Apple WWDC?

Paul R · June 6, 2011

Anyone at WWDC today? I am only there in a virtual sense.

Nothing yet about iCloud, talking about Mission Control, which is a full screen interface. Kinda cool, sorta reminds me of Theater View in J. River MC., but with two finger controls. Oh wait - it's like - an iPad!

Paul R · June 6, 2011

It will remember where you are, even over reboots, and restore your system to exactly where it was when you rebooted. That's going to be fun for PM, Decibel, Amarra, and all the music apps that try hard to control processor and disk activity. No clue if you can turn it off or not!

It also looks like the Time Machine idea has been extended into the OS in a big way. Every file on the system is versioned? You can restore a file to any previous version, or even edit two versions at the same time. They demo'ed cut and paste just now. Guess that means if you screw up your iTunes library, you can get it back easier now...

Air Drop is (apparently) much better Peer to Peer ad-hoc wireless networking. No need to setup sharing, it's encrypted, and it looks simple. Perhaps they will include it on the iPhone/iPad, and make controlling music servers an easier thing to do. Waiting for the iTunes/iCloud annoucements, but it will be a while.

---

Newstand - magazine and newspaper subscriptions, looks like iBooks, automatic downloads, updates, and more. Not sure if it has any bearing or nor on the Audio world, but it looks cool. They used a copy of SPIN with Mumford and Sons on the cover as an example.

----

Will be a while before they get to iCloud.

Paul R · June 6, 2011

Well, I need a beer. Several of them actually. Today's news may be great big shakes for the 20-somethings, but for anyone with a serious digital music collection, I'm not at all sure it is good news. I'm not sure it is all doom and gloom either, but without more details and facts, who knows?

Basically, for $25/year, iTunes will now store your music in the cloud, using Scan and Match. If the song on your Mac or PC exists in the iTunes database, iTunes online will gracefully "upgrade" you to a 256kbs AAC DRM Free copy. No charge. No mention of audiophile grade sound, nor of what will happen if you have say, an ALAC file and the new iTunes in the Cloud "upgrades" your copy to be 256kbs AAC. Other than a few people, me included, having to resist an urge to commit mayhem on Apple.

I've also been going through the developer seed, and with all the changes in MacOS, it might be a pretty bleak outlook for high end music players, at least in some ways.

On the good side, it might encourage Amarra and Pure Music to write a database/front end that does not use iTunes. Or to port to Linux maybe. Silver cloud to every lining, eh?

In any case, I am one disappointed person right now. Perhaps better news will break through in the next couple weeks.

-Paul

Matty · June 6, 2011

Paul, don't complain to Apple just yet. The way I heard it is that your high-res music files in iTunes on your Mac/PC will remain the same, but your database backup in "the cloud" will register your non-iTunes purchased music as 256kbps AAC file.

So, for example, at home you listen to and enjoy your music via iTunes playing from your Mac's HD. When you're out and about, however, you might want to listening to some music that you haven't synced to your iOS device by directly connecting it to your Mac. But that doesn't matter because iTunes on your iOS device knows what's on your Mac at home & will download this music from the cloud so that you can listen to it. It may 'only' be 256kbps but it's better than not having it at all.

That might be a long-winded explanation, but that's how I see it. I hope that's how it's going to work, otherwise I'll be raging at Apple with you!

- Matthew

Akapod · June 6, 2011

256k isn't great, but it's as good or better than the vast majority of internet radio stations out there. I would also think its perfectly fine for listening through an iPhone/iPad. Were Apple to have allowed something like ALAC, my back-of-the-envelope calculations show that you'd be eating up 800-900k of bandwidth. That's obviously not a problem for wifi, but at 3G, I think it would be.

Just for fun, I'll see if I can hear a difference between a 256k file and an ALAC one using my iPhone and a set of Bose headphones. My gut is that I might, but that it won't be much.

Paul R · June 6, 2011

I'm more afeared this blasted synchronization will try to overwrite stuff with low res content. I'm still studying the developer seed, this stuff is Complex, with a capital 'C'.

I'm not ready to complain - after all, they will make a lot of people happy with this! It is just that they didn't bother to address the special interest sector I am most interested in. (grin)

But the automatic backups and file synching just introduces so many different ways for things to SNAFU, well... I expected a bit better control.

-Paul

realhifi · June 7, 2011

No one should be surprised at this approach to music playback.

It is looking more and more like Apple is NOT going to be the one to bring hires music to the masses and those that are interested in that will be looking at other options besides trying to use iTunes as their main source of music management.

There are too many other very good options out there to keep hoping that iTunes will get it's act together. Let's all get it together and start supporting those sites that offer decent downloads (at least cd quality) and see if we can't turn this tide around and make sure that decent sound doesn't get lost in the scramble of making music from a computer source. Every lable that sells downoadable music (besides Apple of course) needs to know that yes, we are willing to pay more and are more than willing to support lables that offer high quality files.

I still think it is tied to recording companies not wanting to let high res files out there to be copied and sold.

The first brush that everyone had with stolen music being so widely available is coming back down hard on those that wanted nothing more than to keep purchasing music only doing it in a different way.

Apples whole music thing today was pretty much depressing if you ask me.

wgb113 · June 7, 2011

I'm not sure why so many of you expected some sort of high-resolution audio announcement today when the focus of the week is on the two operating systems and iCloud.

If this were a major iTunes refresh (usually comes in the fall) and nothing was announced I could see the disappointment but it's not.

The $25/year to have a good majority of my music files automatically converted and stored for me with access from just about anywhere is a great feature to me. I no longer have to rip a CD to AIFF on one Mac, pull it into another and convert it to MP3 for syncing with our iPhones, iPods, and iPads. This is going to save a ton of time and allow my family to keep everything in sync without worrying about what computer to connect to, what user profile to log in as, etc. This is sweet!

Do I hope Apple has hi-res up their sleeve for a future release of iTunes? You bet. But this wasn't the time I was expecting that announcement.

Bill

The Computer Audiophile · June 7, 2011

Just got off the phone with the LA Times discussing iCloud and I'm working on a follow-up article to my Cloud Music services article.

So far I'm underwhelmed by iCloud as far as music is concerned.

Part-Time Audiophile · June 7, 2011

It's a backup service. It's a direct replacement/upgrade for MobileMe that just happens to have some music-relevant features to it.

The replacement-for-less-than-256Kbps files is nice, but it's not a favor -- it's far less costly to Apple to simple allow you to download from their catalog as all they'll need is a single live instance and a big ol' access control list to grant/deny usage to it. ACLs are text files (or databases) and are manage-ably small in relation to the petabytes necessary to keep everyone's music separate and unique. It's a genius approach, really. But the fact that the files are better than some of the crap that's been floating around on your harddrive since Napster collapsed (you know who you are) isn't Apple being nice to you and it isn't a feature. It's a happy accident, and a byproduct of the synching/disaster recovery nature of iCloud.

At least, as iCloud is currently being marketed. Doesn't mean that they can't do something more audio-like with it at some point in the future. And I suspect they will -- that's a lot of infrastructure they just built out and I bet they have quite a lot of plans for monetizing all that hardware.

realhifi · June 7, 2011

Quote:

"I'm not sure why so many of you expected some sort of high-resolution audio announcement today when the focus of the week is on the two operating systems and iCloud.

If this were a major iTunes refresh (usually comes in the fall) and nothing was announced I could see the disappointment but it's not.

The $25/year to have a good majority of my music files automatically converted and stored for me with access from just about anywhere is a great feature to me. I no longer have to rip a CD to AIFF on one Mac, pull it into another and convert it to MP3 for syncing with our iPhones, iPods, and iPads. This is going to save a ton of time and allow my family to keep everything in sync without worrying about what computer to connect to, what user profile to log in as, etc. This is sweet!

Do I hope Apple has hi-res up their sleeve for a future release of iTunes? You bet. But this wasn't the time I was expecting that announcement.

Bill"

I agree with all you said there Bill. The cloud is going to make life a TON easier in not just music backup and access but in file backup also. It looks like a home run to me.

But. I think we may be daydreaming about hires service. I hope you are wrong but I have a sneaking suspicion that iTunes as we know it will continue with the level of quality and resolution that it currently has. One reason is the enormous bandwidth that would be needed to store and playback hires from the "cloud" which certainly looks like the future if not long term, at least short term for Apple's music strategy. That's why the long face and the somewhat muted response to the press conference.

If...if...Apple was to go in cahoots with someone like HDTracks that already has at least a somewhat head start on hires sales and downloading then I could see Apple getting into it but realistically, I doubt it. The one shining light in all of this could be Airplay. If THAT gets fresh legs and ends up being able to stream 24/96 or 24/192 from iTunes (once it has been ripped) then that could be fantastic little piece of the puzzle. So maybe we are more looking at hardware driven changes needed on the Apple front rather than a wholesale redo of a hugely successful music purchasing and management system.

Apple Media Center anyone?

Akapod · June 8, 2011

As my comment above, I performed a thoroughly unscientific test to see whether a higher bit rate would result in improved music quality when using an iPhone/iPad and a pair of pretty decent headphones (Bose OE).

I made a copy of Jane Monheit's "Waters of March" in 256 AAC format, and loaded that and an ALAC version onto my iPhone. I think the ALAC version does sound slightly better, but I wouldn't bet on me in A/B testing.

In short, 256 AAC is sufficient for mobile devices.

It is, in fact, close enough for jazz.

syganymede · June 12, 2011

It seems to me that the iCloud choice of AAC lossy files is going to have a longer term effect on how the mass market buys its music.

Major deliveries today are by MP3, AAC, CD and FLAC. With most at 16bit/44.1kHz, except FLAC for 24bit/96-192kHz. But Apple's dominant choice of AAC could have an infkuence on the sales of CD's which are higher quality through being uncompressed, and thus lossless.

If this happens the whole market will move to a lower, not higher, reproduction quality.

So what would be nice to see

1 A move to using 16/48 for AAC files = better dybamic range

2 An offer of 24/48 FLAC tracks for better dynamics, timbre, etc, this being the logical upgrade from CDs

3 A HD offering at 24/96-192 for "aiming high" users.

What do you think? Is the CD dead?

Akapod · June 12, 2011

As ITunes AAC is already based on 16/44.1, bumping the standard up to 16/48 wouldn't make much of a difference. Going from 128 to 256 kbps (as Apple will with iCloud) will make a big difference. It won't be the same as a CD, but it should be more than enough for mobile use.

I would love, however, to learn why Apple doesn't offer "standard" (256 kbps AAC) and "hi-def" (24/96 ALAC) the way it offers standard and hi-def movies and television shows. And, as long as I'm complaining, I'd also like to know why Apple doesn't offer a true Blu-Ray quality option for videos (at a premium price). Apple's hi-def option looks great on a computer, but is crushed by Blu-Ray on a high-quality LCD/plasma screen.

I assume in both cases the answer lies with the intransigence of the record companies and film and TV studios.

Paul R · June 12, 2011

I assume in both cases the answer lies with the intransigence of the record companies and film and TV studios.

That and the sheer quantity. There are a lot more music tracks than Movies or Television shows right now. That will, of course, change.

-Paul

new_media · June 12, 2011

FWIW, iTunes uses the "low complexity" profile for encoding AAC; the bit depth is internally floating point, so it isn't inherently 16-bit or 24-bit. (Some other AAC profiles are capable of 24/96, but aren't compatible with most Apple hardware). AAC (and MP3) can be encoded directly from a 24-bit master without dithering.

As wgscott pointed out in another thread, there are also rare examples of tracks from the iTunes Store with a 48 kHz sampling rate. It's up to the artist/record label to encode their own material for the iTunes store; Apple only requires that it meets certain specifications to be compatible with their hardware. I assume most encode straight from redbook.

I wouldn't expect an announcement on HD music downloads from iTunes until the hardware has caught up. I expect iPods, iPhones, Apple TV, and AirPort express to natively support 24/96 ALAC at some point in the future, but probably not in 2011.

And based on my shopping experience yesterday, yes, the CD is dead. I had a coupon for the Tedeschi Trucks Band's new CD from Best Buy for $7.99. I went to my local Best Buy only to find out they they didn't stock this release. They have reduced their CD section from 10 or 12 racks down to 2 and their selection is abysmal. (They did have an ample surplus of the new GaGa.) The nearest Best Buy that stocked this release was 30 minutes away, so I walked across the street to the mall and found it for $9.99 at FYE.

Akapod · June 12, 2011

New Media: I'm not sure that the hardware needs to catch up. The Apple TV uses the same chip as the iPhone (the A4), and has enough juice to output hi-def (720p) video. I would think that to be more than enough to handle a 24/96 audio file. And the iPad runs off the A5.

Paul: Fair -- but you wouldn't need to add them all at once. There are still many movies/TV shows that are only available in standard definition.

new_media · June 12, 2011

I would assume that the Apple TV has the processing power to handle hi-res audio, it's the optical output that I'm not sure about. Same with the AirPort Express; it definitely has the bandwidth, but I'm not sure about the output circuitry. iPad can handle hi-res as is; just need to upgrade software to output hi-res via USB.

arooj · October 18, 2011

Wow thanks for such a cool post here. I have never tried anything like that before but now I will definitely do it. I love your blog because I can find amazing tutorial here every single time I visit it. Thanks for publishing this one one more time and keep such a great job in the future too!