Wow, so you're refusing to upgrade to a superior version of iOS because of the colours and the fact you gain automatic updates to ensure you always have the latest version, which I might add brings with it security enhancements and hardening?
And you're saying you prefer OS X 10.6 to 10.8? Talk about an old dog who can't learn new tricks. Fine, stay with iOS 6, hope it crashes and burns on you and you're forced to go with iOS 7. Security is only as strong as it's weakest link, and people like you are the weakest link in the chain.
Wow, so you're refusing to upgrade to a superior version of iOS because of the colours and the fact you gain automatic updates to ensure you always have the latest version, which I might add brings with it security enhancements and hardening?
And you're saying you prefer OS X 10.6 to 10.8? Talk about an old dog who can't learn new tricks. Fine, stay with iOS 6, hope it crashes and burns on you and you're forced to go with iOS 7. Security is only as strong as it's weakest link, and people like you are the weakest link in the chain.
I hate the colors in iOS7, too. I also will not be upgrading and, for as long as iOS7 is the main theme, I will not be buying further iDevices. (Have had 4 iPhones, 3 iPads, 1 iPad mini, 2 iPod touches).
There is a rumor that Mac OS will take some design elements from iOS7 after Mavericks. If that is the case, I will buy a Mac that will last four years or so in order to give it some time to get fixed. My first Mac was a MacPlus back somewhere around 1989. Have owned countless since. If iOS7 takes over Mac OS, the next Mac I buy could be my last. That's life.
Yes, I feel that strongly about the design of iOS7. I think it is hideous. Lots of people like it. That's fine.
Nope, just sick and tired of people claiming they're refusing the upgrade because of colours. People always put security on the back burner, when in this day and age, with the amount of content and personal data we put on these devices, security MUST be #1 priority.
Nope, just sick and tired of people claiming they're refusing the upgrade because of colours. People always put security on the back burner, when in this day and age, with the amount of content and personal data we put on these devices, security MUST be #1 priority.
Especially, perhaps, when the colors are changeable!
The major beefs I have with iTunes are things like not supports FLAC, DSD. It doesn't switch the Audio/MIDI settings on the fly like 3rd party players do, or have iZotrope 64 SRC and a few other features that players like Audirvana, Amarra, etc. have.
You don't honestly expect Apple to support any of that stuff in iTunes, do you? I agree about switching Audio/MIDI settings on the fly, but the rest of that stuff is really beyond the realm of what I'd expect from a free consumer grade music player and store application. FLAC is pretty much a guaranteed no-go because of Apple's agreements with record labels.
The question I have is what is it that programs like Audirvana, Amarra, etc. don't have that iTunes does that even keeps iTunes on your radar in the first place? Is it mostly to do with syncing to iOS?
You don't honestly expect Apple to support any of that stuff in iTunes, do you? I agree about switching Audio/MIDI settings on the fly, but the rest of that stuff is really beyond the realm of what I'd expect from a free consumer grade music player and store application. FLAC is pretty much a guaranteed no-go because of Apple's agreements with record labels.
The question I have is what is it that programs like Audirvana, Amarra, etc. don't have that iTunes does that even keeps iTunes on your radar in the first place? Is it mostly to do with syncing to iOS?
Audirvana, Amarra, leverage iTunes as the catalog and some of them add the ability to add or links to FLAC, DSD, etc. What these 3rd party products do is able to add DSD, FLAC, a better audio engine, etc. There is a GROWING push towards adding USB DACs to computers and going from these DACs to REAL stereo systems. The MacMini, is becoming quite popular amongst the audio crowd since it's an inexpensive media server. There are people that will buy a MacMini just for a media server and add JRiver Media Center, or any of these 3rd party apps and they get all kinds of files from a variety of download sites and ripping from disc.
I think Apple would do VERY well creating iTunes into a REALLY good media server software and iTunes is it, it just needs to add more functionality, get a better audio engine, etc.
I don't see any problem with Apple buying out any number of these third party players and adding more functionality to iTunes.
I see iTunes as a repository for content, some is ripped from disc, some bought from iTunes, etc.
It would certainly make life a lot easier for the users if they went in this direction so that we can put more content in iTunes and manage it a LOT easier.
Switching Audio/MIDI settings on the fly should be done at a bare minimum, but there needs to be more people requesting that feature.
Audirvana, Amarra, leverage iTunes as the catalog and some of them add the ability to add or links to FLAC, DSD, etc.
FLAC will never be supported. ALAC’s better, anyway. What’s DSD?
EDIT: Oh, Sony? Never gonna happen either, for that reason. I would have thought Sony had learned their lesson on making useless, proprietary Schmidt that no one wants to use.
Based on my own personal experience, I ask every iphone user I come across while I'm in the field two simple questions, "did you upgrade to IOS7" and "how do you like it".
I've asked probably 100 folks so far and overwhelming response is negative, many find the apps less intuitive and harder to see. Very few like the flat icons, they are just not "pretty". Some said, "were they trying to copy Microsoft?". I honestly have not talked with anyone who said that it was better, even though it has some great features.
I bet the uptake slows even more as people talk. If Apple doesn't listen and react to this, there will be a price to pay moving forward.
Sounds like you hang out with a lot of negative, entitled whiners.
FLAC will never be supported. ALAC’s better, anyway. What’s DSD?
EDIT: Oh, Sony? Never gonna happen either, for that reason. I would have thought Sony had learned their lesson on making useless, proprietary Schmidt that no one wants to use.
Um, people can add FLAC and DSD through the use of these 3rd party apps that leverages iTunes. I'm currently using Audirvana with great success. I don't have FLAC files, but others do have them. DSD is becoming more popular as there are more and more USB DACs that are supporting DSD and there are more titles coming out on DSD. Obviously, DSD is meant for the audiophile crowd and it's not mainstream, but the shear number of USB DACs is increasing and DSD support is getting more popular with that crowd of people.
So, there are ways around it. It would just make for a slicker app if Apple just added DSD support. because ultimately, it's what users want and the non-DSD users won't know the difference, but the DSD users WILL. Otherwise, we have to spend X number of dollars buying a 3rd party app, when Apple could just easily buy one of these companies and just add more features to iTunes, whether or not they start selling DSD files.
Apple only sells AAC music files, but they support other file formats, right? So I don't see what the problem is.
FLAC will never be supported. ALAC’s better, anyway. What’s DSD?
EDIT: Oh, Sony? Never gonna happen either, for that reason. I would have thought Sony had learned their lesson on making useless, proprietary Schmidt that no one wants to use.
DSD? It's used by Sony and Philips. It's what SACDs use, but the downloads aren't reliant on SACDs. They just have DSD downloads and they are kicking up the bit rate to get better sound quality. It's a format that the higher end audiophiles are liking and it's becoming yet another standard for high res files.
Remember, Sony has a HUGE catalog of classic material and I was given the option of paying a little extra for higher resolution than I will do so. All DSD requires is a DSD DAC, not a SACD player. That's where Sony messed up was with the player.
Heck, I just downloaded some 24/96 and 24/192 AIFF files from HDTracks and they just kick the living crap out of 16 bit or AAC. It's not even a contest. I haven't heard DSD compared, but others have said it sounds even better, plus it can be converted, but that's an extra step that some don't want to have to do.
FLAC will never be supported. ALAC’s better, anyway. What’s DSD?
EDIT: Oh, Sony? Never gonna happen either, for that reason. I would have thought Sony had learned their lesson on making useless, proprietary Schmidt that no one wants to use.
I can add FLAC files to iTunes with Audirvana, Amarra and others. So, there are ways around it but it just would be nice if Apple made iTunes software support all file formats so that we didn't have to go through a conversion process. It would just make people's lives a little easier that enjoy high res files and I don't see what the problem is. They can obviously sell whatever they want, but high res files are becoming more popular as USB DACs become more popular.
At last count, there are a lot of USB DACs on the market that start in the $250 range all the way up to $20K or more. Almost every week or so a new DAC comes out.
FLAC will never be supported. ALAC’s better, anyway. What’s DSD?
EDIT: Oh, Sony? Never gonna happen either, for that reason. I would have thought Sony had learned their lesson on making useless, proprietary Schmidt that no one wants to use.
DSD? It's used by Sony and Philips. It's what SACDs use, but the downloads aren't reliant on SACDs. They just have DSD downloads and they are kicking up the bit rate to get better sound quality. It's a format that the higher end audiophiles are liking and it's becoming yet another standard for high res files.
Remember, Sony has a HUGE catalog of classic material and I was given the option of paying a little extra for higher resolution than I will do so. All DSD requires is a DSD DAC, not a SACD player. That's where Sony messed up was with the player.
Heck, I just downloaded some 24/96 and 24/192 AIFF files from HDTracks and they just kick the living crap out of 16 bit or AAC. It's not even a contest. I haven't heard DSD compared, but others have said it sounds even better, plus it can be converted, but that's an extra step that some don't want to have to do.
DSD is direct-stream-digital. It's a crappy format, equivalent to how they made music with the 1-bit buzzer of the original IBM PC, just with a much higher sampling rate and some noise shaping filters, which for all intents and purposes needs to be converted back and forth to PCM at various stages in the production and playback process when any digital processing is needed.
It's neither as space efficient nor higher-fidelity when compared with similar bit rate PCM streams.
Bit-for-bit, PCM results in better quality/higher information density than DSD, and there's even a mathematical proof floating around somewhere on that subject.
The advantage of DSD is that it allows for a dirt cheap implementation, which means a lousy implementation won't sound much worse than a great implementation, while PCM is trickier to implement in hardware, which means less-than-stellar PCM playback devices will do bad justice to PCM content, because they don't render the information in the data properly.
In short: properly implemented PCM is provably better than DSD, however a lot of PCM devices are not properly implemented and thus suffer from all sorts of quality issues, particularly digital devices created by audio companies that have an "analog" mindset, which tend to solve problems that don't matter in digital audio and overlook the things that do matter.
DSD, thanks to its 1-bit nature, is easier to implement, most of the error gets noise-shaped out of the audible spectrum, and a bunch of decent filters make the whole thing bearable.
You can't do any audio processing with DSD without subjecting it to a PCM conversion, or doing the processing in the analog domain after DA conversion.
DSD is direct-stream-digital. It's a crappy format, equivalent to how they made music with the 1-bit buzzer of the original IBM PC, just with a much higher sampling rate and some noise shaping filters, which for all intents and purposes needs to be converted back and forth to PCM at various stages in the production and playback process when any digital processing is needed.
It's neither as space efficient nor higher-fidelity when compared with similar bit rate PCM streams.
Bit-for-bit, PCM results in better quality/higher information density than DSD, and there's even a mathematical proof floating around somewhere on that subject.
The advantage of DSD is that it allows for a dirt cheap implementation, which means a lousy implementation won't sound much worse than a great implementation, while PCM is trickier to implement in hardware, which means less-than-stellar PCM playback devices will do bad justice to PCM content, because they don't render the information in the data properly.
In short: properly implemented PCM is provably better than DSD, however a lot of PCM devices are not properly implemented and thus suffer from all sorts of quality issues, particularly digital devices created by audio companies that have an "analog" mindset, which tend to solve problems that don't matter in digital audio and overlook the things that do matter.
DSD, thanks to its 1-bit nature, is easier to implement, most of the error gets noise-shaped out of the audible spectrum, and a bunch of decent filters make the whole thing bearable.
You can't do any audio processing with DSD without subjecting it to a PCM conversion, or doing the processing in the analog domain after DA conversion.
DSD a crappy format? Well, better tell some of these high end recording studios that are putting out DSD vs PCM. And you better tell these high end hardware and software companies like Pyramix, DAD, Light Harmonic, MyTek,
You are relying on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is great for certain types of information. All I am saying is that there are a lot of companies that make recording equipment and playback equipment for DSD and it's becoming more popular. Right now, Sonic Studio (which owns Philips' DSD licenses) allows people to have DSD on their Mac and it puts a tag in iTunes so it fools the user into thinking it's there. It works, but it's not as clean.
MacMinis are real popular amongst the Audiophile community for a server. They are small, relatively cheap, easy to use and Sonic Studio's Amarra only works on OS X.
What's dumb is preventing people from using a product. I look at audio formats just I look at file formats for a anything else. Doesn't Numbers and Pages recognize the same file formats as Excel and Word?
All I am saying is for Apple to allow iTunes to allow the user to import whatever audio format they have. So it should NOT matter whether Apple sell them or not. There are a LOT of different ways to get content. There are some files that are ONLY DSD and yeah, there is a free converter by Korg we can use, but it changes it to PCM. I haven't used it so I can't comment on if or how much it alters the file in terms of sound quality. But that's how they have to do it now.
Whether people SAY they can tell a difference is one's opinion and they are coming out with higher res DSD, but it is a format that's out there.
FYI, Steve Jobs was a big SACD fan, which uses DSD, only they are pushing DSD even further than what they did with SACD, so people can download these files.
There are people that are buying even the portable DSD recording units and recording live concerts and they want to play them back on their system that might comprise of a computer audio server.
As Ppietra notes, your numbers don't add up. The fact that you extrapolated 6 quarters worth of data from just one quarter is a huge red flag.
They add up just fine.
Do some actual research into sales data, before you try to talk about extrapolating data. The numbers I quoted for that quarter was accurate, and also was an average of the previous 3 quarters. So, before you just run your mouth off without looking anything up, try thinking next time.
Apple sales have been going up. Him extrapolating the last year, then applying it back to previous years doesn't work. If they have a 33% or 50% YoY growth, and they sold 200 million in the last year, then in the previous year they sold 133 million devices.
Do some actual research into sales data, before you try to talk about extrapolating data. The numbers I quoted for that quarter was accurate, and also was an average of the previous 3 quarters. So, before you just run your mouth off without looking anything up, try thinking next time.
Apple sales have been going up. Him extrapolating the last year, then applying it back to previous years doesn't work. If they have a 33% or 50% YoY growth, and they sold 200 million in the last year, then in the previous year they sold 133 million devices.
You said 6 quarters but you only used 1 quarter. You lied to make your point. If you used all 6 quarters the data would have been different.
DSD is direct-stream-digital. It's a crappy format, equivalent to how they made music with the 1-bit buzzer of the original IBM PC, just with a much higher sampling rate and some noise shaping filters, which for all intents and purposes needs to be converted back and forth to PCM at various stages in the production and playback process when any digital processing is needed.
It's neither as space efficient nor higher-fidelity when compared with similar bit rate PCM streams.
Bit-for-bit, PCM results in better quality/higher information density than DSD, and there's even a mathematical proof floating around somewhere on that subject.
The advantage of DSD is that it allows for a dirt cheap implementation, which means a lousy implementation won't sound much worse than a great implementation, while PCM is trickier to implement in hardware, which means less-than-stellar PCM playback devices will do bad justice to PCM content, because they don't render the information in the data properly.
In short: properly implemented PCM is provably better than DSD, however a lot of PCM devices are not properly implemented and thus suffer from all sorts of quality issues, particularly digital devices created by audio companies that have an "analog" mindset, which tend to solve problems that don't matter in digital audio and overlook the things that do matter.
DSD, thanks to its 1-bit nature, is easier to implement, most of the error gets noise-shaped out of the audible spectrum, and a bunch of decent filters make the whole thing bearable.
You can't do any audio processing with DSD without subjecting it to a PCM conversion, or doing the processing in the analog domain after DA conversion.
DSD a crappy format? Well, better tell some of these high end recording studios that are putting out DSD vs PCM. And you better tell these high end hardware and software companies like Pyramix, DAD, Light Harmonic, MyTek,
You are relying on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is great for certain types of information. All I am saying is that there are a lot of companies that make recording equipment and playback equipment for DSD and it's becoming more popular. Right now, Sonic Studio (which owns Philips' DSD licenses) allows people to have DSD on their Mac and it puts a tag in iTunes so it fools the user into thinking it's there. It works, but it's not as clean.
[...]
There are some files that are ONLY DSD and yeah, there is a free converter by Korg we can use, but it changes it to PCM. I haven't used it so I can't comment on if or how much it alters the file in terms of sound quality. But that's how they have to do it now.
[...]
FYI, Steve Jobs was a big SACD fan, which uses DSD, only they are pushing DSD even further than what they did with SACD, so people can download these files.
No, I don't need to rely on Wikipedia, mathematics speak for themselves. Wikipedia however is pretty good at bundling the references e.g. to the relevant AES papers. As I said, there's a mathematical proof that for any N-bits used PCM captures more information about the audio signal than DSD does. More information means better sound. Period. Information theory says so.
DSD is easier to implement, so if you're a consumer electronics company, and you're trying to sell a $20 cost item as a $999.- high-end audio product, then of course you're going to fucking love DSD. If you're trying to produce the best audio for any given amount of bits used and without using massive noise shaping which then means you have to use an analog chain that's bandwidth limited, then you won't use DSD.
Further, it's IMPOSSIBLE to do any EQ, level adjustment, compressing (not storage, but audio), etc. without converting the signal to PCM first. In other words, EVERY SINGLE COMMERCIAL (read: major label) DSD product (SACD, etc.) has been AT LEAST ONCE converted to PCM and then back to DSD. Only some rare audiophile purist recordings that are recorded and never processed, mastered, etc. are pure DSD. And while it's possible to convert without loss PCM to DSD, the inverse isn't really true.
So yes, DSD is an inferior format. The issue is, that people compare 16-bit/44.1kHz PCM to SACD DSD streams. But if you look at the storage requirement, then a SACD DSD stream requires more bits than 24-bit/192kHz PCM, and just about nobody, in double-blind testing can tell the difference between DSD and PCM when equivalent bit rates are used and the quality of playback hardware is matched and not biased towards one format or the other.
The point is: signal processing is pure math. It's not about snake oil or which device has a nicer anodized aluminum front plate or what freak like Levinson quotes what sort of outdated pseudo-science on badly implemented early PCM audio out of context to make DSD look superior: numbers don't lie, and the same say business people. The difference is: scientists look at information content, business people look at profit margins, and those are higher when it comes to DSD. And as long as consumers buy any shit that's hyped well enough and as long as musicians without any training in math or engineering and easily swayed by suggestive marketing, endorsement deals, etc. would pick a badly aligned analog reel to reel tape over a state of the art digital recording equipment, as long you'll find people who claim that DSD is better because it's "not digital" (even though it's if anything more digital than PCM).
There are a lot of pseudo-authorities who spew a lot of crap. If you want to check out companies who understand digital, you don't go to Sony or Philips, you go to Meridian, or Metric Halo, or Kurzweil, or... and none of these companies would dream of DSD, they do PCM and they do it for good reason. (They may have DSD compatibility options, but it's on a DSD-to-PCM basis).
Heck, I just downloaded some 24/96 and 24/192 AIFF files from HDTracks and they just kick the living crap out of 16 bit or AAC. It's not even a contest.
In what way do the higher res files sound better than a 16-bit file? What is the audible difference?
Can you please also explain how Nyquist's theorem works? After you do that, you can elaborate on the benefit of any sample rate over ~40KHz?
In what way do the higher res files sound better than a 16-bit file? What is the audible difference?
Can you please also explain how Nyquist's theorem works? After you do that, you can elaborate on the benefit of any sample rate over ~40KHz?
Well, first off, you have to have a good enough system and have your ears get accustomed to listening to sonic differences. But the difference that I hear in a regular 16 bit recording from a RedBook CD on my system that I ripped into my iMac to an AIFF or Apple Lossless compared to the 24/96 version I downloaded from HDTracks was I could hear things more clearly. I could actually hear the suble sound effects the guitarist used on passages that were low in the mix. I could hear bass notes with more clarity, the high frequency things like cymbals were nice and smooth and not harsh sounding. There seems to be better separation between each instrument and not blended together. I am listening to an album I bought back in the 70's on vinyl and have heard this album literally a few thousand times and know just about ever note by heart. I used to listen to with headphones back when I first bought the album. I have various mastering jobs ranging from the original CD mastering, to remastered versions done later to the 24/96 version. It's just so much clearer there is NO contest. I could pick it out blindfolded so easily, it's no contest. Worth the money from my point of view. I am using a decent DAC that actually up samples the 16 bit version and puts it through an Apodising filter to remove pre-ringing and it's going through decent interconnect cables to a powered set of speakers that only cost around $700. My total investment in the cables, speakers, and DAC is less than $1800 and I would consider it a very nice low end high fi system. I'm sure on more expensive, more detailed system it would sound even better, but this is my bedroom setup and I listen to music on it about 4 hours a day on average.
40kHz are harmonic frequencies, that's not where you really hear the differences between 16 bit and 24/96 bit even though that's what the curves show you. Obviously, it's going to depend on a LOT of other factors. What the higher res files essentially do is make it more analog sounding where the music content is more accurately closer to what it would sound like if it were analog. Now, there are ultra high end playback systems that have compared just a regular 16bit Redbook CD on a SUPER expensive transport/DAC compared to one of the most expensive and precise turntables/cartridges/phono pre amp on a VERY nice high end system that costs well over over $100K and listeners sat in the room and compared vinyl to 16 bit digital and had a hard time telling the difference. Digital can sound REALLY good, but it's also part of the mastering job.
if they are taking analog tape and converting it using 16 bit AD vs 24 AD, then that conversion is much better and then the playback is much better.
All you have to do is get a decent DAC/speaker playback system and try it yourself as you can listen to tracks at HDTracks before you buy them. Same thing with DSD. There are a handful of high res download sites that have free downloads or samples that you can compare, but obviously, your system, your ears and any room problems will give you the as accurate of listening experience as it will allow. Actually, you don't want any of the frequencies above a certain level to be too loud as it might mask the note being played. I don't know if you understand music theory, but when a musician plays a single note on a piano, it plays the fundamental frequency the highest and then all of the harmonics at a gradually lower level (HOPEFULLY), but if you have a upper harmonic that's at the same volume as the fundamental, then you aren't hearing the fundamental clearly, thus it will sound like crap.
Now, people like Rupert Neve and others have argued as to what the use of having equipment reproduce frequencies beyond normal human hearing as there is recording and playback equipment is supposed to capture and reproduce beyond 20KHz. It might make things a little clearer, but you also run the risk of having it too bright/harsh sounding, but that's a whole other discussion.
As far as Nyquest's theorem and how it works, go to WikiPedia and look it up. I don't have time to regurgitate that for you.
But you do know that higher higher res will recreate a signal with more precision. Don't get all caught up with just how high the frequency range is. I'm not necessarily listening to that. Plus you are supposed to get more dynamic range and less noise with high res recordings, etc. But that also depends on your equipment. A high end 16bit DAC might sound better than a cheap 24bit DAC, similarly AD systems as well. But a really good 24/96 should sound a lot better than a really good 16/44.
Do you know how many AD and DA converters are on the market and how they WILL sound better or worse than the other and it's also has to do with not only the quality of the DAC or ADC chip, but the input circuits, output circuits, isolation of power supply, etc. etc. etc.
In what way do the higher res files sound better than a 16-bit file? What is the audible difference?
Can you please also explain how Nyquist's theorem works? After you do that, you can elaborate on the benefit of any sample rate over ~40KHz?
One thing I will tell you to do, if you EVER have the chance to go to one of these high end audiophile shows, GO TO THE MBL, Wilson, Eggleston, Magico, and a few other's rooms. Their systems are so good sounding, you though you died and went to heaven and they can achieve such good quality sound from even 16 bit, but they can do even higher than that. Check out what Light Harmonic or any number of these super expensive USB DACs are doing just to get used to what you are SUPPOSED to be hearing. It helps you figure out what to strive for in a playback system and it's possible to get pretty close without having to spend MEGA BUCKS on a system. Light Harmonic is selling a 24/384 USB DAC for $300 for just headphones and I'm sure that thing sounds great. Meridian makes a great USB DAC called the Director DAC for playing through a regular stereo, or there are MyTek DACs that will also do DSD, which there isn't much of right now. But DSD is growing, especially if Sony starts releasing their catalog in DSD. I have not heard DSD, so I can't comment on that. But I've heard people that are involved in producing recordings that swear by it and they've been doing PCM recordings for many years and have experience with both. Blue Coast Records is doing that and they have free files that you can download to check out and if you don't have DSD playback, you can convert to PCM using Korg's software. But it also depends on what you want in a system and what kind of music you listen to. If you listen to a lot of heavily distorted metal that has lots of compression, sound effects, etc. or rap music or mostly computer generated samples, modeled, etc. it may not make much difference.
Oh, one thing to do, if you really want good audio for headphones, the better sets cost money and stay away from Beats, they are too colored and have too much phony bottom end. Sennheiser makes some of the better headphones and their HD800's a VERY nice if you listen to headphones a lot, it's worth the money in the long run. There are others, but the HD800s consistently come up as one of the headphones of choice for the audiophile crowd. Yeah, I know, they are expensive. I'd buy them if I had the money, but I don't listen through headphones much. I prefer traditional speakers.
I also play my music at around 80 to MAYBE 95dB for the loudest passages, anything louder than that, and it's just not good for long term listening.
Comments
Wow, so you're refusing to upgrade to a superior version of iOS because of the colours and the fact you gain automatic updates to ensure you always have the latest version, which I might add brings with it security enhancements and hardening?
And you're saying you prefer OS X 10.6 to 10.8? Talk about an old dog who can't learn new tricks. Fine, stay with iOS 6, hope it crashes and burns on you and you're forced to go with iOS 7. Security is only as strong as it's weakest link, and people like you are the weakest link in the chain.
Have a bad weekend?
Wow, so you're refusing to upgrade to a superior version of iOS because of the colours and the fact you gain automatic updates to ensure you always have the latest version, which I might add brings with it security enhancements and hardening?
And you're saying you prefer OS X 10.6 to 10.8? Talk about an old dog who can't learn new tricks. Fine, stay with iOS 6, hope it crashes and burns on you and you're forced to go with iOS 7. Security is only as strong as it's weakest link, and people like you are the weakest link in the chain.
I hate the colors in iOS7, too. I also will not be upgrading and, for as long as iOS7 is the main theme, I will not be buying further iDevices. (Have had 4 iPhones, 3 iPads, 1 iPad mini, 2 iPod touches).
There is a rumor that Mac OS will take some design elements from iOS7 after Mavericks. If that is the case, I will buy a Mac that will last four years or so in order to give it some time to get fixed. My first Mac was a MacPlus back somewhere around 1989. Have owned countless since. If iOS7 takes over Mac OS, the next Mac I buy could be my last. That's life.
Yes, I feel that strongly about the design of iOS7. I think it is hideous. Lots of people like it. That's fine.
Have a bad weekend?
Nope, just sick and tired of people claiming they're refusing the upgrade because of colours. People always put security on the back burner, when in this day and age, with the amount of content and personal data we put on these devices, security MUST be #1 priority.
Nope, just sick and tired of people claiming they're refusing the upgrade because of colours. People always put security on the back burner, when in this day and age, with the amount of content and personal data we put on these devices, security MUST be #1 priority.
Especially, perhaps, when the colors are changeable!
The major beefs I have with iTunes are things like not supports FLAC, DSD. It doesn't switch the Audio/MIDI settings on the fly like 3rd party players do, or have iZotrope 64 SRC and a few other features that players like Audirvana, Amarra, etc. have.
You don't honestly expect Apple to support any of that stuff in iTunes, do you? I agree about switching Audio/MIDI settings on the fly, but the rest of that stuff is really beyond the realm of what I'd expect from a free consumer grade music player and store application. FLAC is pretty much a guaranteed no-go because of Apple's agreements with record labels.
The question I have is what is it that programs like Audirvana, Amarra, etc. don't have that iTunes does that even keeps iTunes on your radar in the first place? Is it mostly to do with syncing to iOS?
You don't honestly expect Apple to support any of that stuff in iTunes, do you? I agree about switching Audio/MIDI settings on the fly, but the rest of that stuff is really beyond the realm of what I'd expect from a free consumer grade music player and store application. FLAC is pretty much a guaranteed no-go because of Apple's agreements with record labels.
The question I have is what is it that programs like Audirvana, Amarra, etc. don't have that iTunes does that even keeps iTunes on your radar in the first place? Is it mostly to do with syncing to iOS?
Audirvana, Amarra, leverage iTunes as the catalog and some of them add the ability to add or links to FLAC, DSD, etc. What these 3rd party products do is able to add DSD, FLAC, a better audio engine, etc. There is a GROWING push towards adding USB DACs to computers and going from these DACs to REAL stereo systems. The MacMini, is becoming quite popular amongst the audio crowd since it's an inexpensive media server. There are people that will buy a MacMini just for a media server and add JRiver Media Center, or any of these 3rd party apps and they get all kinds of files from a variety of download sites and ripping from disc.
I think Apple would do VERY well creating iTunes into a REALLY good media server software and iTunes is it, it just needs to add more functionality, get a better audio engine, etc.
I don't see any problem with Apple buying out any number of these third party players and adding more functionality to iTunes.
I see iTunes as a repository for content, some is ripped from disc, some bought from iTunes, etc.
It would certainly make life a lot easier for the users if they went in this direction so that we can put more content in iTunes and manage it a LOT easier.
Switching Audio/MIDI settings on the fly should be done at a bare minimum, but there needs to be more people requesting that feature.
Audirvana, Amarra, leverage iTunes as the catalog and some of them add the ability to add or links to FLAC, DSD, etc.
FLAC will never be supported. ALAC’s better, anyway. What’s DSD?
EDIT: Oh, Sony? Never gonna happen either, for that reason. I would have thought Sony had learned their lesson on making useless, proprietary Schmidt that no one wants to use.
Sounds like you hang out with a lot of negative, entitled whiners.
FLAC will never be supported. ALAC’s better, anyway. What’s DSD?
EDIT: Oh, Sony? Never gonna happen either, for that reason. I would have thought Sony had learned their lesson on making useless, proprietary Schmidt that no one wants to use.
Um, people can add FLAC and DSD through the use of these 3rd party apps that leverages iTunes. I'm currently using Audirvana with great success. I don't have FLAC files, but others do have them. DSD is becoming more popular as there are more and more USB DACs that are supporting DSD and there are more titles coming out on DSD. Obviously, DSD is meant for the audiophile crowd and it's not mainstream, but the shear number of USB DACs is increasing and DSD support is getting more popular with that crowd of people.
So, there are ways around it. It would just make for a slicker app if Apple just added DSD support. because ultimately, it's what users want and the non-DSD users won't know the difference, but the DSD users WILL. Otherwise, we have to spend X number of dollars buying a 3rd party app, when Apple could just easily buy one of these companies and just add more features to iTunes, whether or not they start selling DSD files.
Apple only sells AAC music files, but they support other file formats, right? So I don't see what the problem is.
FLAC will never be supported. ALAC’s better, anyway. What’s DSD?
EDIT: Oh, Sony? Never gonna happen either, for that reason. I would have thought Sony had learned their lesson on making useless, proprietary Schmidt that no one wants to use.
DSD? It's used by Sony and Philips. It's what SACDs use, but the downloads aren't reliant on SACDs. They just have DSD downloads and they are kicking up the bit rate to get better sound quality. It's a format that the higher end audiophiles are liking and it's becoming yet another standard for high res files.
Remember, Sony has a HUGE catalog of classic material and I was given the option of paying a little extra for higher resolution than I will do so. All DSD requires is a DSD DAC, not a SACD player. That's where Sony messed up was with the player.
Heck, I just downloaded some 24/96 and 24/192 AIFF files from HDTracks and they just kick the living crap out of 16 bit or AAC. It's not even a contest. I haven't heard DSD compared, but others have said it sounds even better, plus it can be converted, but that's an extra step that some don't want to have to do.
FLAC will never be supported. ALAC’s better, anyway. What’s DSD?
EDIT: Oh, Sony? Never gonna happen either, for that reason. I would have thought Sony had learned their lesson on making useless, proprietary Schmidt that no one wants to use.
I can add FLAC files to iTunes with Audirvana, Amarra and others. So, there are ways around it but it just would be nice if Apple made iTunes software support all file formats so that we didn't have to go through a conversion process. It would just make people's lives a little easier that enjoy high res files and I don't see what the problem is. They can obviously sell whatever they want, but high res files are becoming more popular as USB DACs become more popular.
At last count, there are a lot of USB DACs on the market that start in the $250 range all the way up to $20K or more. Almost every week or so a new DAC comes out.
FLAC will never be supported. ALAC’s better, anyway. What’s DSD?
EDIT: Oh, Sony? Never gonna happen either, for that reason. I would have thought Sony had learned their lesson on making useless, proprietary Schmidt that no one wants to use.
DSD? It's used by Sony and Philips. It's what SACDs use, but the downloads aren't reliant on SACDs. They just have DSD downloads and they are kicking up the bit rate to get better sound quality. It's a format that the higher end audiophiles are liking and it's becoming yet another standard for high res files.
Remember, Sony has a HUGE catalog of classic material and I was given the option of paying a little extra for higher resolution than I will do so. All DSD requires is a DSD DAC, not a SACD player. That's where Sony messed up was with the player.
Heck, I just downloaded some 24/96 and 24/192 AIFF files from HDTracks and they just kick the living crap out of 16 bit or AAC. It's not even a contest. I haven't heard DSD compared, but others have said it sounds even better, plus it can be converted, but that's an extra step that some don't want to have to do.
DSD is direct-stream-digital. It's a crappy format, equivalent to how they made music with the 1-bit buzzer of the original IBM PC, just with a much higher sampling rate and some noise shaping filters, which for all intents and purposes needs to be converted back and forth to PCM at various stages in the production and playback process when any digital processing is needed.
It's neither as space efficient nor higher-fidelity when compared with similar bit rate PCM streams.
Bit-for-bit, PCM results in better quality/higher information density than DSD, and there's even a mathematical proof floating around somewhere on that subject.
The advantage of DSD is that it allows for a dirt cheap implementation, which means a lousy implementation won't sound much worse than a great implementation, while PCM is trickier to implement in hardware, which means less-than-stellar PCM playback devices will do bad justice to PCM content, because they don't render the information in the data properly.
In short: properly implemented PCM is provably better than DSD, however a lot of PCM devices are not properly implemented and thus suffer from all sorts of quality issues, particularly digital devices created by audio companies that have an "analog" mindset, which tend to solve problems that don't matter in digital audio and overlook the things that do matter.
DSD, thanks to its 1-bit nature, is easier to implement, most of the error gets noise-shaped out of the audible spectrum, and a bunch of decent filters make the whole thing bearable.
You can't do any audio processing with DSD without subjecting it to a PCM conversion, or doing the processing in the analog domain after DA conversion.
A few links for the curious:
http://www.craigmandigital.com/education/PCM_vs_DSD.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital#DSD_vs._PCM
DSD is direct-stream-digital. It's a crappy format, equivalent to how they made music with the 1-bit buzzer of the original IBM PC, just with a much higher sampling rate and some noise shaping filters, which for all intents and purposes needs to be converted back and forth to PCM at various stages in the production and playback process when any digital processing is needed.
It's neither as space efficient nor higher-fidelity when compared with similar bit rate PCM streams.
Bit-for-bit, PCM results in better quality/higher information density than DSD, and there's even a mathematical proof floating around somewhere on that subject.
The advantage of DSD is that it allows for a dirt cheap implementation, which means a lousy implementation won't sound much worse than a great implementation, while PCM is trickier to implement in hardware, which means less-than-stellar PCM playback devices will do bad justice to PCM content, because they don't render the information in the data properly.
In short: properly implemented PCM is provably better than DSD, however a lot of PCM devices are not properly implemented and thus suffer from all sorts of quality issues, particularly digital devices created by audio companies that have an "analog" mindset, which tend to solve problems that don't matter in digital audio and overlook the things that do matter.
DSD, thanks to its 1-bit nature, is easier to implement, most of the error gets noise-shaped out of the audible spectrum, and a bunch of decent filters make the whole thing bearable.
You can't do any audio processing with DSD without subjecting it to a PCM conversion, or doing the processing in the analog domain after DA conversion.
A few links for the curious:
http://www.craigmandigital.com/education/PCM_vs_DSD.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital#DSD_vs._PCM
DSD a crappy format? Well, better tell some of these high end recording studios that are putting out DSD vs PCM. And you better tell these high end hardware and software companies like Pyramix, DAD, Light Harmonic, MyTek,
You are relying on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is great for certain types of information. All I am saying is that there are a lot of companies that make recording equipment and playback equipment for DSD and it's becoming more popular. Right now, Sonic Studio (which owns Philips' DSD licenses) allows people to have DSD on their Mac and it puts a tag in iTunes so it fools the user into thinking it's there. It works, but it's not as clean.
MacMinis are real popular amongst the Audiophile community for a server. They are small, relatively cheap, easy to use and Sonic Studio's Amarra only works on OS X.
What's dumb is preventing people from using a product. I look at audio formats just I look at file formats for a anything else. Doesn't Numbers and Pages recognize the same file formats as Excel and Word?
All I am saying is for Apple to allow iTunes to allow the user to import whatever audio format they have. So it should NOT matter whether Apple sell them or not. There are a LOT of different ways to get content. There are some files that are ONLY DSD and yeah, there is a free converter by Korg we can use, but it changes it to PCM. I haven't used it so I can't comment on if or how much it alters the file in terms of sound quality. But that's how they have to do it now.
Whether people SAY they can tell a difference is one's opinion and they are coming out with higher res DSD, but it is a format that's out there.
FYI, Steve Jobs was a big SACD fan, which uses DSD, only they are pushing DSD even further than what they did with SACD, so people can download these files.
There are people that are buying even the portable DSD recording units and recording live concerts and they want to play them back on their system that might comprise of a computer audio server.
As Ppietra notes, your numbers don't add up. The fact that you extrapolated 6 quarters worth of data from just one quarter is a huge red flag.
They add up just fine.
Do some actual research into sales data, before you try to talk about extrapolating data. The numbers I quoted for that quarter was accurate, and also was an average of the previous 3 quarters. So, before you just run your mouth off without looking anything up, try thinking next time.
Apple sales have been going up. Him extrapolating the last year, then applying it back to previous years doesn't work. If they have a 33% or 50% YoY growth, and they sold 200 million in the last year, then in the previous year they sold 133 million devices.
You said 6 quarters but you only used 1 quarter. You lied to make your point. If you used all 6 quarters the data would have been different.
DSD is direct-stream-digital. It's a crappy format, equivalent to how they made music with the 1-bit buzzer of the original IBM PC, just with a much higher sampling rate and some noise shaping filters, which for all intents and purposes needs to be converted back and forth to PCM at various stages in the production and playback process when any digital processing is needed.
It's neither as space efficient nor higher-fidelity when compared with similar bit rate PCM streams.
Bit-for-bit, PCM results in better quality/higher information density than DSD, and there's even a mathematical proof floating around somewhere on that subject.
The advantage of DSD is that it allows for a dirt cheap implementation, which means a lousy implementation won't sound much worse than a great implementation, while PCM is trickier to implement in hardware, which means less-than-stellar PCM playback devices will do bad justice to PCM content, because they don't render the information in the data properly.
In short: properly implemented PCM is provably better than DSD, however a lot of PCM devices are not properly implemented and thus suffer from all sorts of quality issues, particularly digital devices created by audio companies that have an "analog" mindset, which tend to solve problems that don't matter in digital audio and overlook the things that do matter.
DSD, thanks to its 1-bit nature, is easier to implement, most of the error gets noise-shaped out of the audible spectrum, and a bunch of decent filters make the whole thing bearable.
You can't do any audio processing with DSD without subjecting it to a PCM conversion, or doing the processing in the analog domain after DA conversion.
A few links for the curious:
http://www.craigmandigital.com/education/PCM_vs_DSD.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital#DSD_vs._PCM
DSD a crappy format? Well, better tell some of these high end recording studios that are putting out DSD vs PCM. And you better tell these high end hardware and software companies like Pyramix, DAD, Light Harmonic, MyTek,
You are relying on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is great for certain types of information. All I am saying is that there are a lot of companies that make recording equipment and playback equipment for DSD and it's becoming more popular. Right now, Sonic Studio (which owns Philips' DSD licenses) allows people to have DSD on their Mac and it puts a tag in iTunes so it fools the user into thinking it's there. It works, but it's not as clean.
[...]
There are some files that are ONLY DSD and yeah, there is a free converter by Korg we can use, but it changes it to PCM. I haven't used it so I can't comment on if or how much it alters the file in terms of sound quality. But that's how they have to do it now.
[...]
FYI, Steve Jobs was a big SACD fan, which uses DSD, only they are pushing DSD even further than what they did with SACD, so people can download these files.
No, I don't need to rely on Wikipedia, mathematics speak for themselves. Wikipedia however is pretty good at bundling the references e.g. to the relevant AES papers. As I said, there's a mathematical proof that for any N-bits used PCM captures more information about the audio signal than DSD does. More information means better sound. Period. Information theory says so.
DSD is easier to implement, so if you're a consumer electronics company, and you're trying to sell a $20 cost item as a $999.- high-end audio product, then of course you're going to fucking love DSD. If you're trying to produce the best audio for any given amount of bits used and without using massive noise shaping which then means you have to use an analog chain that's bandwidth limited, then you won't use DSD.
Further, it's IMPOSSIBLE to do any EQ, level adjustment, compressing (not storage, but audio), etc. without converting the signal to PCM first. In other words, EVERY SINGLE COMMERCIAL (read: major label) DSD product (SACD, etc.) has been AT LEAST ONCE converted to PCM and then back to DSD. Only some rare audiophile purist recordings that are recorded and never processed, mastered, etc. are pure DSD. And while it's possible to convert without loss PCM to DSD, the inverse isn't really true.
So yes, DSD is an inferior format. The issue is, that people compare 16-bit/44.1kHz PCM to SACD DSD streams. But if you look at the storage requirement, then a SACD DSD stream requires more bits than 24-bit/192kHz PCM, and just about nobody, in double-blind testing can tell the difference between DSD and PCM when equivalent bit rates are used and the quality of playback hardware is matched and not biased towards one format or the other.
The point is: signal processing is pure math. It's not about snake oil or which device has a nicer anodized aluminum front plate or what freak like Levinson quotes what sort of outdated pseudo-science on badly implemented early PCM audio out of context to make DSD look superior: numbers don't lie, and the same say business people. The difference is: scientists look at information content, business people look at profit margins, and those are higher when it comes to DSD. And as long as consumers buy any shit that's hyped well enough and as long as musicians without any training in math or engineering and easily swayed by suggestive marketing, endorsement deals, etc. would pick a badly aligned analog reel to reel tape over a state of the art digital recording equipment, as long you'll find people who claim that DSD is better because it's "not digital" (even though it's if anything more digital than PCM).
There are a lot of pseudo-authorities who spew a lot of crap. If you want to check out companies who understand digital, you don't go to Sony or Philips, you go to Meridian, or Metric Halo, or Kurzweil, or... and none of these companies would dream of DSD, they do PCM and they do it for good reason. (They may have DSD compatibility options, but it's on a DSD-to-PCM basis).
Heck, I just downloaded some 24/96 and 24/192 AIFF files from HDTracks and they just kick the living crap out of 16 bit or AAC. It's not even a contest.
In what way do the higher res files sound better than a 16-bit file? What is the audible difference?
Can you please also explain how Nyquist's theorem works? After you do that, you can elaborate on the benefit of any sample rate over ~40KHz?
In what way do the higher res files sound better than a 16-bit file? What is the audible difference?
Can you please also explain how Nyquist's theorem works? After you do that, you can elaborate on the benefit of any sample rate over ~40KHz?
Well, first off, you have to have a good enough system and have your ears get accustomed to listening to sonic differences. But the difference that I hear in a regular 16 bit recording from a RedBook CD on my system that I ripped into my iMac to an AIFF or Apple Lossless compared to the 24/96 version I downloaded from HDTracks was I could hear things more clearly. I could actually hear the suble sound effects the guitarist used on passages that were low in the mix. I could hear bass notes with more clarity, the high frequency things like cymbals were nice and smooth and not harsh sounding. There seems to be better separation between each instrument and not blended together. I am listening to an album I bought back in the 70's on vinyl and have heard this album literally a few thousand times and know just about ever note by heart. I used to listen to with headphones back when I first bought the album. I have various mastering jobs ranging from the original CD mastering, to remastered versions done later to the 24/96 version. It's just so much clearer there is NO contest. I could pick it out blindfolded so easily, it's no contest. Worth the money from my point of view. I am using a decent DAC that actually up samples the 16 bit version and puts it through an Apodising filter to remove pre-ringing and it's going through decent interconnect cables to a powered set of speakers that only cost around $700. My total investment in the cables, speakers, and DAC is less than $1800 and I would consider it a very nice low end high fi system. I'm sure on more expensive, more detailed system it would sound even better, but this is my bedroom setup and I listen to music on it about 4 hours a day on average.
40kHz are harmonic frequencies, that's not where you really hear the differences between 16 bit and 24/96 bit even though that's what the curves show you. Obviously, it's going to depend on a LOT of other factors. What the higher res files essentially do is make it more analog sounding where the music content is more accurately closer to what it would sound like if it were analog. Now, there are ultra high end playback systems that have compared just a regular 16bit Redbook CD on a SUPER expensive transport/DAC compared to one of the most expensive and precise turntables/cartridges/phono pre amp on a VERY nice high end system that costs well over over $100K and listeners sat in the room and compared vinyl to 16 bit digital and had a hard time telling the difference. Digital can sound REALLY good, but it's also part of the mastering job.
if they are taking analog tape and converting it using 16 bit AD vs 24 AD, then that conversion is much better and then the playback is much better.
All you have to do is get a decent DAC/speaker playback system and try it yourself as you can listen to tracks at HDTracks before you buy them. Same thing with DSD. There are a handful of high res download sites that have free downloads or samples that you can compare, but obviously, your system, your ears and any room problems will give you the as accurate of listening experience as it will allow. Actually, you don't want any of the frequencies above a certain level to be too loud as it might mask the note being played. I don't know if you understand music theory, but when a musician plays a single note on a piano, it plays the fundamental frequency the highest and then all of the harmonics at a gradually lower level (HOPEFULLY), but if you have a upper harmonic that's at the same volume as the fundamental, then you aren't hearing the fundamental clearly, thus it will sound like crap.
Now, people like Rupert Neve and others have argued as to what the use of having equipment reproduce frequencies beyond normal human hearing as there is recording and playback equipment is supposed to capture and reproduce beyond 20KHz. It might make things a little clearer, but you also run the risk of having it too bright/harsh sounding, but that's a whole other discussion.
As far as Nyquest's theorem and how it works, go to WikiPedia and look it up. I don't have time to regurgitate that for you.
But you do know that higher higher res will recreate a signal with more precision. Don't get all caught up with just how high the frequency range is. I'm not necessarily listening to that. Plus you are supposed to get more dynamic range and less noise with high res recordings, etc. But that also depends on your equipment. A high end 16bit DAC might sound better than a cheap 24bit DAC, similarly AD systems as well. But a really good 24/96 should sound a lot better than a really good 16/44.
Do you know how many AD and DA converters are on the market and how they WILL sound better or worse than the other and it's also has to do with not only the quality of the DAC or ADC chip, but the input circuits, output circuits, isolation of power supply, etc. etc. etc.
In what way do the higher res files sound better than a 16-bit file? What is the audible difference?
Can you please also explain how Nyquist's theorem works? After you do that, you can elaborate on the benefit of any sample rate over ~40KHz?
One thing I will tell you to do, if you EVER have the chance to go to one of these high end audiophile shows, GO TO THE MBL, Wilson, Eggleston, Magico, and a few other's rooms. Their systems are so good sounding, you though you died and went to heaven and they can achieve such good quality sound from even 16 bit, but they can do even higher than that. Check out what Light Harmonic or any number of these super expensive USB DACs are doing just to get used to what you are SUPPOSED to be hearing. It helps you figure out what to strive for in a playback system and it's possible to get pretty close without having to spend MEGA BUCKS on a system. Light Harmonic is selling a 24/384 USB DAC for $300 for just headphones and I'm sure that thing sounds great. Meridian makes a great USB DAC called the Director DAC for playing through a regular stereo, or there are MyTek DACs that will also do DSD, which there isn't much of right now. But DSD is growing, especially if Sony starts releasing their catalog in DSD. I have not heard DSD, so I can't comment on that. But I've heard people that are involved in producing recordings that swear by it and they've been doing PCM recordings for many years and have experience with both. Blue Coast Records is doing that and they have free files that you can download to check out and if you don't have DSD playback, you can convert to PCM using Korg's software. But it also depends on what you want in a system and what kind of music you listen to. If you listen to a lot of heavily distorted metal that has lots of compression, sound effects, etc. or rap music or mostly computer generated samples, modeled, etc. it may not make much difference.
Oh, one thing to do, if you really want good audio for headphones, the better sets cost money and stay away from Beats, they are too colored and have too much phony bottom end. Sennheiser makes some of the better headphones and their HD800's a VERY nice if you listen to headphones a lot, it's worth the money in the long run. There are others, but the HD800s consistently come up as one of the headphones of choice for the audiophile crowd. Yeah, I know, they are expensive. I'd buy them if I had the money, but I don't listen through headphones much. I prefer traditional speakers.
I also play my music at around 80 to MAYBE 95dB for the loudest passages, anything louder than that, and it's just not good for long term listening.