Head-Fi.org › Forums › Head-Fi Network & Industry News › NEWS: Apple acquires Beats for $3 Billion (Update: Full interview on recode.net)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NEWS: Apple acquires Beats for $3 Billion (Update: Full interview on recode.net) - Page 9

post #121 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanD View Post
 

That's buying connections. Apple already has enough connections due to iTunes and reputation due to the sales volume of iTunes. I wouldn't be surprised if the deal fell through.

+1

post #122 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonido View Post

This hi res thing is just a marketing ploy. They all know no one will be able to hear the difference from the cheap headphones on the market today. But people will believe they can hear a difference through placebo effect. Anything they can do to separate themselves from competition. Just like the beyond 20kHz rating you get on many headphones. I just hope hi res doesn't mean they add bass to the mastering of songs to actually provide a difference, but that would not surprise me at all.

yea, that's it................. HDtracks, DSD,  SACD rips, double dsd,  24/384 mastering, 24/912 downloads, yes all these people are nuts .........they are just adding bass to it!  :D 

post #123 of 295
Who knows what they're doing to it? But yea, the stuff is bogus, don't want to turn it to one of those threads...but the only thing that matters is bit rate, and 320 is lossless. Even flac is pointless.
post #124 of 295

The ideal situation is receiving a bit-perfect copy of the original engineered master of an album/ single. There is many methods labels, audio companies and media services can skin the "bit-perfect" cat. The differences between these methods while technically different in execution, leave extremely minute differences in performance that are still being debated to death today. 

 

So, regardless if its 24/192, 24/96, 24/48, 16/44 FLAC/ AIFF or DSD (downloaded or SACD)... I really don't care. Just give me a bit-perfect copy of the recording that isn't compressed to hell and back by crap audio production engineering. Let me worry about the volume knob, there is a really nice one attached to my amplifier.


Edited by CJs06 - 5/26/14 at 3:34pm
post #125 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hapster View Post

Who knows what they're doing to it? But yea, the stuff is bogus, don't want to turn it to one of those threads...but the only thing that matters is bit rate, and 320 is lossless. Even flac is pointless.

:popcorn:  :darthsmile:

post #126 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hapster View Post

Who knows what they're doing to it? But yea, the stuff is bogus, don't want to turn it to one of those threads...but the only thing that matters is bit rate, and 320 is lossless. Even flac is pointless.

we both know that it isn't true don't be one of those people, Digital Audio was first Loseless, the compressed files came later after the Loseless standard or red book was established. Objectively it's clear that FLAC has advantages over 320k Mp3, such as mp3's lack of "white noise" or it's 20k Shelf 

 

16bit flac is what we get off of RedBook, anything byound that is debateable 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bixby View Post
 

:popcorn:  :darthsmile:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJs06 View Post
 

The ideal situation is receiving a bit-perfect copy of the original engineered master of an album/ single. There is many methods labels, audio companies and media services can skin the "bit-perfect" cat. The differences between these methods while technically different in execution, leave extremely minute differences in performance that are still being debated to death today. 

 

So, regardless if its 24/192, 24/96, 24/48, 16/44 FLAC/ AIFF or DSD (downloaded or SACD)... I really don't care. Just give me a bit-perfect copy of the recording that isn't compressed to hell and back by crap audio production engineering. Let me worry about the volume knob, there is a really nice one attached to my amplifier.

agreed 

post #127 of 295

hi-res?  ...........................these folks must have been in Denver on 4-20  or Neil paid them all off.................or no it's PLACEBO!

 

And he used his car stereo to demo the difference.  Makes you go hmmmmm

 

https://d2pq0u4uni88oo.cloudfront.net/projects/884493/video-355903-h264_high.mp4

 

:popcorn:

post #128 of 295
Meh, I'm fine with people playing whatever files they want, and sure, it'd be nice for 320 files from iTunes, but as soon as they start charging more, or start making 96khz+ I'll get edgey, since everyone knows 96kz+ hurts the fidelity and it'll be clear it's just a cash grab.
post #129 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hapster View Post

Meh, I'm fine with people playing whatever files they want, and sure, it'd be nice for 320 files from iTunes, but as soon as they start charging more, or start making 96khz+ I'll get edgey, since everyone knows 96kz+ hurts the fidelity and it'll be clear it's just a cash grab.

Hi Hapster:

 

I might be one of the few that does not know, so could you please explain or help me understand your statement: "everyone knows 96kz+ hurts the fidelity"

 

thanks 

post #130 of 295
...y'know what. I'll just stop. I don't think there's a way to do this without insulting people. I just don't want iTunes taking advantage of people, like so many audio companies do already.

Also,
Quote:
Originally Posted by bixby View Post

Hi Hapster:

I might be one of the few that does not know, so could you please explain or help me understand your statement: "everyone knows 96kz+ hurts the fidelity"

thanks 

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
post #131 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hapster View Post

Meh, I'm fine with people playing whatever files they want, and sure, it'd be nice for 320 files from iTunes, but as soon as they start charging more, or start making 96khz+ I'll get edgey, since everyone knows 96kz+ hurts the fidelity and it'll be clear it's just a cash grab.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bixby View Post
 

Hi Hapster:

 

I might be one of the few that does not know, so could you please explain or help me understand your statement: "everyone knows 96kz+ hurts the fidelity"

 

thanks 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hapster View Post

...y'know what. I'll just stop. I don't think there's a way to do this without insulting people. I just don't want iTunes taking advantage of people, like so many audio companies do already.

Also,
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Actually Hapster makes a good point, I got a chance to read over that article a few months back my self. It's a good one indeed.

 

back to what I mentioned earlier anything above Red Book, or 16/44.1 imo is unessicary. And most of the 24/96khz that I have are Vinyl Rips, and I can understand the people ripping those doing it at such a high sample rate, but anything byound that is unessicary imo 

post #132 of 295

Woof.

post #133 of 295

All of these digressions about the Hi-Res Holy Wars don't really belong here IMO. :mad::evil:

 

Back on topice, I'm beginning the lean toward this doubters about the Apple-Beats deal really happening.

 

Although a top business publication (the New York Post) is reporting that the deal is still on but the price has dropped:

 

Apple Cuts Purchase Price of Beats

post #134 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfurey89 View Post
 

Woof.

 

Wrong rapper, mate.

post #135 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalSF View Post
 

All of these digressions about the Hi-Res Holy Wars don't really belong here IMO. :mad::evil:

 

Back on topice, I'm beginning the lean toward this doubters about the Apple-Beats deal really happening.

 

Although a top business publication (the New York Post) is reporting that the deal is still on but the price has dropped:

 

Apple Cuts Purchase Price of Beats

That might just be Apple retailiating against Dr Dre's foolishness 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Head-Fi Network & Industry News
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Head-Fi Network & Industry News › NEWS: Apple acquires Beats for $3 Billion (Update: Full interview on recode.net)