1) I doubt Apple is allowed to do that without their permission.
2) I don't see how ALAC would be any worse than FLAC for the same quality source file since they're both lossless but Smallwheels states that "FLAC files are very different than [ALAC]" so that should be looked into.
You're still being a turd SolipsismX. Go to the Ponomusic.com site and read about the music sources that will be used for the Pono approved files. The music player will have a special light that will appear on the screen when the highest resolution files are playing. 192 kHz/24 bit FLAC files are very different than Apples codex.
The Astell & Kern AK 240 probably sounds awesome but how many people can spend $2500 for a portable music player? The Pono will cost $399. The Fiio X5 gets good reviews too for the same money. I'm eagerly awaiting the comparisons.
If the Pono is as good as they say then $400 for most apple customers is reasonable. Lets face it-Apple has been very successful selling premium products. I think that its great that iTunes may finally upgrade its file formats, but we will have to see if just upgrading the file formats on an iPod is as good as the Pono.
It is unlikely a major record company would simply let Apple sell the 24-bit ALACs at the drop of a hat because the end product would be superior to what the record company offers in the terms of physical media.
Remember that mass market downloadable music is inferior in quality to a CD, same with all the streaming stuff. It's all lossy.
The deals would likely need to be renegotiated with the studios and some artists might hold out anyhow. Presumably the record companies would want more money for better-than-CD content.
There's no real technological hurdle. iDevices and older iPods have handled 48kHz/24-bit ALAC files for years; Macs can handle the 96kHz files fine with optical audio out, maybe higher 192kHz via USB.
It's more of a licensing issue as far as I can tell.
1) I doubt Apple is allowed to do that without their permission.
2) I don't see how ALAC would be any worse than FLAC for the same quality source file since they're both lossless but Smallwheels states that "LAC files are very different than [ALAC]" so that should be looked into.
Not really. Both uncompress to what is commonly known as AIFF, which is 2 channel PCM audio encoded in a file. AIFF stands for Apple Interchange File Format and was pioneered by Apple in the late 80s and quickly made the standard in music mastering then...and now. Microsoft and IBM came out with WAV a couple of years later, which was basically the same thing.
Music never really sounded great in the vinyl days unless it was played loudly (probably the same now). The thing is that audiophiles in those days (probably same now) spent a shocking amount of money on their gear. I had a teacher whose record player cartridge alone cost a couple of grand. No wonder it sounded better than some $200.- Bluetooth speakers.
I've been an audiophile since the late 70's. By audiophile I mean someone who's really into music and listening to it on a high-end system. However, I'm not one of those idiots who claims they can hear the difference between a $50 speaker cable and a $2,000 speaker cable or that a $50,000 amplifier will sound better than a $2,000 amplifier. My entire system (which happens to be mostly Canadian made) is worth around $10,000, what I consider a point at which you can achieve fantastic sound quality and that I feel is not going to be really improved upon by spending more (much to the chagrin of "true" audiophiles who think $10,000 is a good starting point for a single piece of gear).
I paid $1,000 for my first (and only) high-end turntable in and cartridge and it sounded fantastic (1982). You didn't have to play it loud for it to sound good. I also remember the first CD players that came out. While they had fantastic specs on paper, they didn't always sound good. This had a lot to do with how the DAC's were made in the early days (I found many to sound rather shrill). DAC quality has greatly improved over the years and today you can get a $5 chip that sounds as good as a $2,000 dedicated DAC from the early days, yet I still hear "audiophiles" claim they can hear artifacts in digital recordings as if they were still listening to gear from the early 80's.
It's also funny that Sony/Philips claimed that 44.1KHz was a high enough sample rate to capture all the sound. Yet Sony made digital studio recorders that could also record in 48, 88.2 and 96KHz. What would be the point of recording at higher sampling rates if 44.1KHz was "good enough"?
I hope Apple does offer high quality tracks for download. While I have a lot of music from iTunes, I still buy CD's of music I consider worthwhile (where the artist spent time actually creating something that sounds good). While audiophiles can argue about the differences between two obscenely overpriced components, anyone can hear the difference between a compressed MP3 and the original on a reasonably good system. Most people just never bother to actually do a side-by-side, but if they did they'd soon realize that MP3's really aren't as good.
If Apple does this then I'll finally stop buying physical media for my music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
2) I don't see how ALAC would be any worse than FLAC for the same quality source file since they're both lossless but Smallwheels states that "FLAC files are very different than [ALAC]" so that should be looked into.
There is no difference, which means Smallwheels either doesn't know the technology or is lying.
You can take a digital audio file and run it through ALAC to get the coded version, then convert it back from ALAC into digital audio and compare the original file to the file that was encoded/decoded with ALAC. You'll find they are bit-for-bit accurate. It's like turning a Word document into a ZIP file and then unzipping back to the Word document. Did your document change? Were there spelling mistakes or formatting issues? No, because a ZIP file is also considered lossless - when you unzip you get the exact same thing that went in, bit-for-bit.
Can an audio engineer or someone else who is qualified please comment on a few things:
It seems like the audio quality debate perpetually rages on the internet, with one group who thinks 256kbps AAC is just as good as lossless tracks, while the other end of the spectrum you have people collecting 24-bit, 96/192hz Super audio CD/DVD-Audio files.
1) will 20/24-bit sampling actually make a perceptible difference to anyone using headphones or speakers that weren't > $5,000?
2) Wouldn't 16-bit, 44.1khz (ie CD quality) tracks in Apple Lossless format (or FLAC) be more reasonable for the average user? Would there be any discernible difference between these CD quality tracks and a theoretical 24-bit, high sampling rate master track??
1) I doubt Apple is allowed to do that without their permission.
2) I don't see how ALAC would be any worse than FLAC for the same quality source file since they're both lossless but Smallwheels states that "FLAC files are very different than [ALAC]" so that should be looked into.
The super-deluxe editions of the first 3 Zep albums coming out in June also have a code to download a digital copy of the album and the extra tracks on the second disc. It would be great if, like the rumour, the code allowed us to download a hi-res digital version from iTunes!
Or somebody has been reading the comments on this forum and decide to spin it into a rumour.
A 2 tier music quality pricing system again? No thank you, just make it better sound and no price increase. Should be allowed to download the quality I want, just like when ripping a CD.
I'm insufficiently well-heeled to be purchasing Pono, but I'm appreciative to Neil Young for pursuing it. There is no need for disrespectful comments I might add.
Yep. No matter what anyone thinks of Pono, Neil Young has consistently been a proponent of higher sound quality and gone out of his way to make high res versions of his music available to fans. He assembled a standout post production team for his recent archiving project. As one of the products of that project, his Greatest Hits CD/DVD combo pack is a reference quality remaster. Not only does that set include a standout CD, but it also includes 96 kHz/24-bit tracks on an open DVD -- no DVD-Audio player required, and no forced downsampling. Since the CD and high res DVD tracks were done concurrently, it can be used for A-B testing. Nothing but respect from me for what Neil Young has done over the years for fans who appreciate good sound quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
This can quite often be the cause of vinyl sounding better - whilst it is worse in every way as a medium compared to CD (dynamic range, frequency response, wow & flutter, distortion) vinyl masters do not usually have their dynamic range compressed into oblivion.
One of the ironies here is that dynamic range compression was common practice with vinyl mastering because high dynamics could lead to mistracking on cheap record changers or improperly setup turntables. It was a lowest common denominator step to account for the low quality of an average record player. Vinyl has entered into a sort of renaissance stage because it now bypasses the mass market and goes straight to the higher end consumer. Compromises common to CD mastering aren't prevalent with newer LP pressings.
When first introduced, CDs were supposed to let audiences finally hear the full dynamics of the original recording. But, then came the loudness wars and everything seems even more compressed nowadays than they ever were during vinyl's heyday. I think part of this is because the mastering now optimizes for mobile playback and small speakers (like in cars, computers, or earbuds), whereas before, the playback was optimized for larger speakers and component-based home audio systems. 30 years ago, 15" JBL studio monitors were the norm, and now it's 8" (or smaller) nearfield monitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I paid $1,000 for my first (and only) high-end turntable in and cartridge and it sounded fantastic (1982). You didn't have to play it loud for it to sound good. I also remember the first CD players that came out. While they had fantastic specs on paper, they didn't always sound good. This had a lot to do with how the DAC's were made in the early days (I found many to sound rather shrill). DAC quality has greatly improved over the years and today you can get a $5 chip that sounds as good as a $2,000 dedicated DAC from the early days, yet I still hear "audiophiles" claim they can hear artifacts in digital recordings as if they were still listening to gear from the early 80's.
It's also funny that Sony/Philips claimed that 44.1KHz was a high enough sample rate to capture all the sound. Yet Sony made digital studio recorders that could also record in 48, 88.2 and 96KHz. What would be the point of recording at higher sampling rates if 44.1KHz was "good enough"?
The thing about analog front end equipment (which is what really sparked the audio hobby in the first place) is the extreme variation between low and high end components. Anyone can really hear a difference between the cheap record changers of yore and a decent properly setup turntable with a high quality cartridge. The differences are obvious and measurable.
With digital, the differences are far narrower, however the obsessions and claims of night and day differences among audiophiles continued to persist.
When CDs first came out, a lot of the releases sounded horrible because the mastering practices from vinyl carried over. Mastering engineers were used to tweaking the EQ and other settings to compensate for the vinyl medium. But, what might have sounded great on vinyl could indeed sound grating on CD.
WRT the sampling rates, I recall that Sony's PCM recorders at that time did indeed use a 44.1 kHz sampling rate. The highest sampling rate at that time I recall was Soundstream's 50 kHz system. With any digital format, you're always going to be limited by whatever processor technology and storage limits exist. The CD format was locked in by the late-70s, and the early debates centered on whether the CD would be an optical analog format (like the Laserdisc) or a digital format, which at that time was only beginning to make its way into recording studios. Sony/Philips' decision to go with PCM digital was actually a very bold move, because it required some big advances in optical storage, data retrieval, and signal processing that had to also not cost an arm and a leg.
Higher sampling rates just accompanied advances in digital technology, yet the CD format remained stuck in its 70s vintage 44.1 kHz/16-bit format. I believe that a big reason (if not the biggest) for using higher sampling rates with studio recorders is for maintaining audio quality during the mixing process and when applying any other signal processing. To me, the point of going high res is allowing the audience to hear a bit for bit transcription of the master source.
At least, that was my understanding. Nothing as to any limitations on sound quality, that is.
FLAC also supports metadata. Artwork, Artist & Song name and such. Perhaps it doesn't have as many fields or equally large headers as say .mp3, that may be.
I've seen the video technical explanations about how humans can't tell the difference because of certain parameters and how the rounding of the steps between each digital sample makes digital just as good as analog. It just isn't true. I don't care if people think of me as a "wacked out audiophile".
AAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUGHHHH! Not again! I thought we resolved all this crap in the 90s?
I am so SICK of people who have never even READ Nyquist's sampling theorem, who have ZERO understanding of the math, regurgitating utter nonsense like "rounding off the steps" as if there were some validity to their meaningless remarks!
Here's the bottom line: Increasing the sample rate above 44.1 KHz increases the highest frequency the system can store. That's it. It does not improve the resolution of lower frequencies, reduce the size of the steps or any other meaningless gobbledygook. This increase in high frequencies does NOT affect audible frequencies through additional frequency interactions because those, if they existed, and if they were audible, were CAPTURED BY THE MICROPHONE AT THE TIME OF RECORDING. If you think there's something going on above 22 KHz (this world contains almost nothing over 10 KHz much less 20) and you think you can hear it (and still thing so after listening to a tone generator sweep up to that point), by all means, buy high sample rate recordings. Otherwise, refuse to be sucked in by marketing bullshit.
More bottom line: Increasing the word length from 16 bits to 24 bits lowers the volume at which the signal turns to noisy hash. Period, The End, nothing else. For a classical piece with 100 dB dynamic range this can be beneficial because the really, really, really, really, really quiet parts will sound less grainy (and if you can hear them, you better have a seven thousand watt amplifier for when the loud part comes in -- do the math: twice the power for every 3 db). For a Pop piece with the dynamics compressed so hard that the waveform looks like a cylinder, the net benefit of more bits is zero zilch nada FA poodly. Nothing. Increasing dynamic range doesn't magically improve other characteristics.
If you want something that sounds better, start with reducing the or removing the data compression. Apple's move from 128K to 256K some years ago was a really good one. Another step like that would be good.
But If someone tells you a recording sounds better because it has more bits and higher sampling rate, tell them to save that bullshit for distant recordings of bats. You don't have to have golden ear training to see though the marketing hype, you just need a working calculator. Don't let them sucker you.
1) will 20/24-bit sampling actually make a perceptible difference to anyone using headphones or speakers that weren't > $5,000?
It depends on what you're listening to.
The benefit of longer digital words (20 or 24 bit) is a lower noise floor. If your recording already swamps the noise floor there is no benefit. The difference between 20 decibels below audible and 60 decibels below audible is zilch -- once it's below audible, any further reduction is (drum roll please) INAUDIBLE.
So, if it's a classical recording with really, really quiet parts, those quiet parts will sound less "grainy" and exhibit less "hiss" than a 16 bit recording. This should be audible on all but the crappiest speakers and headphones, though an iPod may not have enough power to turn it up to the point where those really, really quiet parts are clearly audible,
If it's a typical pop recording that's pinning the meters from start to finish, no you won't hear a difference with ANY headphones or speakers at any price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan
2) Wouldn't 16-bit, 44.1khz (ie CD quality) tracks in Apple Lossless format (or FLAC) be more reasonable for the average user? Would there be any discernible difference between these CD quality tracks and a theoretical 24-bit, high sampling rate master track??
Yes, a 44/16 release with no data compression will sound BETTER than a data compressed 96/24 track, and JUST AS GOOD AS UNCOMPRESSED 96/24 (with a few exceptions). Why?
Because first, almost every recording released nowadays is already so far past the point of making the noise floor inaudible that lowering it anymore is irrelevant and inaudible. That means there's no point in adding more dynamic range. "Can you hear it now?" "No." (Turns it down) "How about now?" What's the point?
And because second, if you look at a graph of the energy in a typical performance, there's almost nothing over 10 KHz much less 20 KHz. Nor can you HEAR anything higher than 20 KHz. That means recording stuff over 20 KHz is the equivalent of recording silence. Why would you bother?
Some people argue that capturing the "extra" is beneficial for creating more accurate downconversions, but neither the math nor listening tests bear that out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
One of the ironies here is that dynamic range compression was common practice with vinyl mastering because high dynamics could lead to mistracking on cheap record changers or improperly setup turntables.
Not to mention having to roll off the bottom so the stylus wouldn't jump out of the groove.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
(Lots more absolutely right stuff snipped but acknowledged)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Higher sampling rates just accompanied advances in digital technology
Depends how you define that.
Early anti-aliasing filters were not very good. It's hard to make a good, cheap, steep filter, and easier to make a good, cheap, SHALLOW filter. Raising the sampling frequency allowed the use of cheaper anti-aliasing filters that also sounded better. So systems with higher sample rates sounded better, but NOT because of the higher sampling rate. It was because the filters were better.
None of that is relevant anymore. Today the only benefit of higher sampling rate is an increase in the highest frequency that can be recorded. Thus the only argument is whether or not there is any benefit to recording frequencies higher than 22 KHz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
To me, the point of going high res is allowing the audience to hear a bit for bit transcription of the master source.
Reasonable statement, but I would ask you what you expect to hear at 96/24 that you wouldn't at 44/16? Further, what deleterious effects do you believe occur when down converting from 96/24 to 44/16?
I don't know what kind of magic people think is going on in recording studios that will be masked by a 44/16 release and only revealed by way of 96/24 media. The laws of physics exist in the studio the same way they do at home. There's nothing going on behind that glass that mysteriously results in sounds so quiet or high in frequency that they can only be heard at 96/24.
-------------------------
This is a really tough subject because it gets religious. Many audio practitioners (most?) have never seen the inside of a classroom. Others have had some practical training but no theoretical education at all. Thus we have people with supposed "credibility" spouting the same crap some self-described audiophiles use to defend their erroneous positions: incorrect understanding of how sampling actually works, flawed conclusions based on misunderstanding (like the filters example, above) and accepting the anecdotal without testing it against reasonable controls. People believe misinformation about digital as fervently as they believe in an invisible friend who lives on a cloud and knows what they think and watches them masturbate, even though there's about as much evidence to support one as there is the other.
Fortunately there's a solution. Just study the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem and do your own tests. You don't have to take anyone else's word for it. You'll see that it's much less ambiguous than analog apologists claim!
Both ALAC and FLAC can have metadata embedded. It is WAV that does not support metadata and that's one of the reasons why AIFF is a superior file format to WAV despite both using the same method/encoding to represent the audio data.
ALAC and FLAC are both lossless so achieve exactly the same audio quality. ALAC has also been open-sourced by Apple. Determining which is better than the other requires close attention to technical details such as compression efficiency, computational requirements etc.
I'm looking forward to experiencing music from the Pono music player. It will be better quality than this alleged Mastered for iTunes product. Pono will use FLAC files and be capable of using other industry standard files of lesser quality.
I doubt any process will be as good as original vinyl recordings on a good system but Pono will certainly be the top of the line standard for a while to come. They will debut in the summer of 2014.
First of all, you don't know what you're talking about. 'Original vinyl recordings.' Nothing was ever recorded on vinyl. It was recorded on tape. You've tried to jump on the 'vinyl is the best' bandwagon but you've mixed a recording format with a delivery format.
Second of all, vinyl is a lossy format anyway. If you think distortion and crackling is better than original pristine tape then you're a fool. So, yes, there is a better process than your made up 'original vinyl recordings.' It's expensive hardware taking original tape recordings and using brilliant sound engineers to remaster them.
Thirdly, I don't even know why I'm replying. I hate idiots like you who know nothing about audio.
Comments
1) I doubt Apple is allowed to do that without their permission.
2) I don't see how ALAC would be any worse than FLAC for the same quality source file since they're both lossless but Smallwheels states that "FLAC files are very different than [ALAC]" so that should be looked into.
You're still being a turd SolipsismX. Go to the Ponomusic.com site and read about the music sources that will be used for the Pono approved files. The music player will have a special light that will appear on the screen when the highest resolution files are playing. 192 kHz/24 bit FLAC files are very different than Apples codex.
The Astell & Kern AK 240 probably sounds awesome but how many people can spend $2500 for a portable music player? The Pono will cost $399. The Fiio X5 gets good reviews too for the same money. I'm eagerly awaiting the comparisons.
If the Pono is as good as they say then $400 for most apple customers is reasonable. Lets face it-Apple has been very successful selling premium products. I think that its great that iTunes may finally upgrade its file formats, but we will have to see if just upgrading the file formats on an iPod is as good as the Pono.
Here’s an idea: JUST SELL THE ALAC TRACKS.
I was thinking of the same thing. Renew those deals and sell the lossless tracks as default.
Then bring the Lower Quality 64Kbps AAC+ files as streaming option.
It is unlikely a major record company would simply let Apple sell the 24-bit ALACs at the drop of a hat because the end product would be superior to what the record company offers in the terms of physical media.
Remember that mass market downloadable music is inferior in quality to a CD, same with all the streaming stuff. It's all lossy.
The deals would likely need to be renegotiated with the studios and some artists might hold out anyhow. Presumably the record companies would want more money for better-than-CD content.
There's no real technological hurdle. iDevices and older iPods have handled 48kHz/24-bit ALAC files for years; Macs can handle the 96kHz files fine with optical audio out, maybe higher 192kHz via USB.
It's more of a licensing issue as far as I can tell.
1) I doubt Apple is allowed to do that without their permission.
2) I don't see how ALAC would be any worse than FLAC for the same quality source file since they're both lossless but Smallwheels states that "LAC files are very different than [ALAC]" so that should be looked into.
Not really. Both uncompress to what is commonly known as AIFF, which is 2 channel PCM audio encoded in a file. AIFF stands for Apple Interchange File Format and was pioneered by Apple in the late 80s and quickly made the standard in music mastering then...and now. Microsoft and IBM came out with WAV a couple of years later, which was basically the same thing.
Music never really sounded great in the vinyl days unless it was played loudly (probably the same now). The thing is that audiophiles in those days (probably same now) spent a shocking amount of money on their gear. I had a teacher whose record player cartridge alone cost a couple of grand. No wonder it sounded better than some $200.- Bluetooth speakers.
I've been an audiophile since the late 70's. By audiophile I mean someone who's really into music and listening to it on a high-end system. However, I'm not one of those idiots who claims they can hear the difference between a $50 speaker cable and a $2,000 speaker cable or that a $50,000 amplifier will sound better than a $2,000 amplifier. My entire system (which happens to be mostly Canadian made) is worth around $10,000, what I consider a point at which you can achieve fantastic sound quality and that I feel is not going to be really improved upon by spending more (much to the chagrin of "true" audiophiles who think $10,000 is a good starting point for a single piece of gear).
I paid $1,000 for my first (and only) high-end turntable in and cartridge and it sounded fantastic (1982). You didn't have to play it loud for it to sound good. I also remember the first CD players that came out. While they had fantastic specs on paper, they didn't always sound good. This had a lot to do with how the DAC's were made in the early days (I found many to sound rather shrill). DAC quality has greatly improved over the years and today you can get a $5 chip that sounds as good as a $2,000 dedicated DAC from the early days, yet I still hear "audiophiles" claim they can hear artifacts in digital recordings as if they were still listening to gear from the early 80's.
It's also funny that Sony/Philips claimed that 44.1KHz was a high enough sample rate to capture all the sound. Yet Sony made digital studio recorders that could also record in 48, 88.2 and 96KHz. What would be the point of recording at higher sampling rates if 44.1KHz was "good enough"?
I hope Apple does offer high quality tracks for download. While I have a lot of music from iTunes, I still buy CD's of music I consider worthwhile (where the artist spent time actually creating something that sounds good). While audiophiles can argue about the differences between two obscenely overpriced components, anyone can hear the difference between a compressed MP3 and the original on a reasonably good system. Most people just never bother to actually do a side-by-side, but if they did they'd soon realize that MP3's really aren't as good.
If Apple does this then I'll finally stop buying physical media for my music.
2) I don't see how ALAC would be any worse than FLAC for the same quality source file since they're both lossless but Smallwheels states that "FLAC files are very different than [ALAC]" so that should be looked into.
There is no difference, which means Smallwheels either doesn't know the technology or is lying.
You can take a digital audio file and run it through ALAC to get the coded version, then convert it back from ALAC into digital audio and compare the original file to the file that was encoded/decoded with ALAC. You'll find they are bit-for-bit accurate. It's like turning a Word document into a ZIP file and then unzipping back to the Word document. Did your document change? Were there spelling mistakes or formatting issues? No, because a ZIP file is also considered lossless - when you unzip you get the exact same thing that went in, bit-for-bit.
It seems like the audio quality debate perpetually rages on the internet, with one group who thinks 256kbps AAC is just as good as lossless tracks, while the other end of the spectrum you have people collecting 24-bit, 96/192hz Super audio CD/DVD-Audio files.
1) will 20/24-bit sampling actually make a perceptible difference to anyone using headphones or speakers that weren't > $5,000?
2) Wouldn't 16-bit, 44.1khz (ie CD quality) tracks in Apple Lossless format (or FLAC) be more reasonable for the average user? Would there be any discernible difference between these CD quality tracks and a theoretical 24-bit, high sampling rate master track??
There is no difference, which means Smallwheels either doesn't know the technology or is lying.
ALAC carries metadata embedded while FLAC can’t.
At least, that was my understanding. Nothing as to any limitations on sound quality, that is.
This is the only time I'll say this.......AFLAC!
Instead of writing Apple's codex it should have been Apple's AAC codex. Sorry for that.
"Codec"
The super-deluxe editions of the first 3 Zep albums coming out in June also have a code to download a digital copy of the album and the extra tracks on the second disc. It would be great if, like the rumour, the code allowed us to download a hi-res digital version from iTunes!
Or somebody has been reading the comments on this forum and decide to spin it into a rumour.
I'm insufficiently well-heeled to be purchasing Pono, but I'm appreciative to Neil Young for pursuing it. There is no need for disrespectful comments I might add.
Yep. No matter what anyone thinks of Pono, Neil Young has consistently been a proponent of higher sound quality and gone out of his way to make high res versions of his music available to fans. He assembled a standout post production team for his recent archiving project. As one of the products of that project, his Greatest Hits CD/DVD combo pack is a reference quality remaster. Not only does that set include a standout CD, but it also includes 96 kHz/24-bit tracks on an open DVD -- no DVD-Audio player required, and no forced downsampling. Since the CD and high res DVD tracks were done concurrently, it can be used for A-B testing. Nothing but respect from me for what Neil Young has done over the years for fans who appreciate good sound quality.
Originally Posted by Mr. H
This can quite often be the cause of vinyl sounding better - whilst it is worse in every way as a medium compared to CD (dynamic range, frequency response, wow & flutter, distortion) vinyl masters do not usually have their dynamic range compressed into oblivion.
One of the ironies here is that dynamic range compression was common practice with vinyl mastering because high dynamics could lead to mistracking on cheap record changers or improperly setup turntables. It was a lowest common denominator step to account for the low quality of an average record player. Vinyl has entered into a sort of renaissance stage because it now bypasses the mass market and goes straight to the higher end consumer. Compromises common to CD mastering aren't prevalent with newer LP pressings.
When first introduced, CDs were supposed to let audiences finally hear the full dynamics of the original recording. But, then came the loudness wars and everything seems even more compressed nowadays than they ever were during vinyl's heyday. I think part of this is because the mastering now optimizes for mobile playback and small speakers (like in cars, computers, or earbuds), whereas before, the playback was optimized for larger speakers and component-based home audio systems. 30 years ago, 15" JBL studio monitors were the norm, and now it's 8" (or smaller) nearfield monitors.
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I paid $1,000 for my first (and only) high-end turntable in and cartridge and it sounded fantastic (1982). You didn't have to play it loud for it to sound good. I also remember the first CD players that came out. While they had fantastic specs on paper, they didn't always sound good. This had a lot to do with how the DAC's were made in the early days (I found many to sound rather shrill). DAC quality has greatly improved over the years and today you can get a $5 chip that sounds as good as a $2,000 dedicated DAC from the early days, yet I still hear "audiophiles" claim they can hear artifacts in digital recordings as if they were still listening to gear from the early 80's.
It's also funny that Sony/Philips claimed that 44.1KHz was a high enough sample rate to capture all the sound. Yet Sony made digital studio recorders that could also record in 48, 88.2 and 96KHz. What would be the point of recording at higher sampling rates if 44.1KHz was "good enough"?
The thing about analog front end equipment (which is what really sparked the audio hobby in the first place) is the extreme variation between low and high end components. Anyone can really hear a difference between the cheap record changers of yore and a decent properly setup turntable with a high quality cartridge. The differences are obvious and measurable.
With digital, the differences are far narrower, however the obsessions and claims of night and day differences among audiophiles continued to persist.
When CDs first came out, a lot of the releases sounded horrible because the mastering practices from vinyl carried over. Mastering engineers were used to tweaking the EQ and other settings to compensate for the vinyl medium. But, what might have sounded great on vinyl could indeed sound grating on CD.
WRT the sampling rates, I recall that Sony's PCM recorders at that time did indeed use a 44.1 kHz sampling rate. The highest sampling rate at that time I recall was Soundstream's 50 kHz system. With any digital format, you're always going to be limited by whatever processor technology and storage limits exist. The CD format was locked in by the late-70s, and the early debates centered on whether the CD would be an optical analog format (like the Laserdisc) or a digital format, which at that time was only beginning to make its way into recording studios. Sony/Philips' decision to go with PCM digital was actually a very bold move, because it required some big advances in optical storage, data retrieval, and signal processing that had to also not cost an arm and a leg.
Higher sampling rates just accompanied advances in digital technology, yet the CD format remained stuck in its 70s vintage 44.1 kHz/16-bit format. I believe that a big reason (if not the biggest) for using higher sampling rates with studio recorders is for maintaining audio quality during the mixing process and when applying any other signal processing. To me, the point of going high res is allowing the audience to hear a bit for bit transcription of the master source.
FLAC also supports metadata. Artwork, Artist & Song name and such. Perhaps it doesn't have as many fields or equally large headers as say .mp3, that may be.
AAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUGHHHH! Not again! I thought we resolved all this crap in the 90s?
I am so SICK of people who have never even READ Nyquist's sampling theorem, who have ZERO understanding of the math, regurgitating utter nonsense like "rounding off the steps" as if there were some validity to their meaningless remarks!
Here's the bottom line: Increasing the sample rate above 44.1 KHz increases the highest frequency the system can store. That's it. It does not improve the resolution of lower frequencies, reduce the size of the steps or any other meaningless gobbledygook. This increase in high frequencies does NOT affect audible frequencies through additional frequency interactions because those, if they existed, and if they were audible, were CAPTURED BY THE MICROPHONE AT THE TIME OF RECORDING. If you think there's something going on above 22 KHz (this world contains almost nothing over 10 KHz much less 20) and you think you can hear it (and still thing so after listening to a tone generator sweep up to that point), by all means, buy high sample rate recordings. Otherwise, refuse to be sucked in by marketing bullshit.
More bottom line: Increasing the word length from 16 bits to 24 bits lowers the volume at which the signal turns to noisy hash. Period, The End, nothing else. For a classical piece with 100 dB dynamic range this can be beneficial because the really, really, really, really, really quiet parts will sound less grainy (and if you can hear them, you better have a seven thousand watt amplifier for when the loud part comes in -- do the math: twice the power for every 3 db). For a Pop piece with the dynamics compressed so hard that the waveform looks like a cylinder, the net benefit of more bits is zero zilch nada FA poodly. Nothing. Increasing dynamic range doesn't magically improve other characteristics.
If you want something that sounds better, start with reducing the or removing the data compression. Apple's move from 128K to 256K some years ago was a really good one. Another step like that would be good.
But If someone tells you a recording sounds better because it has more bits and higher sampling rate, tell them to save that bullshit for distant recordings of bats. You don't have to have golden ear training to see though the marketing hype, you just need a working calculator. Don't let them sucker you.
1) will 20/24-bit sampling actually make a perceptible difference to anyone using headphones or speakers that weren't > $5,000?
It depends on what you're listening to.
The benefit of longer digital words (20 or 24 bit) is a lower noise floor. If your recording already swamps the noise floor there is no benefit. The difference between 20 decibels below audible and 60 decibels below audible is zilch -- once it's below audible, any further reduction is (drum roll please) INAUDIBLE.
So, if it's a classical recording with really, really quiet parts, those quiet parts will sound less "grainy" and exhibit less "hiss" than a 16 bit recording. This should be audible on all but the crappiest speakers and headphones, though an iPod may not have enough power to turn it up to the point where those really, really quiet parts are clearly audible,
If it's a typical pop recording that's pinning the meters from start to finish, no you won't hear a difference with ANY headphones or speakers at any price.
2) Wouldn't 16-bit, 44.1khz (ie CD quality) tracks in Apple Lossless format (or FLAC) be more reasonable for the average user? Would there be any discernible difference between these CD quality tracks and a theoretical 24-bit, high sampling rate master track??
Yes, a 44/16 release with no data compression will sound BETTER than a data compressed 96/24 track, and JUST AS GOOD AS UNCOMPRESSED 96/24 (with a few exceptions). Why?
Because first, almost every recording released nowadays is already so far past the point of making the noise floor inaudible that lowering it anymore is irrelevant and inaudible. That means there's no point in adding more dynamic range. "Can you hear it now?" "No." (Turns it down) "How about now?" What's the point?
And because second, if you look at a graph of the energy in a typical performance, there's almost nothing over 10 KHz much less 20 KHz. Nor can you HEAR anything higher than 20 KHz. That means recording stuff over 20 KHz is the equivalent of recording silence. Why would you bother?
Some people argue that capturing the "extra" is beneficial for creating more accurate downconversions, but neither the math nor listening tests bear that out.
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Not to mention having to roll off the bottom so the stylus wouldn't jump out of the groove.
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Depends how you define that.
Early anti-aliasing filters were not very good. It's hard to make a good, cheap, steep filter, and easier to make a good, cheap, SHALLOW filter. Raising the sampling frequency allowed the use of cheaper anti-aliasing filters that also sounded better. So systems with higher sample rates sounded better, but NOT because of the higher sampling rate. It was because the filters were better.
None of that is relevant anymore. Today the only benefit of higher sampling rate is an increase in the highest frequency that can be recorded. Thus the only argument is whether or not there is any benefit to recording frequencies higher than 22 KHz.
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Reasonable statement, but I would ask you what you expect to hear at 96/24 that you wouldn't at 44/16? Further, what deleterious effects do you believe occur when down converting from 96/24 to 44/16?
I don't know what kind of magic people think is going on in recording studios that will be masked by a 44/16 release and only revealed by way of 96/24 media. The laws of physics exist in the studio the same way they do at home. There's nothing going on behind that glass that mysteriously results in sounds so quiet or high in frequency that they can only be heard at 96/24.
-------------------------
This is a really tough subject because it gets religious. Many audio practitioners (most?) have never seen the inside of a classroom. Others have had some practical training but no theoretical education at all. Thus we have people with supposed "credibility" spouting the same crap some self-described audiophiles use to defend their erroneous positions: incorrect understanding of how sampling actually works, flawed conclusions based on misunderstanding (like the filters example, above) and accepting the anecdotal without testing it against reasonable controls. People believe misinformation about digital as fervently as they believe in an invisible friend who lives on a cloud and knows what they think and watches them masturbate, even though there's about as much evidence to support one as there is the other.
Fortunately there's a solution. Just study the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem and do your own tests. You don't have to take anyone else's word for it. You'll see that it's much less ambiguous than analog apologists claim!
24-bit AAC would still be lossy - a better step would be staying with 16-bit but using lossless audio.
AAC is not Apple's "codex" (the word is "codec" by the way).
Both ALAC and FLAC can have metadata embedded. It is WAV that does not support metadata and that's one of the reasons why AIFF is a superior file format to WAV despite both using the same method/encoding to represent the audio data.
ALAC and FLAC are both lossless so achieve exactly the same audio quality. ALAC has also been open-sourced by Apple. Determining which is better than the other requires close attention to technical details such as compression efficiency, computational requirements etc.
First of all, you don't know what you're talking about. 'Original vinyl recordings.' Nothing was ever recorded on vinyl. It was recorded on tape. You've tried to jump on the 'vinyl is the best' bandwagon but you've mixed a recording format with a delivery format.
Second of all, vinyl is a lossy format anyway. If you think distortion and crackling is better than original pristine tape then you're a fool. So, yes, there is a better process than your made up 'original vinyl recordings.' It's expensive hardware taking original tape recordings and using brilliant sound engineers to remaster them.
Thirdly, I don't even know why I'm replying. I hate idiots like you who know nothing about audio.
Fourthly, Pono. Lol.