Steve Jobs was working on 24/192 downloads

http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/01/neil_young_was_working_with_apple_on_super_high_def_music_format_.html

Steve was working on HD format. Unlike hdtracks apple could push this. Currently on hold! Audiophiles petition time!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Injury 

Pointless anyway. Just give us lossless.

I think cd ripped 16/44.1 will be included iF they ever try to do this. I know what u meant by lossless as 16/44.1 CD ripped into a compressed lossless format in this case ALAC. But lossless. By itself is nothing

Like on overclock.net where i have heard that u cant say overkill since nothig is overkill on an enthusiast website. Nothing is overkill or too much quality in terms of audio on our site

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalowings 

well, I think his point is, the limit has been reached, we just like having high numbers or impressive looking numbers

on overclocking websites for computer, people overclock to 8.4-8.6 ghz (w/e the limit is currently) by adding liquid nitrogen or helium just because those numbers are cool

it is a bit different and similar at the same time. the GHz actual does give you an increase in that processor's "speed" but .....fails to have any real world usage as we can't keep those stable. The 24/192 are impressive, and the equipment audiophile's have with the impressive numbers is also quite nice. Even though we can only hear up to 22KHz when we are babies and ~18KHz right now. the sample rate needs to be over double the maximum human rnage for all that stuff. i have heard that sibilance with those ss sounds and what not is added in like...what was it. 30KHz sampling or something like that. couldn'[t there be more added to our general hearing if it's 192 KHz?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Injury 

Overclocking produces measurable improvements in performance.

 

Probably shouldn't discuss all that here.

we kinda are in the member's lounge 

But anyway. there is a astute deman of head fi and from audiophiles to getting at leastCD ripped 16bit 44.1KHz music in a compressed lossless format into the mainstream world. Apple can and would be ebst to pull this off. and why not add 24/192 performance in there as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamstrain 

Aside from big questions over whether the additional "performance" adds anything of value (audibly or measurably) whatsoever - especially given the deplorable state of most masters these days anyway... there isn't enough dynamic range to make the data loads worth the trouble. 

24bit dynamic range

24*6= 144dB dynamic range not enough? what do you use then? just curious. Data loads. in the age of ipod's with Cirrus Logic's and bigger batteries...should we stil even consider data load?

...yeah masters are pretty bad these days. there are some good ones though.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamstrain 

It's too much. There is very little hard evidence to suggest that 16/44 is any worse sounding that 24/192. 

Yeah tht is what i have been thinking about..but we are on head fi........why change that cable or do this and that when different ears report different things for small audio changes and what not? 24/192 will appeal to many which is what

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Injury 

A few reasons:

• Apple sells primarily for portable use, which is what most customers use. 24/192 is even more of a waste of space when you store music on portable flash drives. Even assuming ALAC compresses to about half, a 40 minute album will take up 1.4 GB of space at 24/192. A 32 GB iPod would only store about 15 hours of music, compared to five times that at 16/44.1 lossless, or over ten times that high bit rate lossy. Not many people are going to buy that
• The added cost of storing and uploading all of that extra data in addition to the 16/44.1 files for the relatively few sales
• Record companies likely supply Apple with 16/44.1 masters. So their options would be to upsample (which would be pointless) or request 24/192 masters, and they'd probably get charged extra for those
• iPods would need to support 24/192, which will require more money for more engineering and production cost without much increase in sales
• 24/192 files don't actually sound different unless the mastering is different!

 

So lots of money lost for little gain.

yeah that. ALL of that was on my mind. the benefits of 24/192.... i think 16/44.1 should be what they do in ALAC format so about 16MB per song. ipod's can easily support this. storage is gettting cheaper and growing and as we audiophiles already use it..not hard.