Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/13/09
Odd.
10/13/09
Yep, that's the same resolution that HD discs allow when a Bluray PC player is connected to a non-HDCP display.
10/13/09
Also why 540p? Thats like the ginger kid of 1080i
Currently this new 'standard' is sounding unnecessary.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/15/09
If it works or not, only time will tell. Basically think of it like MP3. That name became the easier way of knowing if something worked with MPEG1 Layer 3 Audio encoded at a constant bitrate up to a maximum of 320kbit. #iframevideo
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
09/10/09
Has there ever been an image file format that ImageMagick can't still read? Or a video codec (not DRM) that, I dunno, VLC can't still read? Is someone going to remove the GIF decoder from Photoshop or Webkit just because PNG roxors?
Certainly Apple in particular loves to screw old customers when it comes to CPU architectures and whatnot, but AAC is not Apple-proprietary. Hmm, maybe QuickTime 1.x file aren't playable in QuickTime X? I can tell you that my iPhone can play AIFF files, and that's a 21 year old format.
Anyway, your point about lossless being preferable for future re-encoding is certainly valid. I'm just not necessarily convinced that digital codecs will ever become unreadable. Eight-track is of course not analogous because what's missing/broken is a mechanical device.
09/11/09
I would rather avoid that, though, by keeping my music in a format that allows me to easily convert to the standard lossy format of the moment.
09/10/09
09/10/09
I'm a huge believer in ABX testing. I will readily admit that, in my own trials, I am unable to tell the difference between compressed files and lossless files on my equipment, let alone between 44.1KHz and 96KHz material. It would just be nice to at least have the option of buying music at that high of a resolution for archiving. Whether or not I would use it is another question, but I'm sure there are some out there who would.
The section about the 24-bit, 96KHz recordings being available was not meant to imply that I can hear a difference. It was included to illustrate that for less than what iTunes charges you can have something that is, from a technical standpoint, better than CD audio.
09/10/09
09/10/09
While it is a lossy format it is better than .mp3, have you had to throw out your .mp3's recently cause FLAC exists? I dont understand what you mean by that statement.
09/10/09
Hardware is going to change drastically over the next few decades, and it's unclear whether anyone will see the need to write an AAC decoder for quantum computers when everyone is just having music beamed directly into their brain anyway.
09/10/09
09/13/09
09/10/09
But I'm sure you're different. You really CAN tell the difference. ;-)
09/10/09
But that doesn't even matter because you are missing the point completely. the article talks about archiving, you need lossless audio for archival purposes. Because I can assure you after you transcode that aac or mp3 file a few times to different bitrates the average deaf person will be able t tell the difference between that and lossless.
09/10/09
The point isn't that some people can't tell the difference between lossy and lossless audio. It's that for often much less than the price for an iTunes LP, we can buy the CD or LP with perfect lossless audio. So, the new iTunes LP offers no new benefit or convenience whatsoever.
09/10/09
09/10/09
09/10/09
09/10/09
That said, I've given up on multiple libraries--too much of a pain to try to keep both updated. I just keep everything lossless and rotate what is on the iPhone.
09/10/09
09/10/09
09/10/09
I tend to get something like 450MB per CD with Apple Lossless. I thought FLAC was about the same.
09/10/09
lossless files don't matter to joe public. not even remotely. AAC is more than good enough. if you do a listening test on even half decent consumer playback equipment you will find that only one person in 10,000 can hear the difference.
the key for consumers is convenience, not quality. the fact that they can find any music instantly more than covers the maybe factor of getting better quality from a cd.
let me say here that I am actually a professional sound guy, and I've written a bunch of hit records too over the years. and even cd quality sounds terrible to me. it is only 16 bit 44.1k - in other words, every 44.1 thousandth of a second there is dead silence and the playback system has to 'make up' the sound until the next sample plays. it still sounds gritty to my ears.
try listening to an original analog recording mastered on analog, say 'kind of blue' by miles davis on a good vinyl system with a new stylus and compare that to the cd version. it's astonishing what we are missing.
i was involved with the aborted sony 'one bit oversampling' HD CD system a few years ago - it sounded fantastic, nearly as good as the analogue masters but the public didn't hear the difference and so it was quietly dropped.
there ya go
best to all
will henshall
09/11/09
"every 44.1 thousandth of a second there is dead silence" is laughable misrepresentation. Read Wikipedia's PCM article some time.
Also, the disks are called SACD, the one-bit stream technology is called DSD, and both are still going as niche formats.
Anyway, I'm a big fan of vinyl too and would love to see a single "better than CD" format be adopted for sale to obsessive fans as both the ultimate digitization of analog masters and a better-than-CD distribution format. Double-rate DSD could be that format but it's tightly controlled by Sony, and others think higher-res PCM Formats like DTS-HD Master Audio (on Blu-ray) or DXD are audibly superior. And as you say, most people don't care.
09/10/09
Perhaps Apple is keeping alive the memory of those less-than-perfect-sounding LPs by having less-than-perfect-sounding AACs, thus the appropriate name.
09/10/09
However, in my experience, once the album gets a few hundred plays on it, or gets mishandled or dirty, or the needle goes south, the quality drops. I find it much harder to make sure I am able to enjoy an album vs. the limited care needed to enjoy a CD. CD quality is fine for me, and I find the size still acceptable to allow artwork, text, etc. This LP format has the potential to convert a few people such as myself to non-tangible purchases, but it would have to be lossless (or better quality than a CD) to grab me.
09/09/09
09/10/09