"Jobs was working on new audio format to replicate vinyl"

[fractal]

the signal changed from digital to analog at the cutting head. so the signal is no longer the same when it's on vinyl as it was on the original wav. alot of people prefer how the analog signal changes the sound. it's the same as people using valve amps instead of digital amps, they prefer the processing of the original signal when it goes through this medium.

this is the truth right here. there are a lot of mediums that add something to the sound, vinyl is one of them.

[pompende]

the signal changed from digital to analog at the cutting head. so the signal is no longer the same when it's on vinyl as it was on the original wav. alot of people prefer how the analog signal changes the sound. it's the same as people using valve amps instead of digital amps, they prefer the processing of the original signal when it goes through this medium.

spot on.
still, i can't imagine what this could possibly be other than a frequency shaped lossless .aac file... maybe there would also be some compression that would vary in ratio and threshold across frequency?
i'm really struggling to understand how that would require more space than the existing lossless apple audio formats, tho.

[timmyyabas]

yeah, sounds like a load of nonsense, is still going to be a digital file at the end of the day, probably a lossless one, but you can get files up to any frequency/bitrate/bits per sample/channels you want these days. making it sound more like vinyl i guess would require some sort of digital processing, but it's still never going to sound like vinyl otherwise you could just do it in your daw.

[tyger]

journalists lack background knowledge, hence get it wrong. this is all assuming that neil young said something that made sense in the first place.

the signal changed from digital to analog at the cutting head. so the signal is no longer the same when it's on vinyl as it was on the original wav. alot of people prefer how the analog signal changes the sound. it's the same as people using valve amps instead of digital amps, they prefer the processing of the original signal when it goes through this medium.

this is the truth right here. there are a lot of mediums that add something to the sound, vinyl is one of them.

if you cut a wav to vinyl, play the vinyl and convert back to digital, then you have a different wav, which will sound like vinyl? ... is there any reason why there couldn't be a program which creates the second wav from the first wav without using vinyl?

[timmyyabas]

journalists lack background knowledge, hence get it wrong. this is all assuming that neil young said something that made sense in the first place.

the signal changed from digital to analog at the cutting head. so the signal is no longer the same when it's on vinyl as it was on the original wav. alot of people prefer how the analog signal changes the sound. it's the same as people using valve amps instead of digital amps, they prefer the processing of the original signal when it goes through this medium.

this is the truth right here. there are a lot of mediums that add something to the sound, vinyl is one of them.

if you cut a wav to vinyl, play the vinyl and convert back to digital, then you have a different wav, which will sound like vinyl? ... is there any reason why there couldn't be a program which creates the second wav from the first wav without using vinyl?

not really, otherwise people wouldn't still use valve amps (i'm not saying hundreds to, but some do), they can be simulated digitally, but it's never the same. same reason folk use hardware, software is cheaper and maybe easier, but you can never emulate it exactly as the original was wired up to sound. unless someone wants to find me a software 303. i can't afford a real one.

i forgot to add, the wav recorded from vinyl, won't sound like vinyl as it has been converted from analog back to digital. the conversion from an analog wave to 1's and 0's will also have an effect on the sound. it will probably sound more like vinyl than the original wav however.

[tyger]

journalists lack background knowledge, hence get it wrong. this is all assuming that neil young said something that made sense in the first place.

the signal changed from digital to analog at the cutting head. so the signal is no longer the same when it's on vinyl as it was on the original wav. alot of people prefer how the analog signal changes the sound. it's the same as people using valve amps instead of digital amps, they prefer the processing of the original signal when it goes through this medium.

this is the truth right here. there are a lot of mediums that add something to the sound, vinyl is one of them.

if you cut a wav to vinyl, play the vinyl and convert back to digital, then you have a different wav, which will sound like vinyl? ... is there any reason why there couldn't be a program which creates the second wav from the first wav without using vinyl?

not really, otherwise people wouldn't still use valve amps (i'm not saying hundreds to, but some do), they can be simulated digitally, but it's never the same. same reason folk use hardware, software is cheaper and maybe easier, but you can never emulate it exactly as the original was wired up to sound. unless someone wants to find me a software 303. i can't afford a real one.

nobody may know how to make a software 303 now, but why shouldn't it happen eventually? allowing that it may be hard problem - i.e. it might require first mastering areas of knowledge that we know nothing about. perhaps another hard problem is a perfectly convincing artificial human voice.

i forgot to add, the wav recorded from vinyl, won't sound like vinyl as it has been converted from analog back to digital. the conversion from an analog wave to 1's and 0's will also have an effect on the sound. it will probably sound more like vinyl than the original wav however.

i don't think this is right. unless the wav format isn't good enough in some way - and there are at least different sample rates & sizes to choose from - or could there be some other general limitation in wavs? ... but unless the wav format isn't good enough, then a digital format (1s and 0s) is neutral - i.e. it can in theory sound as like vinyl as vinyl does - because all possible sounds can be expressed in a perfect digital format.

[timmyyabas]

it's not that the format isn't good enough, both formats have limiting factors. it's the fact that they both work in completely different ways. you can increase sample rates etc. all day, but all you will get is a closer approximation. it's like expressing root 2 or pie (can't be arsed finding the symbols) in decimal form. you can increase the amount of decimal places as much as you like, but all you will get is a closer approximation. unless you can increase the numbers to infinity, which is impossible. same applies for sample rates etc. when representing an analog signal.

[tyger]

oh, i see.

it's when you reach an approximation where the difference is indistinguishable to the human ear ... does anybody care about the difference they can't hear? and if so, why?

[_TraX_]

iWax- can't really replicate it without the look and feel of it tho! Nothing like slick cover art!

[test_recordings]

The article might also have confused the scale used to calculate "x20 better", if that was a logarithmic scale that would actually be x2 better on a linear scale (and possibly not even noticeable depending on what was changed)...

Example: 1000v is not x10 more powerful than 100v, it's x2 in electrical terms!

So what kind of format could he have actually been pioneering, digital or analogue?

[BananaClips]

not really, otherwise people wouldn't still use valve amps (i'm not saying hundreds to, but some do), they can be simulated digitally, but it's never the same. same reason folk use hardware, software is cheaper and maybe easier, but you can never emulate it exactly as the original was wired up to sound.

i think a sound engineer can create virtually any analogue sound digitally, well enough for the human ear to not hear a difference. it's just the difficulty of doing so that makes producers resort to old equipment.

[dullatron]

vinyl sounded better back in the day because it incorporated more mastering(and actually less compression and limiting!!!) to make the final version sound more like the DAT master. And when digital came, people though, "OH I NOT NEEDS MASTERING", and then stuff sounded kinda weak and unfinished until someone came up with taking the file and just pushing it way to the red with some loudness maximizer or just plain old AD clipping. Resulting in an "exciting, loud" but tiresome sound. Voila, we have post 1999 mastering syndrome that basically ruined rock/metal for me anyways. Dynamic range is something we have lots in the digital world, but do we take advantage of it? no. We want it to be louder. We suck.

if Jobs were to "BRING BACK VINYL" it would mean to come up with a way that we don't have to push our shit with the limiters that much.

With vinyl it was impossible to ruin the sound the same way with CD´s. you just can't push the limiters that much with vinyl format. otherwise, shit-city.

/audio engineer out.

[test_recordings]

vinyl sounded better back in the day because it incorporated more mastering(and actually less compression and limiting!!!) to make the final version sound more like the DAT master. And when digital came, people though, "OH I NOT NEEDS MASTERING", and then stuff sounded kinda weak and unfinished until someone came up with taking the file and just pushing it way to the red with some loudness maximizer or just plain old AD clipping. Resulting in an "exciting, loud" but tiresome sound. Voila, we have post 1999 mastering syndrome that basically ruined rock/metal for me anyways. Dynamic range is something we have lots in the digital world, but do we take advantage of it? no. We want it to be louder. We suck.

if Jobs were to "BRING BACK VINYL" it would mean to come up with a way that we don't have to push our shit with the limiters that much.

With vinyl it was impossible to ruin the sound the same way with CD´s. you just can't push the limiters that much with vinyl format. otherwise, shit-city.

/audio engineer out.

Have you ever heard the Pixie's "Surfer Rosa" album? I read in an interview with the engineer for the studio on those sessions and he said they didn't even tickle the limiter, everything done without pushing the tape at all... you can tell too, quieter than usual but dynamic to fuck!

I think my favourite mixing/mastering is on "Siamese Dreams" by the Smashing Pumpkins... not only are the band really good at orchestrating their own quiet/loud arrangements but the the levels on the track have been set across such a diverse range that you can set the EQ on whatever stereotype you want and it's got something unique in the mix for it! Trust me, there's loads of varied layers that all gel really nicely together on that record

[Promise One]

vinyl sounded better back in the day because it incorporated more mastering(and actually less compression and limiting!!!) to make the final version sound more like the DAT master. And when digital came, people though, "OH I NOT NEEDS MASTERING", and then stuff sounded kinda weak and unfinished until someone came up with taking the file and just pushing it way to the red with some loudness maximizer or just plain old AD clipping. Resulting in an "exciting, loud" but tiresome sound. Voila, we have post 1999 mastering syndrome that basically ruined rock/metal for me anyways. Dynamic range is something we have lots in the digital world, but do we take advantage of it? no. We want it to be louder. We suck.

if Jobs were to "BRING BACK VINYL" it would mean to come up with a way that we don't have to push our shit with the limiters that much.

With vinyl it was impossible to ruin the sound the same way with CD´s. you just can't push the limiters that much with vinyl format. otherwise, shit-city.

/audio engineer out.

Have you ever heard the Pixie's "Surfer Rosa" album? I read in an interview with the engineer for the studio on those sessions and he said they didn't even tickle the limiter, everything done without pushing the tape at all... you can tell too, quieter than usual but dynamic to fuck!

I think my favourite mixing/mastering is on "Siamese Dreams" by the Smashing Pumpkins... not only are the band really good at orchestrating their own quiet/loud arrangements but the the levels on the track have been set across such a diverse range that you can set the EQ on whatever stereotype you want and it's got something unique in the mix for it! Trust me, there's loads of varied layers that all gel really nicely together on that record

Surfer Rosa is a wicked album, agreed there are tons of quiet to loud parts in their songs.

[dickman69]

oh, i see.

it's when you reach an approximation where the difference is indistinguishable to the human ear ... does anybody care about the difference they can't hear? and if so, why?

because it's got an apple logo on it

[sc0tty]

I thought FLAC had already sorted the size/quality compromise???