how good your DAC, speakers, amps, etc. are, but my current system I've been listening on for the past 6 months is nothing special.  Just a decent DAC running through Shift A2's with decent RCA interconnect cables and this is in my bedroom/office.  I also listen to recordings in the 80 dB to 90dB range with peaks at around 95dB on occasion.  Some of the 16 bit recordings sound horrible when played at the higher volume levels whereas the 24 bit don't.  But I generally don't crank my system up, most of the time it's hovering around 78 to 85dB, which is normal listening levels.  

It's not impossible. You just have to know which sources were transferred under conditions as close as possible. The Rolling Stones remasters were issued on CD/SACD hybrid discs. If you want to hear for yourself any difference from just the resolution, that would be a good starting point, as would any other CD/SACD hybrid, since those transfers were typically done in the same mastering session. The releases from Mobile Fidelity are a great A-B comparison, because the CD and SACD layers are created from the same master source during the same session. My other reference is Neil Young's Greatest Hits CD/DVD combo. That is a session in which both the 16-bit and 24-bit masters were encoded simultaneously.  Both sound fantastic, and both sound very similar. But, it's not a "night and day" difference when you can isolate the variables to just the bit-depth.

 

The problem with your thesis is that EVERY single one of the attributes that you ascribe to 24-bit resolution can also be applied to improvements made by remastering. One of my other reference discs is a classical recording that Classic Records issued as a 96/24 disc. I've A-B'd this against Mobile Fidelity's CD/SACD version. The CD layer on the Mobile Fidelity release blows the Classic Records release away. 

 

Why?  Editorial decisions made during the mastering sessions.

 

Classic Records used a first generation vinyl pressing as their reference. The equipment and settings they used in the mastering session were intended to emulate the sound of the original release as closely as possible. Mobile Fidelity, on the other hand, uses a highly customized playback rig and tweaks the settings to optimize the sound quality as they see it, without targeting the original release as the reference. Both releases sound great, and both improve upon the original CD release (which I also own). But, the differences are almost entirely due to decisions made at the mastering stage, rather than the release format.

 

Think about it this way, have you ever heard big differences in sound quality between two versions of the same CD release? If so, then you've already negated your argument about 24-bit because you've confirmed the audible influence of mastering when the bit depth is not one of the variables.

 

Quote:

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

 

1. Are you trying to compare in a studio environment just the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit with everything else the same? 

2.  If so, what speakers are you using?

3.  What AD and DA converters are you using?

4.  What other equipment that you are routing everything through are you using?

 

Why do I ask?  The reason is that some equipment limits what you can hear and you might have some equipment that's not allowing you to hear any differences.

 

Ah, the "your equipment might not be good enough" retort.  FYI, I'm using a midrange Yamaha receiver, with a Sony ES SACD player and Denon universal player. Both of the players use the same Burr-Brown 17XX series DACs, and when I do this kind of comparison listening, I use the analog outs to the receiver, which has an analog bypass when the bass management is switched off. The speakers are Paradigm Studio 40s (2 1/2 way standmounts) and I use a SPL meter to level match the output. In addition, I use acoustic panels in my living room, and have measured their attenuation levels.

post #129 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
 

It's not impossible. You just have to know which sources were transferred under conditions as close as possible. The Rolling Stones remasters were issued on CD/SACD hybrid discs. If you want to hear for yourself any difference from just the resolution, that would be a good starting point, as would any other CD/SACD hybrid, since those transfers were typically done in the same mastering session. The releases from Mobile Fidelity are a great A-B comparison, because the CD and SACD layers are created from the same master source during the same session. My other reference is Neil Young's Greatest Hits CD/DVD combo. That is a session in which both the 16-bit and 24-bit masters were encoded simultaneously.  Both sound fantastic, and both sound very similar. But, it's not a "night and day" difference when you can isolate the variables to just the bit-depth.

 

The problem with your thesis is that EVERY single one of the attributes that you ascribe to 24-bit resolution can also be applied to improvements made by remastering. One of my other reference discs is a classical recording that Classic Records issued as a 96/24 disc. I've A-B'd this against Mobile Fidelity's CD/SACD version. The CD layer on the Mobile Fidelity release blows the Classic Records release away. 

 

Why?  Editorial decisions made during the mastering sessions.

 

Classic Records used a first generation vinyl pressing as their reference. The equipment and settings they used in the mastering session were intended to emulate the sound of the original release as closely as possible. Mobile Fidelity, on the other hand, uses a highly customized playback rig and tweaks the settings to optimize the sound quality as they see it, without targeting the original release as the reference. Both releases sound great, and both improve upon the original CD release (which I also own). But, the differences are almost entirely due to decisions made at the mastering stage, rather than the release format.

 

Think about it this way, have you ever heard big differences in sound quality between two versions of the same CD release? If so, then you've already negated your argument about 24-bit because you've confirmed the audible influence of mastering when the bit depth is not one of the variables.

 

 

Ah, the "your equipment might not be good enough" retort.  FYI, I'm using a midrange Yamaha receiver, with a Sony ES SACD player and Denon universal player. Both of the players use the same Burr-Brown 17XX series DACs, and when I do this kind of comparison listening, I use the analog outs to the receiver, which has an analog bypass when the bass management is switched off. The speakers are Paradigm Studio 40s (2 1/2 way standmounts) and I use a SPL meter to level match the output. In addition, I use acoustic panels in my living room, and have measured their attenuation levels.

 

The reason why I asked is there are recording studio engineers that frequently use these NS-10's which are just awful speakers.  So I wasn't sure what people are using. Then there are a lot of computer users that only have $250 or less "computer speakers" that I wouldn't recommend investing in high res audio.  It's just to get some kind of idea of where the person is coming from and not to put them down.  I've had heated arguments with industry veterans  that have been around the world in top end studios and they seem to love these NS-10's and they told me they are flat, colorless, etc. and I told them they were "full of it" and then I let them listen to a better system and they realized they were wrong.  So, I've just had those discussions and it's not a personal attack, it's just straightening them out.  Playback systems in the studio is so critical, but there are a lot of marginal speakers that people use that I wouldn't use in the home and in the studio they are fatiguing to listening to.  These audio engineers taylor the sound for THEIR speakers and I wouldn't want to use THEIR speakers in my listening environment.   it's very much what BOSE does with their demo CDs.  They make their BOSE speakers sound great with purposely mastered demo CDs meant to make BOSE sound good, but that's not what the rest of the music is meant for.   Some people using computers simply don't have their system together for playing 24 bit audio and there's going to be a learning curve for a lot of folks. Yeah, I don't think someone with a pair of $50 computer speakers will be useful for high res audio.  They'll probably argue they can't hear a difference.  well, yes, I would agree with them if that's what they are listening through. 


I wish we could get more in depth background on each 24 bit recording as to where they got the source and any other information, but unfortunately not all digital download sites give us this information. These days, we are lucky to even know who wrote the songs and who the musicians are on each track.

post #130 of 155
Quote:

Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post
 

So my feeling is 

 

Whoa whoa whoa, you don't get to do that. You can't substitute intuition for demonstrable fact. It doesn't matter how much it FEELS like the Sun orbits the Earth, the fact is it doesn't and your feelings don't change that.

 

Now in this case you happen to be right, but the point still stands -- it doesn't matter what your gut says if the math proves otherwise.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post
 

So my feeling is that very high frequencies probably have an effect on the lower ones and vice versa.

 

Yes, the interaction creates what are called "beat frequencies." If we assume there's something in the air that's higher than 20 KHz, and it interacts with something in the air that lands in the audible spectrum, it will be picked up by the microphone at the time of the recording! The sound is recorded, stored and played back, not created in the air in your listening room.

 

So the existence of beat tones is not an argument for high bandwidth playback.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #131 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post
 

 

Whoa whoa whoa, you don't get to do that. You can't substitute intuition for demonstrable fact. It doesn't matter how much it FEELS like the Sun orbits the Earth, the fact is it doesn't and your feelings don't change that.

 

Now in this case you happen to be right, but the point still stands -- it doesn't matter what your gut says if the math proves otherwise.

 

 

Yes, the interaction creates what are called "beat frequencies." If we assume there's something in the air that's higher than 20 KHz, and it interacts with something in the air that lands in the audible spectrum, it will be picked up by the microphone at the time of the recording! The sound is recorded, stored and played back, not created in the air in your listening room.

 

So the existence of beat tones is not an argument for high bandwidth playback.

 Here's a site that discusses "BEATING". I'm hoping that this is what you are referring to.  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/beat.html

post #132 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post
 

 

Whoa whoa whoa, you don't get to do that. You can't substitute intuition for demonstrable fact. It doesn't matter how much it FEELS like the Sun orbits the Earth, the fact is it doesn't and your feelings don't change that.

 

Now in this case you happen to be right, but the point still stands -- it doesn't matter what your gut says if the math proves otherwise.

 

 

Yes, the interaction creates what are called "beat frequencies." If we assume there's something in the air that's higher than 20 KHz, and it interacts with something in the air that lands in the audible spectrum, it will be picked up by the microphone at the time of the recording! The sound is recorded, stored and played back, not created in the air in your listening room.

 

So the existence of beat tones is not an argument for high bandwidth playback.

I think the best argument for high bandwidth playback is to give the listener a better sense of realism in what they are listening to.


Example.  If you have two instruments playing the same note or passage together, the way our ears distinguish one from the other is based on the timbre of each instrument as long as they are both in tune and playing together.  But if we have a large degree of resolution in terms of hearing these upper frequencies more accurately, we can better distinguish one from the other and it's these upper frequencies that give us that, but at what point are they really distinguishable?  Can it be done good enough by reproducing 20Hz to 20Khz?   That's the all important question.  I've read interviews with various engineers that design expensive recording equipment that argued that our ears may not "HEAR" above 20Khz in the best scenario, but our bones various parts of our body can sense it.  I know very low bass frequencies certainly can rattle our insides as even our body fat vibrates when we have bass notes played at loud volumes while sitting down or even standing up.  We, as humans, FEEL the music at some level, and do these upper frequencies make our outer layer of skin inside our ear canal vibrate at some level that we aren't conscious of that no one has measured yet? I don't know the answer to that one.

 

The problem for many years is most recordings don't use microphones that really capture above 20KHz that well, if at all.  There are a few on the market that can do that for a few years, but they aren't normally used.  But they do exist and are used more and more.  Earthworks is one brand that has microphones that are capable of capturing above 30Khz, I believe.  Then there is the rest of the chain on down.  Can the cables accurately send frequencies that high without destroying the information?  Do the pre amp, etc. able to allow those frequencies to pass through properly?


Every piece of equipment that records and plays back audio signals is actually a filter on some level as audio signals are sent through it, and it's just trying to send the signal through it's path with as little destruction along the way by means of noise, artifacts, and other methods.

 

I know at some point it become ridiculously expensive to make equipment that don't destroy audio signals on even the most minute level, but there seems to be more and more companies pushing the upper levels of the envelope since there are better measurement tools that can be used to test more minute changes in resistance, etc.

 

I know this discussion gets futile at some point. Have we exceeded it yet?  Maybe a long time ago. :-)

post #133 of 155
I found this interesting
Quote:
Healthy, young humans are able to hear sounds over a frequency range from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. We are most sensitive to frequencies between 2000 to 4000 Hz which is the frequency range of spoken words. The frequency resolution is 0.2% which means that one can distinguish between a tone of 1000 Hz and 1002 Hz. A sound at 1 kHz can be detected if it deflects the tympanic membrane (eardrum) by less than 1 Angstrom, which is less than the diameter of a hydrogen atom. This extreme sensitivity of the ear may explain why it contains the smallest bone that exists inside a human body: the stapes (stirrup). It is 0.25 to 0.33 cm long and weighs between 1.9 and 4.3 mg.

An Angstrom is 1.0 × 10^-10 meters or 1.0e-10 meters or one ten-billionth of a meter or or 0.1 nanometer.

Meaning…
Quote:
When registering the quietest sounds, the bones of the middle ear vibrate by less than the diameter of a hydrogen atom.

Edited by SolipsismX - 4/13/14 at 7:06am

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #134 of 155
I'll take an iPhone 6 with a FPGA DAC please...
post #135 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

AAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUGHHHH! Not again! I thought we resolved all this crap in the 90s?

I am so SICK of people who have never even READ Nyquist's sampling theorem, who have ZERO understanding of the math, regurgitating utter nonsense like "rounding off the steps" as if there were some validity to their meaningless remarks!

Here's the bottom line: Increasing the sample rate above 44.1 KHz increases the highest frequency the system can store. That's it. It does not improve the resolution of lower frequencies, reduce the size of the steps or any other meaningless gobbledygook. This increase in high frequencies does NOT affect audible frequencies through additional frequency interactions because those, if they existed, and if they were audible, were CAPTURED BY THE MICROPHONE AT THE TIME OF RECORDING. If you think there's something going on above 22 KHz (this world contains almost nothing over 10 KHz much less 20) and you think you can hear it (and still thing so after listening to a tone generator sweep up to that point), by all means, buy high sample rate recordings. Otherwise, refuse to be sucked in by marketing bullshit.

More bottom line: Increasing the word length from 16 bits to 24 bits lowers the volume at which the signal turns to noisy hash. Period, The End, nothing else. For a classical piece with 100 dB dynamic range this can be beneficial because the really, really, really, really, really quiet parts will sound less grainy (and if you can hear them, you better have a seven thousand watt amplifier for when the loud part comes in -- do the math: twice the power for every 3 db). For a Pop piece with the dynamics compressed so hard that the waveform looks like a cylinder, the net benefit of more bits is zero zilch nada FA poodly. Nothing. Increasing dynamic range doesn't magically improve other characteristics.

If you want something that sounds better, start with reducing the or removing the data compression. Apple's move from 128K to 256K some years ago was a really good one. Another step like that would be good.

But If someone tells you a recording sounds better because it has more bits and higher sampling rate, tell them to save that bullshit for distant recordings of bats. You don't have to have golden ear training to see though the marketing hype, you just need a working calculator. Don't let them sucker you.


I believe you forgot to consider phase response... (and the antialiasing filter really does play a part )
The Nyquist theorem is about infinite number of samples to represent a waveform... is very difficult to encode two frequencies (or more, such as harmonic's ) being played together in a short amount of time if there aren't enough samples to average the data...
Nyquist sampling theory means you can encode any frequency under half the sampling frequency, it just doesn't mention how many samples you need to encode the harmonics exactly... that is where higher sampling frequencies are useful because you have more samples to reconstruct the frequencies or the Hamonic's in a shorter amount of time.
post #136 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post
 
Nyquist sampling theory means you can encode any frequency under half the sampling frequency, it just doesn't mention how many samples you need to encode the harmonics exactly...

 

Nope, that's incorrect. Nyquist does dictate exactly how many samples are required to reconstruct ANY waveform, including harmonics: 2x+1 the frequency being recorded.

 

You don't have one set of ears for the fundamental and another for harmonics, it's all one sound. When you place a microphone in front of a guitar you record not just the fundamental frequency of each string, but also all the harmonics and beat tones it creates. They combine to create a complex waveform. That's what the sound of a guitar *IS*.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post
 
[…] that is where higher sampling frequencies are useful because you have more samples to reconstruct the frequencies or the Hamonic's in a shorter amount of time.

 

Incorrect. A higher sampling rate does not add samples in the audible spectrum, it simply EXTENDS the spectrum. A 96 KHz recording has exactly the same number of samples at 5000 Hz as a 44.1 KHz recording.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #137 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post
 

 

Whoa whoa whoa, you don't get to do that. You can't substitute intuition for demonstrable fact. It doesn't matter how much it FEELS like the Sun orbits the Earth, the fact is it doesn't and your feelings don't change that.

 

Now in this case you happen to be right, but the point still stands -- it doesn't matter what your gut says if the math proves otherwise.

 

 

Yes, the interaction creates what are called "beat frequencies." If we assume there's something in the air that's higher than 20 KHz, and it interacts with something in the air that lands in the audible spectrum, it will be picked up by the microphone at the time of the recording! The sound is recorded, stored and played back, not created in the air in your listening room.

 

So the existence of beat tones is not an argument for high bandwidth playback.

Ah, ok. You obviously know your stuff. I'm not an engineer, just a musician. You're probably right; I'd love to have a longer conversation with you about it! It just takes a bit of getting the head around. For instance, when I think of two piano strings reverberating together and all the harmonics created, it strikes me that the very high frequencies will change the sound lower down. But as you say, if that is captured, then I can see how it might not matter if the high stuff isn't recorded. But I need my brain to work on the concept more.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #138 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

Nope, that's incorrect. Nyquist does dictate exactly how many samples are required to reconstruct ANY waveform, including harmonics: 2x+1 the frequency being recorded.

You don't have one set of ears for the fundamental and another for harmonics, it's all one sound. When you place a microphone in front of a guitar you record not just the fundamental frequency of each string, but also all the harmonics and beat tones it creates. They combine to create a complex waveform. That's what the sound of a guitar *IS*.


Incorrect. A higher sampling rate does not add samples in the audible spectrum, it simply EXTENDS the spectrum. A 96 KHz recording has exactly the same number of samples at 5000 Hz as a 44.1 KHz recording.

um, incorrect!... I sample rate of 96 kHz equals one sample every 10.41667 Microseconds, therefore recording a 5 Khz waveform sampled at 96khz will give you 19.2 samples, a 5khz waveform sampled at 44.1 khz will give you 8.82 samples... thus you have more samples at a higher sample rate.


Nyquist theorem assumes a steady state sinewave...
if you record two sine waves phase shifted from each other by 15° how many samples will you require to have in order to accurately represent that phase difference ?...
more than 2X plus one... (in the real world due to the antialiasing filters required for D/A converters)
but this does not break the Nyquist theorem it just means that you need a continuing series of samples at in order to represent that phase difference...
you also need a higher sampling rate because the rollout filter that you need to prevent antialiasing distortion can be shallower...
meaning you need to rolloff all frequencys before the cut off frequency...
which for audio is approximately 20 kHz, so with a frequency of sample frequency of 44.1 kHz you need to rolloff all frequencies within one octave....
which is a 16th order filter...(96 db's Attenuation in one octave)....and a 176.4 khz sample rate in FOUR octaves...
have you look at the phase response of the 16th order filter?... not pretty!...
The phase shift in a fourth order filter is 360°, "which sort of gets you back to where you started"... but because phase response of a low pass filter is nonlinear it subtly change the sound of the music... which is a minor reason why the master tapes sound better than the digital copy ... because the music hasn't gone through an antialiasing filter.


TL;DR... a 4x sample rate (176.4Khz) of music (20Khz) sounds better because the low pass filter required to antialias the signal requires a Lower order filter that has less phase shift , and that makes the music sound better.
post #139 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

um, incorrect!... I sample rate of 96 kHz equals one sample every 10.41667 Microseconds, therefore recording a 5 Khz waveform sampled at 96khz will give you 19.2 samples, a 5khz waveform sampled at 44.1 khz will give you 8.82 samples... thus you have more samples at a higher sample rate.

 

I phrased that really poorly, didn't I? My bad.

 

The point is that increasing the sample rate doesn't increase the resolution at lower frequencies, it just raises the limit on the highest frequency that can be captured. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

Nyquist theorem assumes a steady state sinewave...

 

It does? According to whom? Neither Nyquist nor Shannon say that. I'm not aware of any reason the Nyquist theorem wouldn't apply to complex waveforms, but I'm prepared to be enlightened.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

you also need a higher sampling rate because the rollout filter that you need to prevent antialiasing distortion can be shallower...
meaning you need to rolloff all frequencys before the cut off frequency...
which for audio is approximately 20 kHz, so with a frequency of sample frequency of 44.1 kHz you need to rolloff all frequencies within one octave....
which is a 16th order filter...(96 db's Attenuation in one octave)....and a 176.4 khz sample rate in FOUR octaves...
have you look at the phase response of the 16th order filter?... not pretty!...

 

Except that nobody uses analog filters. Oversampling with a digital filter means zero phase distortion from a converter with a nominal rate of 44.1 kHz.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #140 of 155
Lorin Schultz, finally we have a thinking person who knows how digital audio works and still participates in such discussions! I gave up long time ago fighting against stair-steps in discrete signal 1wink.gif it's so hard to explain that the listening room brings so much noise that people can't even tell 12-bits from 16 bits. I admire your patience!
post #141 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post


Does it surprise me that they don't talk about iTunes Match?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I spoke directly with Apple recently concerning this. They sent me an e-mail saying they were going to charge me again to renew my service. I paid the renewal fee. My bank has statements confirming my communication with Apple, Inc.

My wallet says that it's not some rumor on this site. It's a real thing.

Not sure why you gave iTunes Match a "rumor type" response...
post #142 of 155

How about NO additional charge for high resolution tracks we already own? Apple should be trying to prop up a dwindling marketplace, not charging more for files it already has in hand.

post #143 of 155

The whole issue is ultimately up to the record labels.  They kind of dictate the ultimately price. I don't think Apple or the record labels are just going to give previous content owners free update to 24 bit.  Just a gut feeling.  Apple only wants a 30% of gross margin so they can get $.05 per dollar sold.  I agree it would be nice, but I doubt it.


What I believe they SHOULD do is as follows:

 

Original analog recording should be converted to 24 Bit and charge the same amount, but give people the choice of 16 bit or 24 bit due to file size.

Original 16 bit recordings should probably stay at 16 Bit unless they have a way to improve the sound quality, which is doubtful.  Upsampling, unless you have good apodising filters or some other means to clean up since up sampling is not always better.

Original 24 bit recordings should be converted (or actually left at 24 bit, since they down sample to 16 bit currently) and they charge the same amount, give people the choice of which to download.  It's too bad it took a LONG time before recordings were originally tracked at 24 bit.  Even though many studios had the capability, they didn't automatically track at 24/96, etc. because back when converters first hit the market, hard drives were still rather expensive and computers not as fast as they are today.  So a lot of studios dragged their feet in terms of tracking at 24 bit.  I'm sure a fair number still track at 16 bit just to keep the file sizes smaller.

 

The problem as to why SACD and DVD-A didn't catch on is that there was little content available and it was priced too expensively (higher cost of the media and record label greed) and most people simply don't have accurate enough systems to play them back.  Only the more serious people willing to spend more money really saw the benefit to pay the increased costs.  But the masses don't have that kind of money.  But with even decent earbuds, headphones, they should be able to tell. 


Edited by drblank - 4/16/14 at 6:03am
post #144 of 155

I wouldn't mind paying a higher tier price (within reason) for iTunes Match in order to match and download HD versions of tracks I already own.  And iTunes Match should match previously purchased HD music (it does this now in a limited sense but it has had trouble on some tracks I purchased from HD Tracks).

post #145 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenfeet View Post
 

I wouldn't mind paying a higher tier price (within reason) for iTunes Match in order to match and download HD versions of tracks I already own.  And iTunes Match should match previously purchased HD music (it does this now in a limited sense but it has had trouble on some tracks I purchased from HD Tracks).

 

Yeah, iTunes Match has a file size limitation. I forget what it is off the top of my head, I think it's around 200MB file and 24/96 or higher can easily surpass that amount.  But I think that would be cool if we could get it to be free if we have iTunes Match..   iTunes Match is a great service.  I didn't think it was going to be that good, but it is. I just think they need to increase the file size limitations.  I buy off of HD Tracks and others as well, so I know what you mean.

 

Just send Apple Feedback a note.  www.apple.com/feedback  that's what I do, and many times they finally get it done.  not 100%, but at least we have a chance to raise our voices to the proper team.

post #146 of 155
Originally Posted by Netcrawler View Post
Apple should be trying to prop up a dwindling marketplace, not charging more for files it already has in hand.

 

Is that really Apple’s responsibility? No.

post #147 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

 

Yeah, iTunes Match has a file size limitation. I forget what it is off the top of my head, I think it's around 200MB file and 24/96 or higher can easily surpass that amount.  But I think that would be cool if we could get it to be free if we have iTunes Match..   iTunes Match is a great service.  I didn't think it was going to be that good, but it is. I just think they need to increase the file size limitations.  I buy off of HD Tracks and others as well, so I know what you mean.

 

Just send Apple Feedback a note.  www.apple.com/feedback  that's what I do, and many times they finally get it done.  not 100%, but at least we have a chance to raise our voices to the proper team.

 

Ah, well that explains why this seems to happen with the 24/192khz files more than anything else.

 

I had earlier sent Apple's feedback page a lengthy request for HD music and Airplay compatibility.  We'll see what happens.

post #148 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenfeet View Post

Ah, well that explains why this seems to happen with the 24/192khz files more than anything else.

I had earlier sent Apple's feedback page a lengthy request for HD music and Airplay compatibility.  We'll see what happens.

It will be interesting when everything (computers, iDevices, airports) get 802.11ac AND 24 bit.
post #149 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Netcrawler View Post

How about NO additional charge for high resolution tracks we already own? Apple should be trying to prop up a dwindling marketplace, not charging more for files it already has in hand.

What do you mean by not charging us for files it already has in it's hands?
post #150 of 155
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
What do you mean by not charging us for files it already has in it's hands?

 

Apple’s back end library is already ALAC. He wants Apple to sell the ALAC files directly (and make them freely redownloadable instead of charging for upgrading from existing ones).

 

Unfortunately, that’s not how bandwidth works.

 

Though Apple directly selling ALAC is fine with me.

post #151 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Apple’s back end library is already ALAC. He wants Apple to sell the ALAC files directly (and make them freely redownloadable instead of charging for upgrading from existing ones).

 

Unfortunately, that’s not how bandwidth works.

 

Though Apple directly selling ALAC is fine with me.

I guess it's what the record labels will allow.  Apple is just the middleman when it comes to content.

 

I wish I could just $99 a year and download whatever I wanted.  B&W has that, but they only have about 25 albums in their collection and they add a couple every month.   :-)  But it would be cool just to pay $99 for anything off of iTunes, regardless of bit and format.  :-)  I'm sure the world's bandwidth, Apple's own bandwidth, etc. will get choked unit everyone has their own iTunes servers that are almost identical to Apple's.   :-

post #152 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

I guess it's what the record labels will allow.  Apple is just the middleman when it comes to content.

 

I wish I could just $99 a year and download whatever I wanted.  B&W has that, but they only have about 25 albums in their collection and they add a couple every month.   :-)  But it would be cool just to pay $99 for anything off of iTunes, regardless of bit and format.  :-)  I'm sure the world's bandwidth, Apple's own bandwidth, etc. will get choked unit everyone has their own iTunes servers that are almost identical to Apple's.   :-


Here's what I'm looking for from Apple:

 

1.  HD music sold from iTunes Store at least 24/96 khz.

2.  An option for HD downloads of existing music through iTunes Match

3.  A larger number of songs allowed to match in iTunes Match (at least 100K, Amazon allows 250K).  HD music owners often have larger libraries anyway.

4.  Compatibility for HD music for Airplay, at least in newer devices like the Airport Express 802.11n third gen and third party receivers (my 2013 Denon receiver already handled ALAC 24/96 on a USB stick)  Airplay compatibility with HD music would eliminate most of the need for a separate computer and USB access to a DAC.

5.  A pony. :)

post #153 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenfeet View Post
 


Here's what I'm looking for from Apple:

 

1.  HD music sold from iTunes Store at least 24/96 khz.

2.  An option for HD downloads of existing music through iTunes Match

3.  A larger number of songs allowed to match in iTunes Match (at least 100K, Amazon allows 250K).  HD music owners often have larger libraries anyway.

4.  Compatibility for HD music for Airplay, at least in newer devices like the Airport Express 802.11n third gen and third party receivers (my 2013 Denon receiver already handled ALAC 24/96 on a USB stick)  Airplay compatibility with HD music would eliminate most of the need for a separate computer and USB access to a DAC.

5.  A pony. :)

Apple can't dictate if they will give only 24/96, that's dependent on the record label.  At HD Tracks, they have whatever the label gives them, so it ranges from 44.1 to 192, so far.  Some albums, they will just give 24/44.1, but some they'll give you at least one or two choices and it's up to the record label.

 

I think they will have to increase the file size limit.  All iTunes Match actually does is it backs up the data from your hard drive, as long as it's less than 200MB file size, and then you can retrieve it elsewhere, etc. But you aren't buying anything from them per se.  So, if you have a 24 bit song that's less than 200MB, it will save that rendition of it.   I think they limit to 25,000 tracks less than 200MB per file.

 

Airplay would have to be 24 bit compatible, I don't know if it is yet or not, but the Airport Express, etc. only have a 16 bit DAC inside, it depends on how you hook it up whether it routes it through the internal DAC.


802.11ac just started shipping on some newer products starting last year, but it will take Apple another year or two until ALL products on Apple's products list gets the update.  The iDevices haven't yet been updated to 802.11ac yet, that starts this year I would imagine.

 

A pony?   I don't think Apple is going to give you a Pony.  I don't even think Tim Cook has a pony.  I think he would have to have one first before they even think of giving people a pony.  He might send you a picture of a pony for you to look at.  That's about the best they are going to do.   But here's a clip from the Seinfeld episode about the Pony remark.  Will that make you happy?    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mmNiN-jHnk

post #154 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenfeet View Post
 


Here's what I'm looking for from Apple:

 

1.  HD music sold from iTunes Store at least 24/96 khz.

2.  An option for HD downloads of existing music through iTunes Match

3.  A larger number of songs allowed to match in iTunes Match (at least 100K, Amazon allows 250K).  HD music owners often have larger libraries anyway.

4.  Compatibility for HD music for Airplay, at least in newer devices like the Airport Express 802.11n third gen and third party receivers (my 2013 Denon receiver already handled ALAC 24/96 on a USB stick)  Airplay compatibility with HD music would eliminate most of the need for a separate computer and USB access to a DAC.

5.  A pony. :)

Good requests. I would add a sixth: a unicorn. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenfeet View Post
 


Here's what I'm looking for from Apple:

 

1.  HD music sold from iTunes Store at least 24/96 khz.

2.  An option for HD downloads of existing music through iTunes Match

3.  A larger number of songs allowed to match in iTunes Match (at least 100K, Amazon allows 250K).  HD music owners often have larger libraries anyway.

4.  Compatibility for HD music for Airplay, at least in newer devices like the Airport Express 802.11n third gen and third party receivers (my 2013 Denon receiver already handled ALAC 24/96 on a USB stick)  Airplay compatibility with HD music would eliminate most of the need for a separate computer and USB access to a DAC.

5.  A pony. :)

Good requests. I would add a sixth: a unicorn. :)

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #155 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

Apple can't dictate if they will give only 24/96, that's dependent on the record label.  At HD Tracks, they have whatever the label gives them, so it ranges from 44.1 to 192, so far.  Some albums, they will just give 24/44.1, but some they'll give you at least one or two choices and it's up to the record label.

 

I think they will have to increase the file size limit.  All iTunes Match actually does is it backs up the data from your hard drive, as long as it's less than 200MB file size, and then you can retrieve it elsewhere, etc. But you aren't buying anything from them per se.  So, if you have a 24 bit song that's less than 200MB, it will save that rendition of it.   I think they limit to 25,000 tracks less than 200MB per file.

 

Airplay would have to be 24 bit compatible, I don't know if it is yet or not, but the Airport Express, etc. only have a 16 bit DAC inside, it depends on how you hook it up whether it routes it through the internal DAC.


802.11ac just started shipping on some newer products starting last year, but it will take Apple another year or two until ALL products on Apple's products list gets the update.  The iDevices haven't yet been updated to 802.11ac yet, that starts this year I would imagine.

 

 

Apple dictates a lot of standards to others.  That being said, you're right that a lot of content comes in different forms.  I suspect that some content is only available in 16 bit/44.1 khz CD "Redbook".  I would like to have access to the Redbook files if higher definition is unavailable.  And then you are at the mercy or whatever standard the producer mastered the content in the first place.  These days most is 24 bits wide but can come in at 44.1, 48, 96, 172 or 192 hz.  And iTunes itself will handle 32 bit content at 384 khz at the top end.  Again, Apple usually likes standards and conformity for its content, but that may not be completely possible here.  Lastly, Mac OS has historically only supported 24 bit wide and 44.1, 48 and 96 khz output from S/PDIF (Toslink) output.  

 

It's unclear if there is a technical limitation or whether its just to deal with the fact that not all receivers can handle 24/176 or 24/192 (although it is part of the standard for Toslink).  Currently, the only way to change what a Mac outputs digitally is through the Audio MIDI Setup all, which isn't the easiest place to find or understand for most users.  What would be nice would be for the Mac to change whatever output at Toslink to match the content in question instead of forcing you to take only one format and letting the OS re-sample (undesired).  This is why that right now. USB to a DAC is the only way to get music unmolested out to iTunes.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Rumor: Apple to offer hi-res 24-bit tracks on iTunes in coming months