Anyway, the question seems to be the "quality" of the algorithms, rather than the format itself. And of course the initial source that was being compressed into AAC, MP3 or whatever...
It's perfectly reasonable to assume that there are *bad* implementations of encoders and good implementations. Making things worse is the fact that the initial source being encoded could be of questionable (substandard?) quality to begin with. Further, there is likely a question mark with regard to the quality of the equipment being used for the encoding process etc.... So, in the end, I'll lay odds that it's not so much the format per se', but how it's being encoded -- along with all the other variables that were mentioned.
So long as you're aware that those links have nothing to do with your argument.
The first is about the expense (in production) of moving from CD to DVDa/SACD resolutions. It makes no claim that the quality improvement is negligible. To the contrary, it agrees that it's there, just that it's expensive and not worth it in most rooms.
The second is just a repition of a statement that some people agree with and other's don't and to which both have cited tests to proove their case. What it amounts to is a group saying they like a product which they sell, well duh?
And the third finally gets around to the idea that the encoder matters.
But none of them claim that the encoding can substitute for actually recorded bits. The first example deals with CD to DVDA resolutions and bit rates, the highest of the high. MP3 is scraping the bottom of the barrel and needs to hold on to every possible bit to really pull off a convincing illusion of CD sound.
At the end of the day, the psycho-acoustic models cannot put back missing detail (mebbe your brain can, which is the point) it can only hide the fact that details are missing (again, the brain thing). But if played back to back with a CD source, the differences are immediately apparent. This doesn't make MP3's an anathema, played on their own, a high quality stream (320KBps) through a good stereo will still keep your toes tapping, and you won't notice the shortcomings unless you play the same tracks "back-to-back" against a CD source.
MP3 isn't the best choice for critical listening, but it can be fun, which is the point.
CD isn't the best choice either, but it's the best balance between listening, convenience, and fidelity.
I don't know Matsu, that's exactly the impression I got from reading the first article...
Quote:
"The audio industry's fixation with high bit rate digital audio seems to have become an obsession. It has drowned out other issues and has become the last word in sound quality. Our fondness for audiophile performance and impressive numerical specifications has blinded us to the true value and the true costs of adopting these formats. It comes down to two basic observations:
1. The sonic benefits of high bit rates range from very small to negligible. ..."
And:
Quote:
"It's important to grasp that adding small numbers of bits to each sample word provides an exponential improvement in resolution, improving quality and providing usable level headroom?up to a point! Increasing sample rates, however, doubles and quadruples data bandwidth requirements while the sonic benefits are negligible."
You say:
Quote:
"To the contrary, it agrees that it's there, just that it's expensive and not worth it in most rooms."
Um, that's a good definition of "negligible" if you ask me.
All I'm trying to say is that there are still a ton of people still using cassette tapes and listening to AM/FM radio. What it comes down to is the "good enough" factor. In other words, it doesn't have to be *pristene* or even close for most people. And then there is the "human threshold" thing again... I think we're extremely close to a time where it simply won't matter and even a person able to discern "quality of sound" at twice the normal, average human ability won't be able to tell the difference -- unless we decide to start producing music so dogs won't complain about music quality; which was my point. Even then I bet people will swear they can hear a difference. People are like that.
ok..i wanna share some facts and oppinions while i am at it....
hifi means just reproducing the sound (i think we are talking sound right now) like it is...best way possible....high fidelity
fact is...aac is even better than aiff
aiff is on cds...but aiff in a reduced way...its 16bit...it lacks low and mid frequency... a bit
macs have 16bit connectors...across the line..which bugs me...24bit would be much better...cause soundapps can do that on computers...vinyl is mastered with 24bit btw....
cds are just awful...mp3 and aac are pretty open in frequencys...
my choices are vinyl cause it sounds just best
...mp3 and aac cause i can manage it all in one spot...and 7500songs in ur pocket is something so powerful....its just awesome
sacd..yah...hm...no way...5 channel sound...eh? born to die...we have the apple musicstore..and thats the way it will go....
Of course I partially agree with you, ultimate reproduction depends on a lot of factors and isn't really worth the time and effort. I had written a much more coherent answer to you, before that post, but a combination of Safari and vB ate it, so sorry if that last post sounded a little curt.
But I really think we're dealing with a substantial difference when we argue the difference between relative high fidelity Cd and VERY high fidelity DVD-A/SACD versus a bunch of relatively low bit rate compression schemes.
That first article doesn't reall sound against high res audio, so much as for hanging on a while longer. Cheaper hardware will erase many of the producers "upgrade" concerns, over the next couple of years. It seems more of an apology or caution to producers. In the end, it'll amount to a just wait for the prices sort of thing, as soon as they come down there's no reason no to record as high a fidelity as possible.
At the low end, I think there's a definite take off point, where the sound gets "good enough" For me 192 and lower simply don't pull it off on any sort of decent stereo. Especially on my own, whose characteristics I know well, you could play an MP3 through there and I'd know right away, unless it was of the 320kbps variety. Even then, back to back, I know I could pick out the MP3 track versus the CD track, I know, because like a quite sizeable portion of the population, I have done just that.
That is not to say a 320Kbps MP3 isn't perfectly enjoyable on its own. It is, which is all you really need, but so long as I have a CD to play, I won't play an MP3. For portable audio, or even the car, where making a single MP3 compilation disc makes sense, I think they're great, but as long as I have a better source at home, that's what I'll play.
Apple really ought to offer the highest bit rate available in their stores. They don't have the production expenses to worry about, just distribution, a little more storage space, and a little more bandwidth. For my 99 cents, the same crappy quality as most of the CD rips on Kazaa just doesn't cut it.
Has there been in word yet on just how Apple is encoding and processing the audio files sold at the music store? Yes I know they are AAC, but what gear are they using? How are the music files sent to Apple? Do the record companies encode them to Apple's spec and then send them over or does Apple get tapes, or CD's and then encode them?
Has there been in word yet on just how Apple is encoding and processing the audio files sold at the music store? Yes I know they are AAC, but what gear are they using? How are the music files sent to Apple? Do the record companies encode them to Apple's spec and then send them over or does Apple get tapes, or CD's and then encode them?
Oh, I don't know about that. I imagine I could find some vinyl that was actually mastered with old fasioned analog equipment!
Quote:
my choices are vinyl cause it sounds just best
Don't the limitations just drive you crazy though? With vinyl you've got a disk that is VERY sensitive to scratches (diety help you if a speck of dust gets caught between the groove and the needle), and CDs don't wear out just because you play them a lot...
Besides, have you ever seen an in dash record player for your car?
Oh, I don't know about that. I imagine I could find some vinyl that was actually mastered with old fasioned analog equipment!
Don't the limitations just drive you crazy though? With vinyl you've got a disk that is VERY sensitive to scratches (diety help you if a speck of dust gets caught between the groove and the needle), and CDs don't wear out just because you play them a lot...
Besides, have you ever seen an in dash record player for your car?
yes..way back it was done analog...
i know scratches...its a problem...but i have 2 turntables...and i can do more stuff with it...cds sound bad...they really sound bad..i dont like them...i like pure digital much more
btw..one amazing app for your mp3s is traktor dj studio from native instruments..there is a demo and u should try it...works even better with aiff and i have to check aac...
i dont own a car..and i dont want one...but there are dash record players...3 different models from a japanese manufacturer..pretty exclusive and therefore expensive...the needle is a laser...(actually 5)
#1 - Analog mastering is a huge pain in the ass, so I seriously doubt Apple or the record companies are doing much of it specifically for this ... (most likely, the record companies where already planning on releasing "better-than-your-CD" stuff on either the new enhanced CD or DVD-Audio, and that's where these new "better than your CD" thingies are coming from). But for those who need to know, getting a 1/4" tape and machine (sometimes 1/2" ), aligned (often next to impossible since the orignals where recorded on 'custom' heads, that where some 70's weisenheimer brainstorm), and finding the right working noise reduction (A, DBX, SR) is expensive, very time consuming and annoying as hell. So often, it's not done properly and the new "improved" version is worse than your standard CD.
I took the trouble to analyse a "GOLD" cd of a supertramp album many years ago, and I compared it with the standard version (I think it was breakfast in america?) ... now Supertramp have always been known to be hugely anal about their sound quality, unlike most bands, they took it very very seriously and actually knew something about it, so when I compared the new (at the time anyway) Gold CD with the "plain" original CD that someone from the band's audio entourage might have had something to do with, I noticed that, the "Gold" version had a nasty DC offset which any ass who half knew what he was doing would've caught in the first 5 minutes, and that the CD was throwing out about a 1/4 of the (already half assed) 16bit resolution available on the CD by recording about 3db down from the standard release, ok, so these are digital problems, but still ... oh, but the top end was a bit sweeter, so someobody put it thru a bit of EQ and claimed to have "improved" things ... thats what you paid your extra 5 bux for.
Translation - just because a record company claims to have "improved" the sound quality, doesn't really mean they have, especially if they're in a race to pump out of the vault plenty of re-releases of "improved" quality. It pretty much means they probably just did an assembly line style transfer with some poor shreve stuck baby-sitting the transfer machine at 3am, fresh out of "Full Sail", wondering how to pay off his loan, and who's been up for 48 hours straight, trying to keen his way into a J-Lo session (who is, I hear, a total b*tch in the studio, big surprise huh?) ... and if there's one thing you learn in Audio, the chain is only as strong as the weakest link, no matter how much better new A/D technology is (and it certainly is!) all you'll get in many cases is a vastly improved recording of an analog signal chain made by that kid on too much caffeine (or worse, you can tell by the hi-end). Not always, but you've been warned!l
#2 - Sometimes, it's almost impossible to re-capture the sound of the original vinyl because the gear it was mastered thru is long gone, as are the people who knew how to use it. The most famous instance of this is the legendary Fairchild compressor, it was originally designed specifically for compressing the final master for vinyl, but eventually it got co-opted into other things since it had a very pleasing "sound" ... last I heard, they where going for $10,000 a pop ... the two nearest to me went "missing" long ago when one of the studio owners had a "disagreement" with the other ... funny, but when some albums produced by the partner who left for certain hard rock artists came out, they sure had plenty of that "pleasing" sound ... hmmmmmm (Oh, you've heard it a million times, it's just that nobody ever stood there with an on/off switch for you going "there, now it's in, now it's out, hear the difference?" ... for those who need to know, imagine an SSL bus compressor, but wayyyyy sweeter, and way more detailed ... as in, the hi-end doesn't squashed anywhere near as bad). Anyway, I digress ... ya know, there's probably a 24/96 plug in that emulates a Fairchild better than most people can hear anyway, but finding a mastering geek who knows how to use it is always another matter.
Summing up? Just because the flash animation says "Improved" doesn't guarantee much ...
Finally - Hi-end consumer audio? Now there's a bit of an oxymoron ... most consumers hear with their eyes ... as in "this one's got a nice glowing blue face place, so it must be better" ... consumers generally haven't a clue what they're buying sound quality wise, and are sold all manner of snake oil all the time, for huge sums of money, consumer audio manufacturers know this in spades and put an awful lot of effort an energy into the latest face plate, and coming up with some sort of (often) faddish spec that they can pretend is better ... I can only hope the "warm" fashion is petering it's way out, since that took many a rube for a years worth of lunch money. I'm hoping that home theatre will force an improvement, since that often gets the plebes to actually spend time making their system to conform to some standard to make it sound right ( as opposed to "It's stereo, so the further apart you put the speakers, the better ... let's put this one in the kitchen!") ....
now, it's very true that most mp3's are played over computer systems, so most don't hear the difference anyway, but the truth is, a well encoded mp3 played over an excellent system is probably not much easier for most people to tell, espeically if they don't have something to reference against. Just because something's encoded doesn't mean this will bother people too much, after all, people have been listening to encoded audio for reference for years without bitching (much) about it.
What's going to save the consumer and audio?
Well set up home theatre (or a proper node neutral listening room, hah!) and killer 24bit 96K (or better) audio would clue them in ... but since so few people have access to that to know the difference, most likely, AAC encoding will do 'em just fine. Since 16bit 44.1K linear pcm ain't much better anyway ...
Comments
2002 - August: The High Overhead of High Bit Rate (Davis)
http://www.spars.com/public/pages/index.cfm?pageid=372
About Digital Audio Formats
http://www.gi-ad.com/docs/digital_audio_formats.htm
Research, Electronic Engineering, Queen Mary, University of London
http://www.elec.qmw.ac.uk/research/projects/marie_curie_audio_coding.html
Anyway, the question seems to be the "quality" of the algorithms, rather than the format itself. And of course the initial source that was being compressed into AAC, MP3 or whatever...
It's perfectly reasonable to assume that there are *bad* implementations of encoders and good implementations. Making things worse is the fact that the initial source being encoded could be of questionable (substandard?) quality to begin with. Further, there is likely a question mark with regard to the quality of the equipment being used for the encoding process etc.... So, in the end, I'll lay odds that it's not so much the format per se', but how it's being encoded -- along with all the other variables that were mentioned.
--
Ed
The first is about the expense (in production) of moving from CD to DVDa/SACD resolutions. It makes no claim that the quality improvement is negligible. To the contrary, it agrees that it's there, just that it's expensive and not worth it in most rooms.
The second is just a repition of a statement that some people agree with and other's don't and to which both have cited tests to proove their case. What it amounts to is a group saying they like a product which they sell, well duh?
And the third finally gets around to the idea that the encoder matters.
But none of them claim that the encoding can substitute for actually recorded bits. The first example deals with CD to DVDA resolutions and bit rates, the highest of the high. MP3 is scraping the bottom of the barrel and needs to hold on to every possible bit to really pull off a convincing illusion of CD sound.
At the end of the day, the psycho-acoustic models cannot put back missing detail (mebbe your brain can, which is the point) it can only hide the fact that details are missing (again, the brain thing). But if played back to back with a CD source, the differences are immediately apparent. This doesn't make MP3's an anathema, played on their own, a high quality stream (320KBps) through a good stereo will still keep your toes tapping, and you won't notice the shortcomings unless you play the same tracks "back-to-back" against a CD source.
MP3 isn't the best choice for critical listening, but it can be fun, which is the point.
CD isn't the best choice either, but it's the best balance between listening, convenience, and fidelity.
"The audio industry's fixation with high bit rate digital audio seems to have become an obsession. It has drowned out other issues and has become the last word in sound quality. Our fondness for audiophile performance and impressive numerical specifications has blinded us to the true value and the true costs of adopting these formats. It comes down to two basic observations:
1. The sonic benefits of high bit rates range from very small to negligible. ..."
And:
"It's important to grasp that adding small numbers of bits to each sample word provides an exponential improvement in resolution, improving quality and providing usable level headroom?up to a point! Increasing sample rates, however, doubles and quadruples data bandwidth requirements while the sonic benefits are negligible."
You say:
"To the contrary, it agrees that it's there, just that it's expensive and not worth it in most rooms."
Um, that's a good definition of "negligible" if you ask me.
All I'm trying to say is that there are still a ton of people still using cassette tapes and listening to AM/FM radio. What it comes down to is the "good enough" factor. In other words, it doesn't have to be *pristene* or even close for most people. And then there is the "human threshold" thing again... I think we're extremely close to a time where it simply won't matter and even a person able to discern "quality of sound" at twice the normal, average human ability won't be able to tell the difference -- unless we decide to start producing music so dogs won't complain about music quality; which was my point. Even then I bet people will swear they can hear a difference. People are like that.
Anyway, here are a few more links:
http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/techinf/basics.html
http://theory.esm.rochester.edu/th42...italaudio.html
--
Ed
hifi means just reproducing the sound (i think we are talking sound right now) like it is...best way possible....high fidelity
fact is...aac is even better than aiff
aiff is on cds...but aiff in a reduced way...its 16bit...it lacks low and mid frequency... a bit
macs have 16bit connectors...across the line..which bugs me...24bit would be much better...cause soundapps can do that on computers...vinyl is mastered with 24bit btw....
cds are just awful...mp3 and aac are pretty open in frequencys...
my choices are vinyl cause it sounds just best
...mp3 and aac cause i can manage it all in one spot...and 7500songs in ur pocket is something so powerful....its just awesome
sacd..yah...hm...no way...5 channel sound...eh? born to die...we have the apple musicstore..and thats the way it will go....
But I really think we're dealing with a substantial difference when we argue the difference between relative high fidelity Cd and VERY high fidelity DVD-A/SACD versus a bunch of relatively low bit rate compression schemes.
That first article doesn't reall sound against high res audio, so much as for hanging on a while longer. Cheaper hardware will erase many of the producers "upgrade" concerns, over the next couple of years. It seems more of an apology or caution to producers. In the end, it'll amount to a just wait for the prices sort of thing, as soon as they come down there's no reason no to record as high a fidelity as possible.
At the low end, I think there's a definite take off point, where the sound gets "good enough" For me 192 and lower simply don't pull it off on any sort of decent stereo. Especially on my own, whose characteristics I know well, you could play an MP3 through there and I'd know right away, unless it was of the 320kbps variety. Even then, back to back, I know I could pick out the MP3 track versus the CD track, I know, because like a quite sizeable portion of the population, I have done just that.
That is not to say a 320Kbps MP3 isn't perfectly enjoyable on its own. It is, which is all you really need, but so long as I have a CD to play, I won't play an MP3. For portable audio, or even the car, where making a single MP3 compilation disc makes sense, I think they're great, but as long as I have a better source at home, that's what I'll play.
Apple really ought to offer the highest bit rate available in their stores. They don't have the production expenses to worry about, just distribution, a little more storage space, and a little more bandwidth. For my 99 cents, the same crappy quality as most of the CD rips on Kazaa just doesn't cut it.
Just curious. I'd like to know how it is done.
Originally posted by WelshDog
Has there been in word yet on just how Apple is encoding and processing the audio files sold at the music store? Yes I know they are AAC, but what gear are they using? How are the music files sent to Apple? Do the record companies encode them to Apple's spec and then send them over or does Apple get tapes, or CD's and then encode them?
Just curious. I'd like to know how it is done.
they rip from mastertapes
vinyl is mastered with 24bit btw....
Oh, I don't know about that. I imagine I could find some vinyl that was actually mastered with old fasioned analog equipment!
my choices are vinyl cause it sounds just best
Don't the limitations just drive you crazy though? With vinyl you've got a disk that is VERY sensitive to scratches (diety help you if a speck of dust gets caught between the groove and the needle), and CDs don't wear out just because you play them a lot...
Besides, have you ever seen an in dash record player for your car?
Originally posted by Gamblor
Oh, I don't know about that. I imagine I could find some vinyl that was actually mastered with old fasioned analog equipment!
Don't the limitations just drive you crazy though? With vinyl you've got a disk that is VERY sensitive to scratches (diety help you if a speck of dust gets caught between the groove and the needle), and CDs don't wear out just because you play them a lot...
Besides, have you ever seen an in dash record player for your car?
yes..way back it was done analog...
i know scratches...its a problem...but i have 2 turntables...and i can do more stuff with it...cds sound bad...they really sound bad..i dont like them...i like pure digital much more
btw..one amazing app for your mp3s is traktor dj studio from native instruments..there is a demo and u should try it...works even better with aiff and i have to check aac...
i dont own a car..and i dont want one...but there are dash record players...3 different models from a japanese manufacturer..pretty exclusive and therefore expensive...the needle is a laser...(actually 5)
#1 - Analog mastering is a huge pain in the ass, so I seriously doubt Apple or the record companies are doing much of it specifically for this ... (most likely, the record companies where already planning on releasing "better-than-your-CD" stuff on either the new enhanced CD or DVD-Audio, and that's where these new "better than your CD" thingies are coming from). But for those who need to know, getting a 1/4" tape and machine (sometimes 1/2" ), aligned (often next to impossible since the orignals where recorded on 'custom' heads, that where some 70's weisenheimer brainstorm), and finding the right working noise reduction (A, DBX, SR) is expensive, very time consuming and annoying as hell. So often, it's not done properly and the new "improved" version is worse than your standard CD.
I took the trouble to analyse a "GOLD" cd of a supertramp album many years ago, and I compared it with the standard version (I think it was breakfast in america?) ... now Supertramp have always been known to be hugely anal about their sound quality, unlike most bands, they took it very very seriously and actually knew something about it, so when I compared the new (at the time anyway) Gold CD with the "plain" original CD that someone from the band's audio entourage might have had something to do with, I noticed that, the "Gold" version had a nasty DC offset which any ass who half knew what he was doing would've caught in the first 5 minutes, and that the CD was throwing out about a 1/4 of the (already half assed) 16bit resolution available on the CD by recording about 3db down from the standard release, ok, so these are digital problems, but still ... oh, but the top end was a bit sweeter, so someobody put it thru a bit of EQ and claimed to have "improved" things ... thats what you paid your extra 5 bux for.
Translation - just because a record company claims to have "improved" the sound quality, doesn't really mean they have, especially if they're in a race to pump out of the vault plenty of re-releases of "improved" quality. It pretty much means they probably just did an assembly line style transfer with some poor shreve stuck baby-sitting the transfer machine at 3am, fresh out of "Full Sail", wondering how to pay off his loan, and who's been up for 48 hours straight, trying to keen his way into a J-Lo session (who is, I hear, a total b*tch in the studio, big surprise huh?) ... and if there's one thing you learn in Audio, the chain is only as strong as the weakest link, no matter how much better new A/D technology is (and it certainly is!) all you'll get in many cases is a vastly improved recording of an analog signal chain made by that kid on too much caffeine (or worse, you can tell by the hi-end). Not always, but you've been warned!l
#2 - Sometimes, it's almost impossible to re-capture the sound of the original vinyl because the gear it was mastered thru is long gone, as are the people who knew how to use it. The most famous instance of this is the legendary Fairchild compressor, it was originally designed specifically for compressing the final master for vinyl, but eventually it got co-opted into other things since it had a very pleasing "sound" ... last I heard, they where going for $10,000 a pop ... the two nearest to me went "missing" long ago when one of the studio owners had a "disagreement" with the other ... funny, but when some albums produced by the partner who left for certain hard rock artists came out, they sure had plenty of that "pleasing" sound ... hmmmmmm (Oh, you've heard it a million times, it's just that nobody ever stood there with an on/off switch for you going "there, now it's in, now it's out, hear the difference?" ... for those who need to know, imagine an SSL bus compressor, but wayyyyy sweeter, and way more detailed ... as in, the hi-end doesn't squashed anywhere near as bad). Anyway, I digress ... ya know, there's probably a 24/96 plug in that emulates a Fairchild better than most people can hear anyway, but finding a mastering geek who knows how to use it is always another matter.
Summing up? Just because the flash animation says "Improved" doesn't guarantee much ...
Finally - Hi-end consumer audio? Now there's a bit of an oxymoron ... most consumers hear with their eyes ... as in "this one's got a nice glowing blue face place, so it must be better" ... consumers generally haven't a clue what they're buying sound quality wise, and are sold all manner of snake oil all the time, for huge sums of money, consumer audio manufacturers know this in spades and put an awful lot of effort an energy into the latest face plate, and coming up with some sort of (often) faddish spec that they can pretend is better ... I can only hope the "warm" fashion is petering it's way out, since that took many a rube for a years worth of lunch money. I'm hoping that home theatre will force an improvement, since that often gets the plebes to actually spend time making their system to conform to some standard to make it sound right ( as opposed to "It's stereo, so the further apart you put the speakers, the better ... let's put this one in the kitchen!") ....
now, it's very true that most mp3's are played over computer systems, so most don't hear the difference anyway, but the truth is, a well encoded mp3 played over an excellent system is probably not much easier for most people to tell, espeically if they don't have something to reference against. Just because something's encoded doesn't mean this will bother people too much, after all, people have been listening to encoded audio for reference for years without bitching (much) about it.
What's going to save the consumer and audio?
Well set up home theatre (or a proper node neutral listening room, hah!) and killer 24bit 96K (or better) audio would clue them in ... but since so few people have access to that to know the difference, most likely, AAC encoding will do 'em just fine. Since 16bit 44.1K linear pcm ain't much better anyway ...