Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
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
09/09/09
On top of that, there is no established standard for lossless audio. Apple has their format, Open-source kids love FLAC. Does the Zune even have its own lossless codec? I have no idea. The only standard for lossless is uncompressed, which means 600-700 MB/album. I'm sure ISP's love that.
Maybe, when 1TB of Flash costs less, we can consider it. But for now, audio compression serves a purpose.
09/10/09
≥_≤ The nightmares of PlaysForSure still haunt me...
09/10/09
09/10/09
Ironically, this would have tuned out with my name and my avatar if I still had my star. Unfortunately, trying to do tomfoolery in a disemvoweled thread on Kotaku can have major consequences...
Sadly, I am now back to being just another lowly peon in Giygas's workforce. B-(
On another note, I really wish they would release a MOTHER compilation on the DS already. Being a longtime EB/MOTHER fan, I've already lost some of that hope already. But luckily, like any MOTHER fan would do, I have safely stored some of that hope in a safe, ready to spend it all when the right time comes. ;)
09/10/09
09/09/09
1. Keep your MP3 or AAC files with huge file size and mediocre quality compared to the new format.
2. Buy the same songs (AGAIN) encoded with the new format on iTunes or any other digital store.
3. Rip your CDs again to the new format in whatever settings and quality you want without spending a dime.
As far as I'm concerned, Lossless files are not meant for daily hearing in the digital world; they're more like master files you use for archival and maybe editing or re-mastering in some point sooner or later. Audiophiles doesn't have anything to do with this (I'm not one but i do give the proper importance to sound quality for a better enjoyment and musical appreciation).
The issue is that you should have a digital equivalent to point 3 for the same or an extra (but little) price instead of buying low quality rips for the same price of the psychical CD. It's not about complaining for something you can't distinguish when you're hearing but about not being limited when you want to manipulate your media however you want.
09/09/09
09/09/09
No, then we'll start arguing that the stereo version of so-and-so is more "authentic", or that the instrument placement is entirely out of whack. And as usual, the arguments will largely volley back and forth between people who listen to their equipment more than their collection.
Look dammit, I have Cake's Fashion Nugget encoded at 128kpbs. In MP3. And it sounds great You know why? Because it's f**king Fashion Nugget.
Look, you already said it yourself: 99.99% of the population couldn't hear the difference. I'll wager that 99.9% of the population also doesn't care. That leaves 0.09% wringing their hands over whether their White Snake albums aren't being given their proper soundstage. Of that percentage, I'd imagine only 5% actually own speakers that would even spell the difference-- speakers likely worth an average Joe's annual salary, each. God knows who among this sliver can actually hear that difference. Apple stopped giving a shit after the first decimal point. So have I.
09/09/09
I don't listen to my music in lossless. It sits on a hard drive waiting for when the next lossy format comes out. When it does, I do a batch re-encode. Anything that I've bought through Amazon or iTunes, though, can't go through that re-encode without significantly degrading the sound quality because the source is already lossy. When MP3 or AAC reach their inevitable end-of-life, I either have to buy those songs again again, or bite the bullet and transcode from lossy-to-lossy.
That's what I'm hoping to avoid by having all of my music in lossless, whether I bought it on CD or online.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09