Apple To Offer 24/96 Audio Downloads In The Near Future - Polidicks

24 bit, 96kHz and above is only useful if you have the proper amount of storage and want to digitize vynils and quality magentic tapes without loosing quality. Considering the size limitations and lack of hardware that can reproduce it bit by bit, this is entirely useless. And knowing Apple, they probably are upscaling from lossy files. [editline]00[/editline] Apparently I missed the part where it'll be streaming audio. My point still stands.

I always have fun when we record in the studio just because it all sounds so clean and crisp in there. I'd love for something on my computer to sound that good (though I'll need to save for a nice set of headphones.)

pointless, there isn't a difference for the end listener past 16/48 the only place where 24/96 has any real purpose is in a mastering chain

[QUOTE=KnightVista;35102316]In all honesty it's almost impossible to notice the difference between a 3 minute 100mb music file; or a 3 minute 5mb music file.[/QUOTE] Sure there is, it's 95mb.

[QUOTE=Mr. Bleak;35101867]Lol how pointless. 16 bit FLAC is reaching the edge of practicality because of how large files are for a (somewhat) slight increase in quality. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;35105341]pointless, there isn't a difference for the end listener past 16/48 the only place where 24/96 has any real purpose is in a mastering chain[/QUOTE] It's about preference. The people who look for their quality, don't want "mp3 256" to be the best available to them to purchase easily. It's just like the Blu-Ray vs DVD arguement. Yet more people seem stupid when arguing for DVDs because of the majority noticing the clarity. [editline]12th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=article]Last year we argued that 24-bit audio on iTunes would be a consumer con. We were right, of course — albums don’t need the same dynamic range as a jet engine to be enjoyable, no matter what those audiophile chumps will have you believe.[/QUOTE] This guy is a pure moron. If people had a brain, they'd be able to choose what format they want to buy.

[QUOTE=AK'z;35105386] This guy is a pure moron. If people had a brain, they'd be able to choose what format they want to buy.[/QUOTE] What's worse is he says "audiophile CHUMPS". It's like we're [I]morons[/I] for wanting [I]nicer-sounding[/I] files rather than muddy, swishy-swoshy streamed files.

[QUOTE=Drsalvador;35105430]What's worse is he says "audiophile CHUMPS". It's like we're [I]morons[/I] for wanting [I]nicer-sounding[/I] files rather than muddy, swishy-swoshy streamed files.[/QUOTE] well I don't personally care, but I do acknowledge those who can appreciate 24 bit files. They just have the money and equipment to produce that marginally better audio experience. I'm still enjoying music though. :v:

24bit audio is useful in the encoding chain because it allows for greater precision, it's pretty damn useless for the end user since most likely their hardware simply can't play it back (without "downscaling" it, then the result is functionally identical to normal audio). It's like 10bit H.264 files, the vast majority of people only have 8bit monitors, the 10bits per channel are primarily important during encoding because of the extra precision.

96KHz sampling rate is ridiculous Humans can hear in the range of 20KHz So, we set the minimum encoding frequency to double that when we want to be able to fully re-create the sound wave (after decoding). So a typical encoding frequency is 43KHz (you'll see it on CDs) Beyond that, there is little difference to what you actually hear. 96KHz sample rate is a gimmick

Edit: I apparently completely misread the above post.

[QUOTE=Trumple;35105602]96KHz sampling rate is ridiculous Humans can hear in the range of 20KHz So, we set the minimum encoding frequency to double that when we want to be able to fully re-create the sound wave (after decoding). So a typical encoding frequency is 43KHz (you'll see it on CDs) Beyond that, there is little difference to what you actually hear. 96KHz sample rate is a gimmick[/QUOTE] Basing sampling rate on Nyquist frequency is only valid when the waveform is a perfect sinusoid, the waveform is perfectly in phase with the sampling frequency, and your decoding is perfect. It is good practise in the digital signal filtering world to sample at significantly higher than the Nyquist frequency to deal with imperfect decoding/digital filters. But uh, yeah, some blind tests really need to be done with a lot of this stuff to validate the use of 100mb 3 minute audio files.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;35105341]pointless, there isn't a difference for the end listener past 16/48 the only place where 24/96 has any real purpose is in a mastering chain[/QUOTE] Isn't this the same as the "People can't see the difference beyond x Frames per second" where someone always tells the one to say the stupid shit to fuck off or something? Everyone can hear a compression artifact when it's putting its dick up your ear. This helps prevent it? Then go for it. i got disc space enough to last... some time. [editline]12th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Tolyzor;35106287]Basing sampling rate on Nyquist frequency is only valid when the waveform is a perfect sinusoid, the waveform is perfectly in phase with the sampling frequency, and your decoding is perfect. It is good practise in the digital signal filtering world to sample at significantly higher than the Nyquist frequency to deal with imperfect decoding/digital filters. But uh, yeah, some blind tests really need to be done with a lot of this stuff to validate the use of 100mb 3 minute audio files.[/QUOTE] Needs to be done with Audiophiles then.

If people don't care about higher sampling rates and FLACs, don't be bothered to argue. This is for the minority who want it, stop being a bod and let it happen because you know full well it doesn't affect you or anyone else. It's better to have MORE availability and freedom than less of it.

Spotify best music player

Don't know about you guys but I use Foobar for online radio and my music and Spotify for music I don't have.

MediaMonkey master race, yo

[quote]Last year we argued that 24-bit audio on iTunes would be a consumer con. We were right, of course — albums don’t need the same dynamic range as a jet engine to be enjoyable, no matter what those audiophile chumps will have you believe.[/quote] Uh, fuck you Gizmodo.

I'd rather have them make itunes FLAC supportable. The only reason why I even have itunes is because of the gift cards I get and that I can use it to sync my Ipod.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;35105260]knowing Apple, they probably are upscaling from lossy files.[/QUOTE] That doesn't make any sense. Why would Apple ask labels to submit 24/96 masters and pay for all of the extra storage and bandwidth, only to stream upscaled 256k AAC files? Edit: [QUOTE=areolop;35103310]I dont even have any of my music on this computer. I just use Spotify for everything.[/QUOTE] Now only if Spotify offered 24/96 streaming...

I can definitely tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and 256kbps. Even more so with 128kbps or 196kbps. Then again I have a quality set up and pricey monitor headphones.

Ninja'd

Ugh gizmo do, almost as shitty as Kotaku

[QUOTE=TehWhale;35107032]I can definitely tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and 256kbps. Even more so with 128kbps or 196kbps. Then again I have a quality set up and pricey monitor headphones.[/QUOTE] Everyone should be able to with normal quality speakers... It's just those dumbfucks who claim to know shit because they only use Laptop speakers and earbuds. Dey so zophistikated!

It would also help if those retards changed this: [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1439918/Pics/Screenshot-2012-03-12_11.23.17.png[/img] to this: [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1439918/Pics/Screenshot-2012-03-12_11.23.43.png[/img]

there's really no reason not to download lossless audio if it's available. I don't care if the difference between v0 and flac isn't immediately noticeable. all I care about is that there [I]is[/I] a difference and I'm getting quality as close to the original as possible [editline]1[/editline] and complaints about the size of flac files make no sense with the availability of 2TB+ hard drives

I have listened to FLAC through excellent headphones, and I have to say the audio quality is palpable.

I still buy CDs.

I have some 24bit FLAC on my PC, I'll have to give them all a listen tomorrow. Up until now I've been only giving the mp3s a listen with the occasional FLAC.

[QUOTE=TehWhale;35107032]I can definitely tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and 256kbps. Even more so with 128kbps or 196kbps. Then again I have a quality set up and pricey monitor headphones.[/QUOTE] Try 320Kbps to 256Kbps AAC, MP3 as a format is 19 years old, and we've improved a fair bit since then. Edit: Also, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec_listening_test[/url]

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;35107657]we've improved a fair bit since then.[/QUOTE] not really.