iTunes masters.What's this all about...?

[bsn]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/feb/28/apple-audio-file-adaptive-streaming

 

 

Apple developing new audio file format to offer 'adaptive streaming'

 

 

[whell]

I was following this thead on my iPad so I decided to go check out the Mastered for iPad offerings. When I went into the iTunes store to check out the offerings, I felt like I had just opened HD Tracks homepage.

 

It's not just about offering an "enhanced listening experience for the iTunes crowd IHMO. Rather, it's about continuing to find new ways to sell the old catalog of music for the record labels. Look at the titles that are for sale, and I think it tells the story.

 

[new_media]

I find it very hard to believe that Apple would suddenly upgrade everyone's AAC library to lossless HD, and even harder to believe that the labels would allow such a thing.

 

I would guess something more like being able to continue downloading 256 kbps AAC or streaming 64-192 kbps over WiFi/3G depending on your signal strength. I would be shocked if this had anything to do with HD.

 

[Audio_ELF]

I believe Apple's recommendation to not compress a track is about codecs and file compression rather than dynamic range compression. Dynamic range compression and the loudness wars are an artistic choice that's part of the creation of the art.

 

I'm not Teressa, but I read it differently.

 

The article (and the Apple document) talks about SouncCheck and volume levelling in the same breath as compressing a track so I would agree with Teressa's assessment Apple are discouraging "The Loudness War".

 

Eloise

 

[realhifi]

Chris,

As to the comments about Apple's iTunes store. They have been (understandably) taken to task for their low resolution offering of music and my comments were mainly directed at the outlook by many that something is brewing for them vis a vis offering higher resolution music to those that want it. If Apple does come through on this front it would certainly have a lot of folks "eating crow" so to speak.

 

I can see a scenario of them offering both. They could offer a lower resolution version through their iCloud, possibly even a subscription type of service and then open up the higher res offerings to those that want a more permanant library in a computer or NAS in their homes. They could easily charge a bit more for the better files and lower the price structure of the low res stuff to make it all seem fair enough to make it a viable business model.

 

As far as the ALAC, they have finally opened that up to open source so that it can be used by many of the "other" (read Windows) type of UPnP servers, etc.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Eloise - Very cool. I hope I am wrong and Apple really is stepping out against the loudness wars.

 

[realhifi]

Does anyone else sense Tomlinson Holman's fingerprints in any of this?

 

From the Guardian:

 

"Apple is working on a new audio file format that will offer "adaptive streaming" to provide high- or low-quality files to users of its iCloud service.

 

The new format could mean that users can get "high-definition" audio by downloading to an iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch. Alternatively, it could offer a streaming service – like that of Lala.com, the music streaming and online storage company, which Apple acquired late in 2009.

 

The new system would adjust itself to the bandwidth and storage available on the receiving device.

 

It is believed that Apple will use the new file type to upgrade its iTunes Match service, which allows users to re-download music from iCloud to their Apple devices."

 

Somebody is working on this besides your average Apple tech head.

 

 

[Fritsveer]

I havent heart anything on the adaptive streaming and HD sound on/since the last keynote.

 

It was a hoax or still reality?

 

[arcman]

Outstanding post. The "Yell" at Apple people do not get it. Actually, they are the "wanna-bes" that feel they are carrying the torch for the classic audiophile stereotype. Much like the current Occupy people. They so much want to be like the 60's protesters. Yes, iTunes downloads are not CD quality. However, I would take an iTunes download over 100% of professionally prerecorded, big label cassettes from back in the day.

 

Chances are, iTunes downloads are 100% better than the Sears, RCA, Soundesign, LLOYDS, stereos that were in the majority back then. I would bet the same % of people who had "better" audio components (Sansui, Pioneer, etc) and who had upscale components (Mcintosh, Krell, etc) are pretty close to the same % you would find today. I think the sound quality needle has shifted higher more in the low end than in Mid to High end components (more bang for the buck). So to be honest, Apple has not dumbed down anything. If anything it has raised the bar.

If Apple were to all of a sudden offer all it's content at 24/96, some would rant about the dither method or something else. Also, Hi resolution audio would be more mainstream and you know audiophiles would hate that. Deep down audiophiles love the "niche" aspect and the ability to tell people they have something better and different. Something they did not get through regular mainstream channels.

 

[Mark Powell]

Apple may not have 'dumbed down' anything. But they have manifestly NOT raised the bar. Time has moved on, the current 'bar' is 16/44.1 CD standard. The Apple stuff is nowhere near that quality. iTunes low-res downloads are the precise today's equivalent of the then Sears, LLoyd stuff you mention. At least they were restricted by the medium, 45s, LPs, and cassettes. Apple are not, they simply choose to keep the bar low. If they had wanted to equal CD quality, broadband download speeds have been sufficient for some years.

 

[arcman]

There was not junk produced by the vinyl companies back in the day? Vinyl fans today are always talking about which pressing (not mastering) is the best. Avoid these pressings from this stamping plant, etc. If anything, quality is much more consistent. Many audiophiles admit they cannot hear the difference between the same mastered track from a 256k iTunes vs a CD. I'm willing to bet in a blind test, you would pick the wrong one 90% of the time (assuming tracks had same mastering). BTW, that's the general % of blind test made to recording professionals. If you pick the right ones over 50% in multiple tests, then you are truly have golden ears and need to be in the recording mastering industry (you may be already). I do not download much from Apple myself because I still like physical CD (case, cover, booklet) or I go the HDtracks route for Hi-Rez. Apple is playing to general population here. The same demographic that purchased cassettes and walkmans. Apple is also battling small portable-vs-storage space.

 

 

 

[MaxSeven]

I'm one of those that cannot hear the difference between "the same mastered track" on CD vs any other sample rate. I can hear the difference between a highly regarded SACD mastered recording versus a download of the same song from iTunes. I assume this is because the SACD version was created using a superior conversion method - i.e. the digital mastering was performed with more care. Then again, I could be imagining this.

 

I agree with you your statements though, especially those regarding the urge for "niche" and the strong protest of anything mainstream. I always am ready to admit that I'm totally in it for the equipment and the technology.

 

[arcman]

That's great, because I love the equipment and technology as well. There's a reason why people drive BMW's, etc. They get you back and forth just like the Ford. However, people like the technology, sophistication and luxury and being able to have something different. They are willing to pay a premium. Those drivers do not go to the typical Ford dealer and expect to find the BMW level car there and say "Ford is at it again, trying to dumb down the car business". Mcintosh owners are not going to Best Buy looking for audio nirvana either. Mcintosh owners, back in the day, did not expect to find it at a regular dept. store. Mobile Fidelity Soundlab records were not at Kmart or, for that matter, 95% of record stores. Same thing today. For something extra special, you have to pay a premium and seek it out.

 

[Mark Powell]

I listen to internet radio quite a lot, on precisely the same equipment as ripped CDs, hi res downloads etc. Only two stations, Ace Radio Country Oldies at 128Kbps (half iTunes resolution) and BBC Radio Three at 320Kbps (1.25 times iTunes resolution). I can hear the difference between both of those and a ripped CD (1411 Kbps) every time, without fail. And I am over 60 years old, so I expect most other people can too.

 

Not that it actually matters, because I am not going to pay iTunes near CD prices for their low res junk. Not when I can get the same music at similar prices from other suppliers in full CD resolution. Apple is Ford, the rest are BMW, but in this instance the price is the same and the performance is audibly better.

 

[arcman]

Any internet radio station or XM/Sirrius, I CAN hear a major difference. The quality is extremely poor. If XM/Sirrius sounded as good as iTunes 256k, I would have it in a heartbeat for the car.

 

[arcman]

BTW, I'm not an engineer, but the 256k, etc may not be the deciding factor with sound quality. Bandwidth for internet/cable has a lot to do with sound quality. 1080i HD TV channels look on cable look worse than the same 1080i taken from over the air. Both are still 1080i. Cable has to squeeze the signal to allow more room for other station. Same with 256k iTunes vs internet radio. Using same logic with 256k vs CD, however, I think the audible audio degrading is much less compared to a video presentation.

 

[realhifi]

Be interesting to see 1080p stream over the new Apple TV. I'm betting better res music is to follow.