Higher Encoded Songs in iTunes?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

One reader notes that at least one iTunes Music Store song is being offered at a much higher encoding rate than Apple has publicly advertised.

The majority of iTunes Music Store songs come in 128kbit Protected AAC audio file format. This file format allows for playback in iTunes as well as the iPod. The 128k bit-rate in AAC is said to provide a superior quality to the equivalent MP3 bitrate.

Snap!'s 3 min 42 second Rhythm Is a Dancer (Original Mix) (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=41892433&selectedItemId=41892396), however, comes in at 290kbits encoding (screenshot (http://www.macrumors.com/downloads/dancer_itunes.gif)) on the iTunes Music Store. The file is reported to be encoded with "FAAC 1.24+ (May 7 200...)"

Individual publishers utilize iTunes Producer (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/12/20031208034050.shtml), an encoding/submitting application which reportedly converts songs to the proper format (128kbit AAC) without any additional options. Whether or not larger labels or Apple themselves have more freedom in encoding options is unknown.

This file may simply be an anomaly, but there have been scattered reports of other songs also offering higher encoding. There does not appear to be any way to distinguish these files before purchasing them.

[Josh396]

I'd like to see an option for better quality songs when you purchase them. Maybe that's coming up?

[840quadra]

That would be incredible, However for those with 56k or slower, downloading songs just became a longer process :(

[PlaceofDis]

interesting, i would like to see higher bit rates offered as well, would certainly be welcome!

[nsjoker]

That would be incredible, However for those with 56k or slower, downloading songs just became a longer process :(

what is this 56k thing you speak of? :rolleyes:

[dotdotdot]

Wasn't the first report of this over four months ago? And its just news NOW?

There are like thirty threads on MR that have people saying "Oh, this song is Higher Bitrate, maybe we'll get it soon!"

IIRC, iTunes is not 100% "OKAY WITH" the RIAA - having missed some meetings, and being so popular, the RIAA is barely allowing iTunes to continue. There were even some MR rumors that the RIAA was going to shut down iTunes. Why would iTunes take that risk RIGHT NOW?

Of course, if the price stays the same and Apple releases a new standard that makes a 128KBPS AAC2 (maybe...) file the same quality as a 320 KBPS MP3, than Apple will be selling their songs like wildfire...

All I know is these rumors are getting pretty annoying considering they have been said a long, long time ago.

[WCat]

Hmm...the iTunes store song link doesn't seem to work. Says "not available in the US store."

Personally, I'd welcome higher bit-rate encoding. Can't help but improve the purchased song's value to me. It just gets that much closer to the original. Maybe charge US$1.29 for "higher-fi" songs instead of $.99, or something like that.


Cheers,

WCat

[mikeyredk]

its not in the US

[J-Squire]

That would be incredible, However for those with 56k or slower, downloading songs just became a longer process :(

ummm....no. Simply, no. No, in that you simply should not be downloading from iTunes on 56k dialup. I think i would go nuts if i had to wait 10 minutes for a 3MB song to download. With higher encoding, that would increase to maybe 25 minutes. Download an album and you're at 5 hours.

No. Just don't.

[jicon]

I call BS on this.

Purchased songs shouldn't report what they were encoded with.

[840quadra]

ummm....no. Simply, no. No, in that you simply should not be downloading from iTunes on 56k dialup. I think i would go nuts if i had to wait 10 minutes for a 3MB song to download. With higher encoding, that would increase to maybe 25 minutes. Download an album and you're at 5 hours.

No. Just don't.


LOL.. me too.

I have cable at home, and my work has a MUCH faster connection. So needless to say I won't have long downloads for itunes songs myself :)

[Josh396]

ummm....no. Simply, no. No, in that you simply should not be downloading from iTunes on 56k dialup. I think i would go nuts if i had to wait 10 minutes for a 3MB song to download. With higher encoding, that would increase to maybe 25 minutes. Download an album and you're at 5 hours.

No. Just don't.
How would you know how long it takes to download these songs if you're in Australia? :rolleyes: :p ;)

[arn]

its not in the US

odd... the link should work in the US now. Re-copied it.

arn

[narco]

I think iTunes should give you an option, similar to allofmp3.com. I still would choose 128 because I prefer quantity over quality, but I know a lot of people who would rather have the higher bitrate.

Fishes,
narco.

[quackattack]

290 is a odd number, not one of the AAC encoding standards. Perhaps this is some sort of variable bit rate? That would be very nice. I welcome higher bit rates! Now when will be be able to download lossless? :D

[arn]

I call BS on this.

Purchased songs shouldn't report what they were encoded with.

BS on what? The file purchased from iTunes Music Store _is_ encoded at 290kbits.

Whether or not it means anything... well, ya... it prob doesn't mean anything.

arn

[timster]

Any encoding would be fine when you've got none at all.

WHERE'S THE DAMN AUSTRALIAN STORE?

It's the 28th, but still no go for Australia... "iTunes Music Store is not available in your country."

Does that mean Russell my-ego-is-too-large-to-fit-in-New-Zealand Crowe LIED to us?

Yeah, well I thought Gladiator was a crap movie anyway. And what's with making a movie about how stupid smoking is when you still smoke? And how can someone with a moron's mind play A Brilliant Mind? Why doesn't he just go romper stomp his own head.

(Not that I'm bitter or anything!)

[dotdotdot]

Did anyone here actually download it to confirm this?

[AliensAreFuzzy]

Yeah, this happened to me too. Darude's Sandstorm

[arn]

Did anyone here actually download it to confirm this?

yes. I did.

arn

[goz]

What about the get info panel entitled summery?

I bought a song this week that says 256 kb, earlier purchases say 128.

[arn]

Yeah, this happened to me too. Darude's Sandstorm

Guess Radikal Records may be the label who submits highly encoded songs :)

arn

[jicon]

BS on what? The file purchased from iTunes Music Store _is_ encoded at 290kbits.

Whether or not it means anything... well, ya... it prob doesn't mean anything.

arn

Well, if I look at the properties of any of my iTMS downloaded songs, I can't see a field where it says what program actually encoded the song.

I can't download it in Canada, apparently no one can download it in the U.S.

This seems awful fishy to me.

[bdkennedy1]

That would be incredible, However for those with 56k or slower, downloading songs just became a longer process :(

Buying CD's is still an option. :)

[AliensAreFuzzy]

Well, if I look at the properties of any of my iTMS downloaded songs, I can't see a field where it says what program actually encoded the song.

I can't download it in Canada, apparently no one can download it in the U.S.

This seems awful fishy to me.
This happened to me too. I provided a screenshot to confirm

[Jmitch]

Well of course everyone welcomes higher bit rates with open arms. It's obvious we all want the best quality we can get. I personally think the way Apple is doing it is stupid. The obvious way to do it is to simply offer two versions of the music store. It wouldn't be that much money and effort to do it considoring all they've done so far with the music store (like opening it internationally). All they would have to do is open up a high-fi music store for customers with broadband. Not only would this increase sales but also keep customers who can't afford broadband. This would also help to increase widespread broadband. Customers would see the benefits of having such a connection and upgrade because of this reason. To me the answer is clear and logistical. There is no sense in keeping down the higher connections because of the lower connection customers. This is just not good business. If anything it should be the other way around (i.e. not allow customers w/o broadband to access). But I think it is very logistical to offer both stores - one low connection and one high connection. The higher connection store should offer nothing but lossless encoding - possibly Apple Lossless seeing that that is Apple's lossless codec built in already to iTunes. The low connection store would simply continue to sell the small 128kbps aac songs.

The answer is staring me right in the face. I don't know what would stop Apple from doing this. Eventually, Apple would just do away with the low connection version of the store because the broadband user base would be so large it wouldn't be worth funding anymore. Can anyone explain to me why Apple wouldn't do this or more accurately why they aren't doing this now? Lower fidelity is the main reason I withhold a lot of my purchases on the music store. Why pay for an album at the music store when I can purchase the same album for the roughly the same price at a store and get much higer fidelity. I am getting more bits for my money. WAY MORE.

Granted the AAC 128kbps is not bad. I give them credit for tapping into the best sounding compressed format available today. But this should be for the lowly 56kers still out there. Those 56kers shouldn't keep us broadband users from enjoying higher fidelity.

[micvog]

I just downloaded it from the posted link in the US store and can confirm that the bit rate is 290kbps and it was encoded with "FAAC 1.24+".

[jicon]

I call NOT BS.

Sorry.

That being said, it sounds awful funny that the files show what they were encoded with.

[GrannySmith_G5]

The real question is who in the world would actually originally download Snap's "Rhythm is a dancer"?

[~Shard~]

Interesting, I wonder if Apple is going to formally comment on this. Higher bitrates songs would definitely be welcome! Well, I guess by everyone except those on dial-up. ;)

[peterjhill]

I bought that album a while ago...

[jicon]

The real question is who in the world would actually originally download Snap's "Rhythm is a dancer"?
Agreed.

The Power - well, I could get behind that... but Rhythm is a dancer? :rolleyes:

[CubaTBird]

i discovered this awhile ago... yeah... old news folks...

:cool:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=118124

[sw1tcher]

I think iTunes should give you an option, similar to allofmp3.com. I still would choose 128 because I prefer quantity over quality, but I know a lot of people who would rather have the higher bitrate.

Fishes,
narco.

I second this idea. I love the way allofmp3.com offers choice of bit rates. Or, Apple should bump the bit rate on everything to 192kbps and keep them at $0.99. But that probably won't ever happen as the labels would probably oppose it.

[bankshot]

I say it's just an anomaly. There are others scattered around the store, as has been posted here before (example (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=118124)).

Based on what was reported when Apple first met with indie labels, apparently the record company is in charge of doing the actual encoding. Then they send the encoded files to Apple. So if they encode at a higher bitrate, then that's what Apple sells.

I posted about this in the thread linked above, and I think my points still stand:

There's a lot more info on the whole process on this page (http://www.gnutellanews.com/article/6830). Specifically, it says:

It's up to the partner/label to submit all the metadata (artist name, release date, song tiles, etc.), do the audio encoding, and upload the materials.
You have to use their special Music Store Encoder tool for Mac OS X which will be released in 90 days or so.

I always thought it seemed a bit surprising that Apple has the labels do the encoding. Maybe the labels demanded that just because they wanted more control, who knows? The problem with the current situation is that most of the labels probably encoded once, sent the 128 kbps songs to Apple, and that's it. That means it would be a massive undertaking to move the whole store to 256 or whatever. Everyone would have to re-encode, and there may be cases of songs where it's difficult to get the label to do it again. It would certainly be a long a drawn out process, even assuming they could convince the labels to do it again.

If Apple retained a full quality copy of each song as part of the package sent by the label, then they could make this kind of switch at any time. Just throw a few dozen machines at the task and let them crunch for a few days/weeks or whatever it takes. Instead, it's pretty clear that they expect to offer 128 kbps as their standard for many years to come.

Kinda makes you wonder, when the first competitor comes out with higher quality downloads, will that be the turning point when iTMS starts to lose major market share?

Then again, maybe the labels are demanding no more than 128 kbps quality because they fear that higher quality would attract more piracy. Gotta love an industry that fears its customers!

[J-Squire]

Any encoding would be fine when you've got none at all.

WHERE'S THE DAMN AUSTRALIAN STORE?

It's the 28th, but still no go for Australia... "iTunes Music Store is not available in your country."

Does that mean Russell my-ego-is-too-large-to-fit-in-New-Zealand Crowe LIED to us?

(Not that I'm bitter or anything!)

I think we have seen WAY too much evidence of an Australian iTunes store to believe that Crowe lied to us. Maybe it has been slightly delayed. It definintely doesn't look like today is the day, but tomorrow certainly could be.

But on topic. I welcome higher bitrates. When your home connection is 1.5Mbps ADSL, 8MB a track is not too big a deal. That's about 30 seconds or so.
Here's hoping

[Phat_Pat]

iTms is pissn' me off. 2 minutes to load a page with 2MB download speed is rediculous. And all those damn broken link symbols. :mad:

[PlaceofDis]

iTms is pissn' me off. 2 minutes to load a page with 2MB download speed is rediculous. And all those damn broken link symbols. :mad:


i haven't had problems with the store in months! :confused:
makes me wonder what the problem is

[Freg3000]

Random higher encoded songs are nice, but I would venture to say an ultra high number of people (99% plus) don't really care all that much about it. That might be off since a lot of iTMS users are techies like us, who may indeed care about it. Damn audiophiles. :D

BTW, Happy 2nd iTunes Anniversary guys!

[gekko513]

I'm not sure this is a sign of anything. There has been some threads on this forum regarding similar behaviour before, and I think it was some kind of partial download problem.

[gekko513]

i haven't had problems with the store in months! :confused:
makes me wonder what the problem is
They are adding at least 4 new stores today, according to rumors, that's probably the cause of the problems.

[bignumbers]

My preference would be for Apple to offer higher bitrate songs as standard, but also include a lower-bitrate version with each download. Say, both 192K and 96K. Here's why.

My Mac HD is huge, so space isn't an issue. When playing over good speakers or high-end headphones I like the quality.

But when mowing the lawn or in an airplane, I can't tell the difference between a 256K and a 64K song. And if I'm trying to load up a small iPod (my original 5GB that I still use sometimes, or a shuffle I'll eventually buy), I'd prefer greater capacity over greater quality. My cell phone can play MP3's - the quality stinks but it's always with me so I'll sometimes use it. Certainly don't need anything great there.

The real, real way to handle this is to have iTunes be able to downsample on the fly when copying to a music player. Sure, store it as a 192K or 256K AAC. But have an option to downsample (and change format to MP3) when copying, and life will be good.

[Anonymous Freak]

Guess Radikal Records may be the label who submits highly encoded songs :)

arn

Well, I just blew my two remaining credits on two random songs on the Radikal label: "We Know What You Did..." by Svenson & Gielen from 'Radikal Party Mix', and "Phuture Vibes" by Mellow Trax from 'Radikal Techno, Vol. 5'. (Yes, I picked them because they were the longest songs I could quickly find. They may have been 'free' songs, but I still want to get my download's worth.. ;) )

Both are higher-than-128 kbps (The first 283, the second 254.) So, yes, it does appear to be that Radikal Records decided to encode the files themselves with FAAC 1.24+at greater-than-128 kbps. My guess is that they are VBR, but that iTunes doesn't know what to make of a VBR protected file, so it just displays the average rate.

[Anonymous Freak]

The real, real way to handle this is to have iTunes be able to downsample on the fly when copying to a music player. Sure, store it as a 192K or 256K AAC. But have an option to downsample (and change format to MP3) when copying, and life will be good.

Sadly, this is one area that Sony's Connect store/software bests iTunes. I have an ancient Sony Music Clip music player (about the same size overall as the shuffle, but less stylish,) that only has 64MB of flash. Just for fun, I decided to see if it worked with their Connect store. It does, but you MUST use the 'downsample' option to drop it to 64kbps for the Music Clip to play them. (If I try to use a non-downsampled file, the Music Clip freezes when I play that track, yet imported 128 kbps files play just fine. Only the purchased ones need downsampling.) It does the resampling on the fly, as it's copying over to the player. (It also uses this method to transcode any WMA or MP3 files, which the ancient Music Clip can't natively play.)

[dontmatter]

hrm, fishy. What normally appears where it says FAAC etc.? do we know what FAAC is?

Of course, I'd support a music store with the ability to download at a higher bit rate, but I don't understand all the moaning about the bit rate. There's a bit more to it than bandwidth and apple not caring about quality. How many hours will you get on your ipod, or, gasp, ipod shuffle, if you go with an uber-high bit rate? How does it look, too if the ipod will only store 45 songs from the store that works with it, whereas a cheap samsung player can hole 4 times as many songs, but actually has half the size? You have to remember, the store isn't about the music, and certainly not about computers-it's about the ipod.

Now, when itunes easily supports multiple copies of a song, without double listing and all, such that i could have lossless on my external HD, when I'm unplugged have 176, and on my ipod, 128, and only see one thing in the itunes library at any given time... then, it would be smart to sell high bit rate, and not cut down on the usefullness of what's actually making the profits. Even then, they might not choose to, because apple would always rather be spare with features if it makes it easy to use, than to overload the user. And how am I, uneducated and uninterested consumer going to know what version to download. Heck, I, regular of macrumors and particularly music threads, don't even know what's best-high quality sounds nice, but can I tell the difference on my stereo equipment? if I have the space now, and encode at a high rate, but my collection expands beyond my capacity at that bitrate, that's ugly, too. Apple's motto is simple. Visually simple, practically simple, the less to think about the better. so, 128, for now. When they figure out how we can have it all, and not know it, we'll have it all.

[Yvan256]

The real, real way to handle this is to have iTunes be able to downsample on the fly when copying to a music player. Sure, store it as a 192K or 256K AAC. But have an option to downsample (and change format to MP3) when copying, and life will be good.

Actually iTunes already does this, but the option is only enabled for the iPod shuffle. And the bitrate is locked to 128 kbps.

I wish they'd enable that feature for all iPods and allowed us to control the format/bitrate (or at least the bitrate, I don't mind being locked to AAC).

It would be nice to use 80-96kbps on my 10GB iPod (that OverClocked ReMix library just jumped right over the remaining space I had left) and 64kbps on my iPod shuffle. Heck, 32kbps in HE-AAC for the iPod shuffle. :D

[tveric]

The most disturbing aspect of this report is that someone actually paid to download "Rhythm is a Dancer"

Here's to hoping that it was at least a Pepsi cap!

[swissmann]

I have always thought that 128 even AAC is too little. It just doesn't compare to CD (or better) quality. I'd like to see a change.

[bored]

The file purchased from iTunes Music Store _is_ encoded at 290kbits.

Maybe that's in Metric.

[PlaceofDis]

Actually iTunes already does this, but the option is only enabled for the iPod shuffle. And the bitrate is locked to 128 kbps.

I wish they'd enable that feature for all iPods and allowed us to control the format/bitrate (or at least the bitrate, I don't mind being locked to AAC).

It would be nice to use 80-96kbps on my 10GB iPod (that OverClocked ReMix library just jumped right over the remaining space I had left) and 64kbps on my iPod shuffle. Heck, 32kbps in HE-AAC for the iPod shuffle. :D

that would be sweet, the key though is getting HE-AAC out and working for us first! downsampling would be great for me, especially in that format for my Shuffle and Mini, then i would have my library lossless or AAC 360 for sure

[eji]

I'd like to second all the opinions that universal higher encoding would be a good thing. Honestly, I still go down less legitimate channels for my music because I want higher quality (320kbps or lossless) -- especially when it comes to classical or jazz. If the iTunes store offered something in that bitrate range at the same price, I'd buy a heck of a lot more. 128kbps just doesn't cut it when I'm listening with headphones.

Come to think of it, wasn't Apple supposed to be working on a codec or encoding method that delivered CD-quality sound at 64kbps? Whatever happened to that?

[unfaded]

Sadly, this is one area that Sony's Connect store/software bests iTunes. I have an ancient Sony Music Clip music player (about the same size overall as the shuffle, but less stylish,) that only has 64MB of flash. Just for fun, I decided to see if it worked with their Connect store. It does, but you MUST use the 'downsample' option to drop it to 64kbps for the Music Clip to play them. (If I try to use a non-downsampled file, the Music Clip freezes when I play that track, yet imported 128 kbps files play just fine. Only the purchased ones need downsampling.) It does the resampling on the fly, as it's copying over to the player. (It also uses this method to transcode any WMA or MP3 files, which the ancient Music Clip can't natively play.)

I would think the artists, who don't want their music sounding like total crap, wouldn't want anything less than 128. 128 is pretty crap as is (given that it's approx 1/12 the bit rate of a CD).

[Loge]

What about the quality of the downsampled files? For example going from 192 to 128, is going to sound worse than a 128 file encoded from CD because it's compressing a file again that's been compressed already. Plus downsampling to a 60GB iPod is going to take ages, and you can no longer regard the data on the iPod as a backup of your music.

I can see why they only do this on the Shuffle.

[PlaceofDis]

What about the quality of the downsampled files? For example going from 192 to 128, is going to sound worse than a 128 file encoded from CD because it's compressing a file again that's been compressed already. Plus downsampling to a 60GB iPod is going to take ages, and you can no longer regard the data on the iPod as a backup of your music.

I can see why they only do this on the Shuffle.

you actually cant tell, ive tried it with my shuffle, sounds pretty much like regular 128AAC, but then again im sure it depends upon the source, what is key to this though is getting HE-AAC out which will have even better sound quality at lower bitrates, i dont think the regular ipods need this, but they should perhaps include the minis as well

[virividox]

ummm....no. Simply, no. No, in that you simply should not be downloading from iTunes on 56k dialup. I think i would go nuts if i had to wait 10 minutes for a 3MB song to download. With higher encoding, that would increase to maybe 25 minutes. Download an album and you're at 5 hours.

No. Just don't.

for the money you pay in internet bills for the phone call u might as well buy the album :)

[elmimmo]

It's funny however, that FAAC is not considered particularly the best AAC encoder… while iTunes, and Nero's over it, are considered quite good. That is what I read, anyways, since I am not at all into audio compression.

Anyhow, of course ~300 had better beat 128, whatever the encoders are.

[nomore]

...

[nomore]

I would think the artists, who don't want their music sounding like total crap, wouldn't want anything less than 128. 128 is pretty crap as is (given that it's approx 1/12 the bit rate of a CD).

CD is 150KB/s which = 1200kbps... so it's 1/9th the bit rate of a CD.

However, since it's compressed the quality is still much better than 1/9 CD quality.

[Darwin]

Any encoding would be fine when you've got none at all.

WHERE'S THE DAMN AUSTRALIAN STORE?

It's the 28th, but still no go for Australia... "iTunes Music Store is not available in your country."

Does that mean Russell my-ego-is-too-large-to-fit-in-New-Zealand Crowe LIED to us?

Yeah, well I thought Gladiator was a crap movie anyway. And what's with making a movie about how stupid smoking is when you still smoke? And how can someone with a moron's mind play A Brilliant Mind? Why doesn't he just go romper stomp his own head.

(Not that I'm bitter or anything!)

Where abouts in Australia are you?

see your at least 10 hours ahead of the US sdo I think they will be releasing today, when they wake up :rolleyes: :p

[winmacguy]

Any encoding would be fine when you've got none at all.

WHERE'S THE DAMN AUSTRALIAN STORE?

It's the 28th, but still no go for Australia... "iTunes Music Store is not available in your country."

Does that mean Russell my-ego-is-too-large-to-fit-in-New-Zealand Crowe LIED to us?

Yeah, well I thought Gladiator was a crap movie anyway. And what's with making a movie about how stupid smoking is when you still smoke? And how can someone with a moron's mind play A Brilliant Mind? Why doesn't he just go romper stomp his own head.

(Not that I'm bitter or anything!)

Check this out!
http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/04/27/1114462092704.html?oneclick=true

[d.perel]

it might happen...I overheard my cousin who works as some software thing saying that higher bit music was the 'next big thing' from download services. I don't know what that's worth, though

[cb31]

I've got a ipod mini and currently have everything on it and on my pc in 320kbit mp3 format. I would love to use lossless on my pc and aac 128 on my ipod. I realise that itunes doesn't do this now but is it likely to be in version 5?

[JRM PowerPod]

I would seriously prefer an iTunes Store before i start worrying about bit rates. Give me 128, 190, 250, 2500. Just give me a store! - A "Dual Core iTunes Stores Now Running at both 128 and 256".

[Jmitch]

Well I see no one read my post. But I would have to agree with bankshot on the fact that this is just an anomoly. If Apple was serious about anything like this, they would announce plans way ahead of time I believe just to spur interest like they have with previous announcements. This is not something in my opinion that would just pop up and bam we have a higher bitrate store to purchase from. I was actually interested to hear everyone's opinions on what I said earlier about the 2 versions of the store. No one really responded to it. If anyone has a response I would love to hear it.

[jocknerd]

I wish they'd enable that feature for all iPods and allowed us to control the format/bitrate (or at least the bitrate, I don't mind being locked to AAC).

What are you saying? Apple give us control? Ha! Never happen. I've never understood Apple's philosophy. They market to a "smarter" computer user but always dumb their products down (i.e. mouse, user control) to the lowest common denominator.

Ideally, I'd love to see a combination of Apple styling and sophistication in their software but feel like I have more control over it like when using Open Source products. I hate products that instill artificial restrictions. I can name three right off the bat with iTunes/iPod. One, no Ogg Vorbis support. The iPod might not be able to handle it, I'll give that to Apple. But iTunes should support it. Two, Apple shouldn't put a restriction on the iPod to prevent me from using it as a backup for my music. I'm getting ready to install Tiger. I only do fresh installs. So, I either backup all my music to DVD or I use a 3rd party app to get my music off my iPod. Three, I would like to export my purchased music to mp3 or aiff without having to burn it to cd. Of course, this probably would violate the terms of my purchase which is really another artificial barrier.

[jocknerd]

I would love to buy my music from a store that offered an open lossless format without the DRM. I still don't understand the logic behind the DRM. If I can buy the CD, there is no DRM. So what's the point in putting it on the downloaded file? The labels are missing the point. I would argue that free music was not the only reason the original Napster became so popular. The other big reason was convenience. Has the number of illegally downloaded music dropped? Would dropping Fairplay from iTMS cause an increase in the sharing of illegally downloaded music? I don't think so. Because I think those that are purchasing their music on iTMS have no interest in sharing it illegally. So there is no real reason for having DRM on our purchased music.

Here's why I want lossless:
I'm not locked in to a format. I have an uneasy feeling knowing I've got over 400 songs from iTMS that are locked in a proprietary format. The DRM is proprietary. And I'll argue that AAC is as well. Its not an open format when the cost to license that format is beyond the means of most developers. Truly open formats are the only answer.

I don't know how Apple will ever offer lossless in its store though. The record labels have already set the price too high for 128 bit. If a 128 bit AAC costs 99 cents per song or $10 per album, what will they charge for a lossless version? Many new CD's already cost around $11. If the lossless version of an album costs more than a CD, whats the point in downloading it? The labels would either have to lower the cost of the 128 bit version or drop it altogether. But in their infinite wisdom, they would probably charge $2 per song for lossless or $20 per album.

[LionelEHutz]

not an option.

I don't use iTunes too often though, I prefer eMusic.com, a subscription service. More small independent labels, cheaper, and less restrictive use rights. Using a combination of services is the best way to go IMO. Now, if iTunes offered a $10 a month subscription I'd cut back my eMusic subscription a little and get an iTunes subscription so that I could benefit from the two of them.

[Jmitch]

The record industry isn't getting it. This is the point. The record industry has to get it for them to survive. They are still thinking in old terms. We are in a new age now of digital information exchange. In order for the record company to survive they have to get out of their old ways and start looking ahead. They need to seek the guidance of companies like Apple to show them the way and where they need to go to succeed in this new age. As soon as they get it right music will be back on the market as hot as ever.

I just don't think Apple quite has it all right at this point. They have the right idea, but I see much better ways of doing it and no one has proved me wrong so far. Eventually the pay per song model will be out the window because who wants to pay $10,000 for 10,000 songs when you can pay $15/month and get the entire record industry library of music. It's only logical. Apple should create a new store wherein it is not really a store but a streaming jukebox. They need to re-design iTunes to be a streaming media jukebox instead of a local hard drive based player. This is the next step. Once Apple and the record industry gets on their feet with this one the record industry will go sky high. Who wouldn't pay $15/month to listen to any music ever produced and recorded any time? Of course there will be an option to download a copy of the music to be burned and stored to physical mediums but in the end this would be pointless.

At this point, however, I think Apple should at least get with the picture and see the fact that broadband users are being held down by the remaining slow connection user base. They need to move ahead and offer lossless encoding from their store. Can anyone come up with any reason why Apple shouldn't be doing this? Am I missing something? Or is this just too easy to be true? The #1 reason I hold back on purchases from the iTMS today is because I know I can purchase the cd from a store in all of it's full uncompressed glory for the same price. What's the incentive for me to purchase from the iTMS then? Not much. Nowadays I purchase few individual songs.

[slu]

Wasn't the first report of this over four months ago? And its just news NOW?

There are like thirty threads on MR that have people saying "Oh, this song is Higher Bitrate, maybe we'll get it soon!"

IIRC, iTunes is not 100% "OKAY WITH" the RIAA - having missed some meetings, and being so popular, the RIAA is barely allowing iTunes to continue. There were even some MR rumors that the RIAA was going to shut down iTunes. Why would iTunes take that risk RIGHT NOW?

Of course, if the price stays the same and Apple releases a new standard that makes a 128KBPS AAC2 (maybe...) file the same quality as a 320 KBPS MP3, than Apple will be selling their songs like wildfire...

All I know is these rumors are getting pretty annoying considering they have been said a long, long time ago.

This whole post makes no sense. What was your point?

First of all, and I don't care what MR threads you read, there is no way the RIAA shuts down iTunes, which is the only even remotely successful legit online music service. You think people hate the RIAA now, see what happens if they "shut down" iTunes.

Second, what does RIAA have to do with higher bit-rate songs?

Third, rasing the bit-rate will not sell songs like "wildfire". The vast, vast majority of people do not know or care about bitrates. They will get some of the audiophile market, but there will not be this rush to iTunes for songs.

Fourth, they are not Apple's songs. FYI, Apple makes computers and software, not music.

So your real point was to brag that you heard this rumor before. You wanna know something, I am tired of posts like yours complain about this or that being posted before or being old news. Jebus, find something else to complain about.

[AidenShaw]

I've got a ipod mini and currently have everything on it and on my pc in 320kbit mp3 format. I would love to use lossless on my pc and aac 128 on my ipod. I realise that itunes doesn't do this now but is it likely to be in version 5?

I keep my ripped CDs in Windows Media Lossless, and do batch transcodes to compressed for portable devices.

If iTunes can transcode WMA files to AAC or MP3 (yuk), that would be an option.

[oskar]

Lower bitrate songs means faster downloading for everyone. Just imagine the bandwidth Apple is using already with the millions of songs being downloaded a month. Eventually the bitrates could get higher, but as you can see in iTunes, 128kbps AAC is referred to a high quality.
I would believe that these few songs that have appeared at higher bitrates are the same average file size, which wouldn't affect the store negatively.

For those who expect Lossless anytime soon: Forget it! That eliminates the whole point of using the music store for many. You might as well go buy your CDs and rip them, because that's not going to happen in the near future.

[coolfactor]

Here's hoping they "innovate" the online music store business, since they technically created it.

Anyway, here's what my Store Selection page currently looks like. Won't be long now....

[coolfactor]

Anyway, here's what my Store Selection page currently looks like. Won't be long now....

Fixed now. More gooey evidence of work being done.

:p

[Jmitch]

Lower bitrate songs means faster downloading for everyone. Just imagine the bandwidth Apple is using already with the millions of songs being downloaded a month. Eventually the bitrates could get higher, but as you can see in iTunes, 128kbps AAC is referred to a high quality.
I would believe that these few songs that have appeared at higher bitrates are the same average file size, which wouldn't affect the store negatively.

For those who expect Lossless anytime soon: Forget it! That eliminates the whole point of using the music store for many. You might as well go buy your CDs and rip them, because that's not going to happen in the near future.


Your thinking is flawed. You fail to realize the #1 reason the iTMS can fail. If this reason is eliminated the iTMS wins. Plus, you obviously don't see the acceleration and expontential growth of broadband. Your thinking is narrowminded and fails to see ahead even in the near future. Very soon bandwidth will not be a problem. Already millions have broadband connections in their homes which could easily capacitate the downloading of lossless audio. Get with the program man. You need to open your eyes to the big picture. Look where we are headed, because we are headed there fast.

[oskar]

Your thinking is flawed. You fail to realize the #1 reason the iTMS can fail. If this reason is eliminated the iTMS wins. Plus, you obviously don't see the acceleration and expontential growth of broadband. Your thinking is narrowminded and fails to see ahead even in the near future. Very soon bandwidth will not be a problem. Already millions have broadband connections in their homes which could easily capacitate the downloading of lossless audio. Get with the program man. You need to open your eyes to the big picture. Look where we are headed, because we are headed there fast.


I think we can see higher bit rates in the iTunes MS soon. But not lossless yet, not this year at least. I think there's too large a gap from 128kbps to an average 700kbps. Maybe we'll begin seeing more 320kbps songs, sometime soon. And it's not that I can't see it coming, but Apple pretty much has control over what is called good and what is called high quality. And as of now, 128kbps AAC still seems to be the "high" quality according to iTunes, although you and I know there's much better quality.

And just because someone differs from what you think doesn't mean their thinking is flawed or they are narrowminded. You're kinda describing yourself by thinking that an opinion on iTunes and a Rythm is a Dancer macrumors thread defines how a person thinks. :rolleyes:

I am aware that the availability of faster broadband is expanding very fast in most countries where the iTMS is available. But I still think that Apple isn't going to make a whole new selection of their current songs at a higher bit rate based on that, when the vast majority is still going to prefer a smaller file size. Think iPod mini and Shuffle and how Apple says how many songs fit into them. The iPod is BTW the reason the iTMS exists.

[slu]

The user's broadband connection is not the only thing to consider. Apple has to pay for bandwith as well as disk space, webservers, and other infrastructure. They make very little off iTMS and the additional overhead required for higher bit rate songs or choices of bit rate may turn a slightly profitable venture into an unprofitable one. And that would be a bad thing to happen to the whole digital music distribution industry.

I think it is narrow minded to say more people have broadband now, so raise the bit rates. Again, you need to look at the big picture. There is a cost associated with that AND 99.99% of the people do not care about bit rates.

[PlaceofDis]

eventually 128AAC will not be a good enought bit rate and we will move up to 192AAC, there will be no jumping, just slow steps like this for sure, just as people slowly transition from cds to digital formats

i only buy some albums on the music store, but if its an artist that i love i will get the cd because its a backup and i can encode it how i want

[jcshas]

I really hope this is an early indication of the next BIG thing Apple has in store for the ITMS. All though I enjoy the convenience downloading music from iTunes, the quality of some of the songs occasionally leave something to be desired.

[IanC]

heh, just checked my purchased music and theres none that are higher than 128k...

(strange, the store seems to be acting up for me right now)

[czardmitri]

I call BS on this.

Purchased songs shouldn't report what they were encoded with.


I agree. Purchased songs don't reveal what they were encoded with on the "get info/summary" tab. At least mine don't.

[Jmitch]

I think we can see higher bit rates in the iTunes MS soon. But not lossless yet, not this year at least. I think there's too large a gap from 128kbps to an average 700kbps. Maybe we'll begin seeing more 320kbps songs, sometime soon. And it's not that I can't see it coming, but Apple pretty much has control over what is called good and what is called high quality. And as of now, 128kbps AAC still seems to be the "high" quality according to iTunes, although you and I know there's much better quality.

And just because someone differs from what you think doesn't mean their thinking is flawed or they are narrowminded. You're kinda describing yourself by thinking that an opinion on iTunes and a Rythm is a Dancer macrumors thread defines how a person thinks. :rolleyes:

I am aware that the availability of faster broadband is expanding very fast in most countries where the iTMS is available. But I still think that Apple isn't going to make a whole new selection of their current songs at a higher bit rate based on that, when the vast majority is still going to prefer a smaller file size. Think iPod mini and Shuffle and how Apple says how many songs fit into them. The iPod is BTW the reason the iTMS exists.


You do make a lot of very good points. But the hard drive sizes of iPods are drastically increasing in capacity. Lossless format won't be a problem with iPods soon. But then again, it's the streaming subscription model that will out do everything currently in. It just doesn't really make sense to have the same data in three different places- the server, the local computer, and the portable player. This is taking up three times as much disk space as needed when everything could just be in one place on the server. It could just be streamed like television is to the point of access to the user whether is be the home computer, a personal notebook computer, or a portable player. Global wi-fi is becoming more and more of a reality every day. I think this is what will be push the streaming subscription service. And by then streaming bandwidths will be wide enough to stream high-resolution formats such as that on the SACD format.

This, I believe, is really the next real revolution in digital music.

[oskar]

You do make a lot of very good points. But the hard drive sizes of iPods are drastically increasing in capacity. Lossless format won't be a problem with iPods soon. But then again, it's the streaming subscription model that will out do everything currently in. It just doesn't really make sense to have the same data in three different places- the server, the local computer, and the portable player. This is taking up three times as much disk space as needed when everything could just be in one place on the server. It could just be streamed like television is to the point of access to the user whether is be the home computer, a personal notebook computer, or a portable player. Global wi-fi is becoming more and more of a reality every day. I think this is what will be push the streaming subscription service. And by then streaming bandwidths will be wide enough to stream high-resolution formats such as that on the SACD format.

This, I believe, is really the next real revolution in digital music.

I agree with you and hope to see those technologies implemented in our everyday lives in the near future. But I would think of all that as additional ways to listen to music, not as a replacement to our current technology.

[MontyZ]

It's overdue for higher bit rates, 128 is crap. I would buy a LOT more music from iTunes if they had better quality sound. As it is, I only get the odd single hit and prefer to buy CDs and rip them myself. Plus, there's not all the copy-protection hassle that you get with iTunes files.

The RIAA has got to be the stupidest organization in existence. They have a huge popuplation of people wanting digital music, and all they do is drag their feet and sue college kids. If it were up to them, we'd all still be playing 8-track tapes. Who needs them!

[Anonymous Freak]

I agree. Purchased songs don't reveal what they were encoded with on the "get info/summary" tab. At least mine don't.

MOST don't. Of the 381 files (some are audiobooks, so I can't call them all 'songs',) I've purchased from iTMS, only THREE report their encoder. Two are from the music label Radikal, and both are encoded using FAAC at higher than 128 kbps, and the third was a free download, 'Out of Reach' by Cities of Foam by Dorado Records. It has an encoder listed as 'iTunes v4.7.1, QuickTime 6.5.2' (Hrm, there's no way to read that entire field in iTunes or QuickTime...')

Here, I've made screenshots of those purchased songs (along with one 'normal' purchased song for comparison) with this info listed.

http://www.hurtley.org/Slidesm.jpg (http://www.hurtley.org/Slide.jpg) http://www.hurtley.org/OutofReachsm.jpg (http://www.hurtley.org/OutofReach.jpg) http://www.hurtley.org/WKWYDsm.jpg (http://www.hurtley.org/WKWYD.jpg) http://www.hurtley.org/PhutureVibessm.jpg (http://www.hurtley.org/PhutureVibes.jpg)
(Clicking on each opens a full-size copy.)

[Jmitch]

I agree with you and hope to see those technologies implemented in our everyday lives in the near future. But I would think of all that as additional ways to listen to music, not as a replacement to our current technology.

So your saying you think we will always be carrying around our entire libraries of music with us wherever we go? What I'm saying is that this isn't going to happen. Eventually, when everything is streamed and subscription modeled, there will be no need to have to carry around the data wherever you go. It will simply be streamed wirelessly to wherever you are with your player. This may not seem feasible now but I assure it is coming and it is coming fast. Just look at the growth of wi-fi hotspots around. They are beginning to be in cafes, restaurants and other places of public hang out. Technology will soon allow for the wide transmission of the internet to the point where global connectivity will be reached. Once this happens zero data will be actually carried around on the person. It will all be streamed from central server databases. Everything will be accessed at the tip of a finger.

When they say information age - this is the truth they're pointing to. Information at any time any place any where - a true global network. It's coming and it's happening faster than you think. Our brains are being connected everywhere through these personal computers. Soon the entire world will act as one giant brain with each nerve ending communicating and acting off eachother. It will be one consciousness - a union of the world. It's already happening and we will be the one consciousness that pervades everything in this universe...

[oskar]

So your saying you think we will always be carrying around our entire libraries of music with us wherever we go? What I'm saying is that this isn't going to happen. Eventually, when everything is streamed and subscription modeled, there will be no need to have to carry around the data wherever you go. It will simply be streamed wirelessly to wherever you are with your player. This may not seem feasible now but I assure it is coming and it is coming fast. Just look at the growth of wi-fi hotspots around. They are beginning to be in cafes, restaurants and other places of public hang out. Technology will soon allow for the wide transmission of the internet to the point where global connectivity will be reached. Once this happens zero data will be actually carried around on the person. It will all be streamed from central server databases. Everything will be accessed at the tip of a finger.

When they say information age - this is the truth they're pointing to. Information at any time any place any where - a true global network. It's coming and it's happening faster than you think. Our brains are being connected everywhere through these personal computers. Soon the entire world will act as one giant brain with each nerve ending communicating and acting off eachother. It will be one consciousness - a union of the world. It's already happening and we will be the one consciousness that pervades everything in this universe...

I really don't know what to comment on that. Everybody's opinion should be respected so I prefer not to say any more at the moment. If you really want to know what I think let me know.