New Macbook Pro 15 inch touch bar 2017 - internal DAC only 48khz?

[Decodering]

12 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

No surprise.  Apple hates music, and the only thing they hate worse than music is Audiophiles.

I don't think Apple hates music and audiophiles -- they just see music playback and delivery differently than audiophiles do.

 

Yes, Apple frustrates me with their dacs (especially on the iPhone) and iTunes (specifically the inability to natively and easily transfer 24/96 files to said iPhone). And I think their disregard for audio formats in anything above 256 AAC is bewildering, which I think speaks more to them resting on their laurels instead of truly "innovating" on that front. I sometimes think about switching allegiances (platforms) because their focus is often not on audio issues important to me.

 

But to say that Apple hates music is a gross overgeneralisation. Unfortunately, there are just not the options important to audiophiles that can all be found in Apple's universe.

[Decodering]

21 hours ago, wwaldmanfan said:

 

Not entirely true. iTunes supports 320VBR and AIFF, which Apple developed in 1988. I like AIFF, because it works on nearly all platforms and audio software, including HQPlayer, Audacity, TT DR Offline Meter, etc.

You're right about AIFF; the support is generally fine and the music files sound good. The only problem I find with files created in AIFF format are the 24/96 files that iTunes won't transfer to my iPhone, which is the limit to which I was referring in my post. Having to manually transfer them in a separate step after using the super-handy wireless syncing function is just a (small) frustration.

 

Another thing I don't get about iTunes (Apple) is why there is still no option for iTunes to automatically convert files to ALAC when transferring to an iDevice. Even after all these years and all the gains in storage capacity, one still can't have iTunes automatically create ALAC files when copying files. 256 AAC files are still the best one can hope for. Again, it just shows that Apple has its own ideas about music playback that don't match up with audiohphile expectations and use cases.

[Decodering]

17 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

@Decodering:

 

I am guessing that "hate" is too strong a word, maybe our Apple audio engineers are just dead souls.

 

References:

 

1. NOMBE'S BLOG, COMPUTER AUDIOPHILE (reprinted in full for your enjoyment) (infra)

2. The Agony of Eros, Byung-Chul Han

3. The Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom

4.  Is Modern Love Endangered?  The Weekly Standard, Tim Markatos

5.  Allan Bloom's Souls Without Longing, All Grown up.  Public Discourse, The Witherspoon Institute, Peter Augustine Lawler

 

Our techno overlords at Facebook, Google, Apple et al, are, as described by Bloom are " [souls] racked with longing and hunger for something they know not how to name."  Love and by extension music are alien to them.  As Peter Augustine Lawler comments in the"souls without longing" article, Not only is love alien to them but  "any form of heart-enlarging experience that would threaten one's independence and survival.  They are, deep down, social solitaries."

 

So when you wonder why an IOS update had made your DAC scrap, reflect that they do not love anything (maybe code?)  and they have barren souls which cannot love music.   Further, the recent 10 page screed by the former Google engineer,  James Damore,  indicates no love for women either.  

 

NOMBE'S BLOG POST:

 

Apple hates audiophiles.  They have made Billions off of iTunes, but deep down inside their cold, code driven hearts they hate us.  They are bloodless, they don't enjoy music except as an entry on their accounts receivable ledger. They don't enjoy sex because it can't be monetized in a family-friendly environment.  Every update that is spewed from Cupertino is just an excuse to damage the free flow of music through our assorted DACs.  One update kills W4S DAC-2, the next update is unwittingly targeted against some other innocent.

 

A History:  (This is a true story.....in respect for the dead the names have been changed.  In respect for the living the story is represented as true)

 

Jane graduates from CalTech.  She is smart, she received excellent grades and she is very technically adept, she can code with the best of them.  She did the right internships, checked all the boxes with the right professors and mentors.  She applied to several tech companies and, upon graduation, she accepted a job at Apple.

 

Jane's first assignment at Apple is to work on OS X whatever.  The new update to the existing operating system.

Now she is on her own.  As a junior member of the team, she knows she must contribute something.  Even if the customer has no need or desire for an upgrade, Jane has to change something, improve something, do something to justify her employment.

 

Well multiply Jane by 1001 and you get the picture.  Young engineers and coders who have never heard of Miles Davis, who think music is some thin screech supported by a computer generated bass line emitting from a .27cent ear bud and you can see why the so called updates to our operating systems are, for the audiophile, much more trouble than they are worth.

 

 

I totally get what you're saying; still, I think the issue is that there are just overriding considerations at Apple that take precedence over audiophile preferences.

 

To me, it falls under the category of Apple's frustrating channeling of all their energy to creating products and services that, at the end of the day, don't really take more advanced users into consideration. The years-long drought of true pro-level hardware, middling and sometimes dumbed-down software, and a general tendency to iterate when, in the past, the company would have been more daring tell me that the focus is on middle-of-the-road solutions and leaving just enough wiggle room for people looking to push the limits of the system to tinker.

 

Creating a music reproduction environment that moves people beyond what was innovative a decade or so ago doesn't seem to be a huge draw for Apple. (As an aside, I'm keen to hear the upcoming HomePod.) And, yes, it clashes with the oft-repeated "music is in our DNA" spiel. But I take it as Apple directing its ressources to reach other ends than responding to audiophile expectations.

[Decodering]

I've thought back to the OP's topic of whether Apple snuck in an inferior DAC in the new MBP that maxes out at 16/48; if really true, it is a step back for no real reason that benefits audiophiles. And that, to me, is the subtext of the original comment, since this an audiophile site.

 

That's what makes using Apple products frustrating occasionally for my case use (and presumably that of others here). There just don't seem to be any technical reasons to focus on music reproduction that relies on inferior music formats. In the near past, small storage size and less-than-robust wireless transfer protocols meant that Apple had to be careful about its choices in order to ensure smooth reproduction for millions of people. Today, iDevices come with more space, and wireless transfer is basically solved. But Apple doesn't seem to want to push just a little bit to take advantage of these advances and consequently push the fidelity of music reproduction to a higher level.

 

The company doesn't have to go as far as supporting DSD and other niche-within-a-niche formats and such. But it could so easily build its ecosystem around CD-quality playback. At the very least, it could decide that ALAC is the new lowest common denominator and leave AAC in the same dustbin as many of the other technologies it's ditched over the years. Apple is in a position to explain to millions and millions of people why music fidelity is important and act to show people the difference. It just doesn't seem interested in doing so.

 

I'm not saying Apple is bad for the decisions it makes (I still am a fanboy, after all), but it seems like a missed opportunity for everyone involved -- customers/music lovers, the artists, and the company. Also, for a company that sells premium-priced devices, those choses dim a little of lustre they could have.

[Decodering]

3 minutes ago, foodfiend said:

Not for as long as the music labels prevent Apple from selling Red Book quality ALAC in the iTunes store. It would not make any commercial sense, since it would slap itself in the face by saying ALAC is better than AAC, but not have any ALAC available in the iTunes Store or available for streaming via Apple Music. However, that does not mean that the larger hardware eco-system should use AAC as the de facto standard and start dismantling any high-fidelity hardware support. iPods and iPhones only support 16/44.1 and 16/48 music, whatever the file format, but it would be really a move backwards to then strip the ability of the computers to handle higher resolutions.

If the labels are really the culprit behind the lack of Redbook quality playback (if something verifiable has been published to that effect, I'd be interested in seeing it), I highly doubt Apple couldn't negotiate ALAC as a distribution standard. And while it would take some doing to change their ecosystem, it's not like it doesn't already have all the tools necessary to do so.

 

All Apple has to do is say that AAC was a major breakthrough many years ago (it definitely was a step up from mp3) but that advances now allow for better sound reproduction. In doing so, they get to look good, show now much they love music, and get an opportunity to move the ball forward. It really would be pretty simple and completely in line with ways they've marketed changes in the past.

[Decodering]

Just now, foodfiend said:

When Apple launched iTunes back in 2007, music was in 128 kbps AAC. Then came iTunes Plus - 256 kbps AAC, available from only EMI and some independent labels (not Sony or Warner Music). Then in 2009, the whole music store moved to 256 kbps AAC. The evolution of what was available in iTunes Plus to the general availability of 256 kbps AAC shows the power of the music labels in licensing deals.

 

Not sure if it is still 100% accurate, but the music labels still have a lot of power. With the sales of downloads falling, I am not sure if Apple will be too bothered about this anyway. They would just focus on growing Apple Music.

I agree with your thoughts on Apple Music. It's just that Apple could focus on that AND improve the quality of playback with no downside and lots of feel-good marketing benefits.