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

[QUOTE=Aurora93;35101734]i feel like im the only person who still uses WMP[/QUOTE] I do too, and i can't see what's wrong with it

Reading gizmodo causes physical pain.

[QUOTE=TehWhale;35107361]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][/QUOTE] Pretty much this, even my relatively low quality headphones by default run at "studio quality." [editline]12th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=MingeCrab;35107607]I still buy CDs.[/QUOTE] If I ever buy a CD it's to have a physical copy to store, and I just rip the audio off with some audiophile program. (because the distortions from normal CD ripping via something like WMP are very obvious)

Well, it's normal that when you buy music you should have access to the higher quality existing.

-snop-

[QUOTE=Lufttygger306;35107707]I do too, and i can't see what's wrong with it[/QUOTE] I doubt WMP can handle this: [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/100328/winamp.PNG[/img]

99% of people won't be able to tell the difference, especially if they haven't spent thousands of dollars on an audio system. The average Joe listening to Katy Perry on an iPod using a cheap set of earbuds won't know the difference other than it's a much larger file.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;35108992]99% of people won't be able to tell the difference, especially if they haven't spent thousands of dollars on an audio system. The average Joe listening to Katy Perry on an iPod using a cheap set of earbuds won't know the difference other than it's a much larger file.[/QUOTE] and?

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;35108992]99% of people won't be able to tell the difference, especially if they haven't spent thousands of dollars on an audio system. The average Joe listening to Katy Perry on an iPod using a cheap set of earbuds won't know the difference other than it's a much larger file.[/QUOTE] So since the majority doesn't need it, we suffer?

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;35107581]I have listened to FLAC through excellent headphones, and I have to say the audio quality is palpable.[/QUOTE] i'd rather have lossless 16/44 than lossy 24/96

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;35108992]99% of people won't be able to tell the difference, especially if they haven't spent thousands of dollars on an audio system. The average Joe listening to Katy Perry on an iPod using a cheap set of earbuds won't know the difference other than it's a much larger file.[/QUOTE] Average Joe sounds like a pretty dim person.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;35108992]99% of people won't be able to tell the difference, especially if they haven't spent thousands of dollars on an audio system. The average Joe listening to Katy Perry on an iPod using a cheap set of earbuds won't know the difference other than it's a much larger file.[/QUOTE] 95% of all statistics are pulled out of the asses of hicks. I don't give a flying fuck if MR. Joe uses earbuds. I want access to quality music if it's possible and it seems it is. No need for poor people and retards to protest just because they can't have nice things without breaking them. That's not fair really. I don't bitch for game visuals to be downgraded just because my rig can only handle the low settings.

how about make it so that you can download the songs you've already purchased again and again and again I've formatted without backing up my library 3 times and I've had to ask apple tech support to allow me to download my library again 3 times, no reason for me to buy music anymore if they can't keep track of it and ask me to pay for it several times

[QUOTE=cccritical;35110531]how about make it so that you can download the songs you've already purchased again and again and again I've formatted without backing up my library 3 times and I've had to ask apple tech support to allow me to download my library again 3 times, no reason for me to buy music anymore if they can't keep track of it and ask me to pay for it several times[/QUOTE] You can redownload songs you've purchased.

I don't understand what you guys are complaining about. If you get the best quality possible from your purchase - what's the big deal? You'd complain if it was mediocre quality as well. There's no satisfying some people. [editline]12th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=CakeMaster7;35107733]Pretty much this, even my relatively low quality headphones by default run at "studio quality."[/QUOTE] Huh? That just means your sound card supports it. Not your headphones.

This is good because Itunes wields an enormous amount of influence, like it or not. If the source of music, Itunes, has very high quality available then it will encourage people to upgrade their equipment to take advantage of it. Why would someone buy high quality headphones if the music they listen to is lower quality lossless format? On the other hand if the place that you buy your music offers HD audio at no extra cost why wouldn't you get headphones good enough so you can enjoy that superior sound? Same with things like soundcards. HD audio could make soundcards relevant to more people if for no other reason that to be able to hear the Itunes library in HD audio.

VLC 4 lyfe!

[QUOTE=AK'z;35107664]not really.[/QUOTE] this post you made is objectively wrong. [editline]12th March 2012[/editline] and i refuse to believe anyone who says they can tell a difference between lossless and 320kbps MP3s that hasn't abx'd themselves

Someone needs to explain why they think we need a 96 KHz sampling rate for music, when your ears can't hear above 22KHz?

[QUOTE=fenwick;35114573]Someone needs to explain why they think we need a 96 KHz sampling rate for music, when your ears can't hear above 22KHz?[/QUOTE] there's a difference between sampling rate and sound frequency, I think

The sampling rate frequency is NOT the same as frequency response, that's why.

[QUOTE=fenwick;35114573]Someone needs to explain why they think we need a 96 KHz sampling rate for music, when your ears can't hear above 22KHz?[/QUOTE] Considering you're not going to be sampling a perfect sinusoidal wave you'd need to sample each wave several times to get an accurate recreation of the signal.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;35114760]Considering you're not going to be sampling a perfect sinusoidal wave you'd need to sample each wave several times to get an accurate recreation of the signal.[/QUOTE] It doesn't work like that, though. You can't hear the difference between a square wave and sine wave at 22kHz because the square wave is comprised of a harmonic series with it's lowest frequency at 22kHz, the next harmonic is at 44, which you couldn't possibly hear. The Nyquist Sampling Theorem dictates that you can accurately reconstruct a signal with all of its frequency content as long as your maximum frequency doesn't exceed half of the sampling rate. In other words, there's no reason to have over 44kHz sampling rate.

[QUOTE=fenwick;35117364]It doesn't work like that, though. You can't hear the difference between a square wave and sine wave at 22kHz because the square wave is comprised of a harmonic series with it's lowest frequency at 22kHz, the next harmonic is at 44, which you couldn't possibly hear. The Nyquist Sampling Theorem dictates that you can accurately reconstruct a signal with all of its frequency content as long as your maximum frequency doesn't exceed half of the sampling rate. In other words, there's no reason to have over 44kHz sampling rate.[/QUOTE] but, fenwick!!! audio fidelity!!!!! *vomit*

[QUOTE=fenwick;35117364]It doesn't work like that, though. You can't hear the difference between a square wave and sine wave at 22kHz because the square wave is comprised of a harmonic series with it's lowest frequency at 22kHz, the next harmonic is at 44, which you couldn't possibly hear. The Nyquist Sampling Theorem dictates that you can accurately reconstruct a signal with all of its frequency content as long as your maximum frequency doesn't exceed half of the sampling rate. In other words, there's no reason to have over 44kHz sampling rate.[/QUOTE] There's no reason to eat cake, sunbathe or browse the internet for entertainment. Yet here you are.

[QUOTE=Lazor;35114233]this post you made is objectively wrong. [/QUOTE] Okay. Show me how music fidelity with records has vastly improved in the last 15-20 years. I'm not talking about recording. Just the experience. If you really think audio engineers have become better then I'd like to hear your arguement. (you'll lose, but w/e) [editline]13th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=fenwick;35117364]It doesn't work like that, though. You can't hear the difference between a square wave and sine wave at 22kHz because the square wave is comprised of a harmonic series with it's lowest frequency at 22kHz, the next harmonic is at 44, which you couldn't possibly hear. The Nyquist Sampling Theorem dictates that you can accurately reconstruct a signal with all of its frequency content as long as your maximum frequency doesn't exceed half of the sampling rate. In other words, there's no reason to have over 44kHz sampling rate.[/QUOTE] How about less physics, more music.

[QUOTE=Within;35110860]Huh? That just means your sound card supports it. Not your headphones.[/QUOTE]You're right, I wasn't thinking when I typed that.

[QUOTE=TehWhale;35107361]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][/QUOTE] That's greyed out for me :(