Well, Apple is going to hell now....

[brent]

Since Steve Jobs died, Apple no longer cares about hi-res audio, says Neil Young.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/31/tech/web/ ... ?hpt=hp_c3

[Jonathan]

[executioner]

IMO they were always headed that way. What do you think Steve Jobs is thinking right about now?

[brent]

Nothing. He is dead. He will not be judged until after the return of Christ and we have been judged. His judgement will be last. This is why all of those books about people going to heaven and hell are absolute crap.

[Boray]

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[brent]

Quote from article:

"Unfortunately, there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space."

This is absolutely false. It makes all kinds of sense, IF the original recording files are 192kHz. I don't who the moron is that wrote this, but they show a complete lack of technical knowledge, understanding or digital recording (sampling), and has not listened to 24 bit files vs 16 bit files. Not only is there exponentially more dynamic range recording at 24 bit, but the filtering that keeps us from hearing the harmonics of the high frequencies that make digital work is pushed farther away from the audio, reducing artifacts. Will the average person with hearing loss, listening on ear buds tell a difference? Probably not. But people with an ear and a good system can and do hear a difference. The difference is about not hearing the filtering we normally hear, not hearing more frequencies. We cannot actually record those frequencies in most cases.

The goober then makes a false assumption that we can actually capture anything above 20kHz. YES, instruments can and do produce musical information above and below our hearing and conductive feeling range. There are very few studios that have the ability to capture those in a recording session. Why? We are not building and isolating those rooms much anymore. The few that do remain are used for orchestral recording, which is how it should be. BUT, due to radio and all of the RF in the air, nearly all mics have a choke prohibiting them from picking up anything higher than 25kHz. We put the limit at 25kHz so that the filter does not jack with the audio. Many microphone preamps are also immense to frequencies about 25k to 40kHz. There are a few microphones designed to pick up frequencies up there, but they are not linear. The ear is not linear up there either. We would have to amplify those ultra high frequencies about 100 times the amount at which we hear 1kHz, and at that point the fire department would be pulling up to extinguish your speaker's fire. There are some super tweeters out there, but they are a gimmick. God made us to naturally not hear that stuff up there. We would never get any sleep and we would all be insane if we could.

The issue for Apple is money. It would cost Apple too much to do it. iTunes is a complete non-money maker for Apple. The only reason iTunes exists is to sell hardware. So, unless they can make money at it, it will not happen. There is no demand for it.

MP3 is about 50% distortion, and the codec throws away duplicate data found on the left and right channels, which collapses the stereo image and messes with the bass. MP3 is a joke. MP3 Surround is a joke.

[Boray]

Not only is there exponentially more dynamic range recording at 24 bit, but the filtering that keeps us from hearing the harmonics of the high frequencies that make digital work is pushed farther away from the audio, reducing artifacts.

Don't you mix up bit depth with sampling rate there?

[brent]

No, I was not clear enough. I re-read my post and discovered that and some typos.

1 bit equals 6dB of dynamic range, so 16 bits allows for 96dB of dynamic range, while 24 bits allows for 144dB, theoretically enough for any recording. It is sufficient for any modern microphone and speaker system. The problem is the industry has not allowed the dynamic range to be maximized, smashing everything with compression and brick wall limiting, making a cymbal, for example, with 7dB of dynamic range, to be represented with 22 bits.

It is the sample rate. In context with the OP'rs article, 192kHz moves the sharp filters further away from the audio, which is what makes it sound better. This is why upsampling is so popular on quality playback machines. They want to get away from the filtering.

[Boray]

I think 24 bit 48kHz Flac is a good choice today. A vast majority of all computer audio is actually fixed at 48kHz so even if you set the average soundcard to 44kHz and play 44 kHz audio, it does a sample rate conversion which degrades sound quality.

I guess playing 192 kHz audio on the average PC would just pick every 4th sample to play it at 48kHz... and then, why would people like to download 4 times as much as they use?

[calicowriter]

Remember when listening to music used to be an event, an activity all to its own? Not something you do while doing something else or to mask other sounds. The thrill of going to the record store and buying the album (or the CD), then coming home, unwrapping it, reading the thanks, credits and lyrics if included. Then putting the album on the stereo (or CD in the player), sitting back in a comfortable chair or lying on the floor and listening to the album from beginning to end. And when I bought my first pair of "good" headphones...what a mind-blowing experience THAT was! I could hear things I'd never heard before. It was magical.

I guess that is why I do not understand why people listen to crappy versions of songs on their computers, phones, etc. Anything to be portable. If you ask me, people who walk around with ear buds in are asking to be hit by a car or robbed. There is a thing called being aware of your surroundings. Not to mention appreciation of silence. But I digress....

[Preacherman777]

Brent, are you saying that you believe in soul sleep as the 7th Day Adventists do?

[brent]

I think 24 bit 48kHz Flac is a good choice today. A vast majority of all computer audio is actually fixed at 48kHz so even if you set the average soundcard to 44kHz and play 44 kHz audio, it does a sample rate conversion which degrades sound quality.

I guess playing 192 kHz audio on the average PC would just pick every 4th sample to play it at 48kHz... and then, why would people like to download 4 times as much as they use?

Remember, the only people really wanting or needing 24/192 are hardcore audiophiles with the ability to play back 192kHz, DXD and DSD files. If your computer cannot play a 192 file, you just will not be able to play it. You cannot separate samples like that.

Sampling sound waves with a word length of 24-bits, 192,000 times per second is going to be closer to the analog wave. It is not perfect. DSD (1-bit form of PCM) is as close as digital gets to representing the analog wave. But, we cannot split a bit. There is no real editing in DSD. Edits are all resampled to PCM and back again. Read up on DSD, DXD and Pyramix. The point is that people do not know what they are missing many times. If you were to play an MP3 and a 16/44.1 side by side on a good system, people would be able to tell a difference and would prefer the good sounding one. It is proven all the time. Storage space is more compact and more affordable than ever. There is no excuse for listening to MP3s.

[brent]

Remember when listening to music used to be an event, an activity all to its own? Not something you do while doing something else or to mask other sounds. The thrill of going to the record store and buying the album (or the CD), then coming home, unwrapping it, reading the thanks, credits and lyrics if included. Then putting the album on the stereo (or CD in the player), sitting back in a comfortable chair or lying on the floor and listening to the album from beginning to end. And when I bought my first pair of "good" headphones...what a mind-blowing experience THAT was! I could hear things I'd never heard before. It was magical.

I guess that is why I do not understand why people listen to crappy versions of songs on their computers, phones, etc. Anything to be portable. If you ask me, people who walk around with ear buds in are asking to be hit by a car or robbed. There is a thing called being aware of your surroundings. Not to mention appreciation of silence. But I digress....

Amen...this is what I STILL do. Don't bother me if I come with a REAL CD. Don't be in the living room or the studio when I play it. Don't talk to me. I am blowing up the lyrics, reading them, looking at the website, or just listening. I am not shuttling kids, doing work, talking on the phone like my wife.

[brent]

Brent, are you saying that you believe in soul sleep as the 7th Day Adventists do?

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are referencing the first reply....
The bible is clear. When we die we do not immediately go to Heaven in resurrected bodies. When we die we are present with the Lord...at peace...in spirit. The lost are not at peace when they die, but they are not in hell. They are alone in their torment, awaiting their resurrection and judgement, which is AFTER our resurrection and judgement. All of these books about being in hell and seeing people in hell are bogus because the lost dead have not been raised and judged. The stories about people going to heaven in resurrected bodies are bogus, because Christ has not returned and we have not met him in the air, with the dead in Christ being raised first, and those that are living have not been changed.

I do not believe the bible teaches sleep per se. The spirit does not sleep. Our bodies do. Either way the lost spirit is pained and the saved spirit is at peace...safe.

[Boray]

If your computer cannot play a 192 file, you just will not be able to play it. You cannot separate samples like that.

Why not? A sample is just a voltage level at a specified point in time. Picking every 4th sample in a 192khz stream would be equivalent to a 48kHz stream. A filter might be needed but I'm not sure that is the case when you only need to downsample with an even divider.