161–170 of 717 posts
Wow lossless audio, I was shocked when I tried an iphone 12 that itunes, imusic, music app whatever you call it did not nativelt support OGG/lossless format. iTunes used too, I know the old iPods used too.
They support Apple Lossless, .m4a/.alac same as the old iPods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the time. Humans don't stay still. We move our heads regularly, where even small movements help our audiovisual spatial sense. It's just that our consciousness ignores these little movements and so we think we're largely still.
Yup. It’s like the fact that your eyes heck all over and I believe slightly vibrate in order to sample from slightly different positions to improve image quality.
From the article: > J Balvin said: [...] With Lossless, everything in the music is going to sound bigger and stronger but more importantly, it will be better quality. [...] There have been tests showing we cannot hear the difference between minimally lossy audio (e.g. mp3 320kbps) and lossless. But Balvin can. And it sounds "bigger and stronger". The extra quality of lossless is nice when mixing/remixing the sound, a…
Umm did I miss something? ...This for a music streaming service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a questionable assumption in the HRTF article, namely that the transfer function is the same (or similar) for different people in different environments. I don't think the same HRTF would sound convincing indoors and outdoors, even. Let alone differences in ear shapes and sizes.
Sony is working on a version that uses an image of your ear to find a better match. They talked about it in a few PS5 talks.
Be careful with your data plan :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I do wonder if in the longer term if Apple's Spatial Audio with "dynamic head tracking" isn't the next 3D TVs/3D Content i.e. a gimmick. For what it's worth, I have a pair of Audeze headphones that has 3D head tracking or whatever they call it, and I don't think it's a gimmick. When I'm wearing those and watching a movie on my TV (or playing a game on my PC), the sound really does appear to be coming from in front…
Why is that useful though? "It's like I'm really listening to a TV!". Isn't that what people try to avoid with expensive sound systems that offer surround sound?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't carry a few thousand of those with me at all times, though. I hear what you're saying, but the convenience of a vast and portable library is compelling.
I use a disk drive to sync the discs to my music library and bring them with me :) I can format it to MP3, or ALAC, of FLAC, or whatever I like, and I can play them on devices that are made today, or 40 years ago. But secretly I just use Spotify for it’s discover features, and then buy CDs of the albums I like.
Since most of the music is consumed on headphones, I'm not sure if spatial music will appeal to many. What I would really like to see in purchased music is individual soundtracks for each instrument/vocal (which I can mix as per my taste) and one default mix made as per the producer's taste. This would not only help with music practice, karaoke,
I don't believe it. If I read that right they claim that they can deliver "spatial" audio via headphones using a multi-channel/object-based Dolby Atmos (as opposed to a binaural recording or something that else that is mixed for two channels ahead of time) For years there has been talk about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function and for years I have tried demos that are unimpressive, particular…
Sure, but commercial spatial audio is in its infancy. We’re maybe in the 1920’s if you compare it to video. So as the techniques expands and people adjust and both sides gain experience we’ll be able to compensate for the perceived shortcomings by exaggerating effectively to make it seem better than our natural spacial hearing.