High Definition iTunes Music Downloads May Be on the Horizon

"Well I Hope Neil Young Will Remember, We Don't Need Him Around Anyhow..."

Zimmy68 said:

He will be ecstatic because he actually sells a portable player that can play these files.

Still waiting for answer to my question through all this debate:

What is everyone going to play these hi-rez files on???
VLC player on their computer?

Click to expand...

That was the jest of my jab. Duh. Neil is trying to come out with a product that will compete in this market, and if Apple comes out with this before he gets his product to the market, then nobody would be buying his brick.

But I agree with you. If the files require better devices that take advantage of the lossless files, then everyone will have to upgrade their equipment one way or another.

Has anyone yet come up with any scientific proof that any human can tell the difference between CD quality and HD audio?

Just give me ALAC 16/44.1 and I'll be happy.

Thanks, Nyquist.

itunes overhaul

I think its a great idea to give us the best quality files possible.
itunes should do a match so we don't have to pay for songs we already own.

All the content should be lossless content.

We should be able to view have all the album work (book back of the cd and front of the cd) for albums that had this.

we should have detailed liner notes of each track and who worked on them.

if were going to replaced cd's which im all for . lets do it right. and it should start with the quality for sure.

RedOrchestra said:

Unless they're say classical movements, ripping entire CDs is hardly being picky - that's just plain old hoarding - not much thought in that.

Click to expand...

In your opinion.

60% of my collection *is* classical. Another 20% is jazz. The remaining 20% is "everything else".

And I don't have *any* single tracks - I always buy complete albums. None of my music is the type that makes any sense as standalone tracks.

gfunkforce said:

I think its a great idea to give us the best quality files possible.
itunes should do a match so we don't have to pay for songs we already own.

All the content should be lossless content.

We should be able to view have all the album work (book back of the cd and front of the cd) for albums that had this.

we should have detailed liner notes of each track and who worked on them.

if were going to replaced cd's which im all for . lets do it right. and it should start with the quality for sure.

Click to expand...

I would be happy if iTunes would recognize all of my current HD music at 24/96 and above with Match. I really do not care if I have the highest quality music when I am streaming songs while I am working out on or on a jog/dog walk. It is just a PITA when I have to convert my music to AAC in order to get it recognized.

I am just surprised that iTunes hasn't offered better quality than AAC music files since they already have it (according to the article) in their possession.

Personally, I would want at least CD quality and feel it doesn't take that much space up. For that reason I don't buy music on iTunes. It's worth to me to do the work of ripping CDs into iTunes.

I am intrigued by the HD audio even though I've read arguments from both sides with one side saying it's overkill or not worth it. I don't have audio equipment that would do HD audio justice, but again, there are customers who want HD audio, why doesn't iTunes offer it? Seems to me iTunes is losing customers, and the thing is Apple already has the high quality music on their server (I forget if the article said Apple already has HD audio files or just CD quality music on their iTune servers).

Apple obviously knows there's a market for HD music, otherwise why did they go through the trouble of marketing "Mastered for iTunes".

When you buy or rent movies on iTunes you have a choice between SD vs. HD, so Apple does have experience in dealing with different quality file formats of the same product.

Anyway, very strange to me iTunes doesn't offer at least CD quality music, unless the record labels forbid Apple from doing it fearing that it would cut into their CD sales?

Stuff the digital world

I can't even understand/or even comprehend, that vinyls record are better than CD's..

Once i get over that little tid-bit, then i'll worry about high quality iTunes bit-rate.

Either way, to the average user, its probably nothing, since most of the time this whole debate only really affects the techophoics in the industy.. however, they don't compare that to the average user.

ActionableMango said:

Yes, two individuals got 7 out of 10 correct.

I firmly believe, due to variability in genetics, that it's possible there are some people out there who can hear the difference.

I also firmly believe that almost everyone who claims to be able to tell the difference, either cannot, or is hearing a difference due to other factors and not due to the high sampling rate.

If you want to see the study, it is here:
http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

Click to expand...

Never trust sound engineers who cover their main monitors with two large TFT displays.

Better…

Tech198 said:

I can't even understand/or even comprehend, that vinyls record are better than CD's..

Click to expand...

Vinyl is not necessarily better than CD, however vinyl is different since it's an analog medium. Instead of a digital On/Off signal you'll hear a continuous audio stream. The quality of reproduction for both formats largely depends on the playback components used and in my very own opinion a good vinyl setup always outplays a CD system of comparable quality. However, a cheapo turntable can sound so much better than a cheapo lossy file or even CD playback.

The advantage of high resolution files is that the digital harshness will disappear and there will be more definition in your music. I'm very much a vinyl person and only started to seriously listen to hi-res a couple of months ago. The result to me was absolutely stunning, the first time I heard digital delivering what analog can deliver.

Monty @ XIPH.org's often quoted piece is purely based on scientific measuring, it ignores the fact that we do not only listen with our ears but with our whole body, so while our ears may stop well under 20khz, we definitely can experience audio beyond 20Hz-20kHz. The frequency range truncated by the 16/44.1 CD standard is responsible for space, sound stage, depth in a great recording and master. If a CD master is done with care, all this can be there to a sufficient degree, in lossless formats this part of the music is long dead and gone.

Also, it's a myth that it will take a $XX.k audiophile stereo to enjoy quality music. It rather takes good advice and the will to explore what's out there. I wish Apple and also the Pono people would be more educative in this regards.
Quality music requires a certain quality equipment and this will cost some money. In case you are a music lover, this can be a great and long-lasting investment as long as you don't go with the disposable stuff and gear of the week. Apple finally lost me when they announced their recent range of earbuds as ‘the same as listening to quality speakers in a quality room’. Pardon my French, but that's ********ting people.

Samuel Hahneman said:

Instead of a digital On/Off signal you'll hear a continuous audio stream.

Click to expand...

You have a fundamental misunderstanding. Digital audio does not produce an on/off waveform. It exactly reproduces the same smooth analog waveform as the input signal.

Samuel Hahneman said:

The advantage of high resolution files is that the digital harshness will disappear and there will be more definition in your music.

Click to expand...

What is "definition"? The digital production will have the same frequency content as the original, with a better signal-to-noise ratio than vinyl.

When you were listening to hi-res audio what was it? 24/96? And how much was the equipment you used? I'm one of those people that thinks it takes a megabucks equipment set up to enjoy hi-res.

Samuel Hahneman said:

Vinyl is not necessarily better than CD, however vinyl is different since it's an analog medium. Instead of a digital On/Off signal you'll hear a continuous audio stream. The quality of reproduction for both formats largely depends on the playback components used and in my very own opinion a good vinyl setup always outplays a CD system of comparable quality. However, a cheapo turntable can sound so much better than a cheapo lossy file or even CD playback.

The advantage of high resolution files is that the digital harshness will disappear and there will be more definition in your music. I'm very much a vinyl person and only started to seriously listen to hi-res a couple of months ago. The result to me was absolutely stunning, the first time I heard digital delivering what analog can deliver.

Monty @ XIPH.org's often quoted piece is purely based on scientific measuring, it ignores the fact that we do not only listen with our ears but with our whole body, so while our ears may stop well under 20khz, we definitely can experience audio beyond 20Hz-20kHz. The frequency range truncated by the 16/44.1 CD standard is responsible for space, sound stage, depth in a great recording and master. If a CD master is done with care, all this can be there to a sufficient degree, in lossless formats this part of the music is long dead and gone.

Also, it's a myth that it will take a $XX.k audiophile stereo to enjoy quality music. It rather takes good advice and the will to explore what's out there. I wish Apple and also the Pono people would be more educative in this regards.
Quality music requires a certain quality equipment and this will cost some money. In case you are a music lover, this can be a great and long-lasting investment as long as you don't go with the disposable stuff and gear of the week. Apple finally lost me when they announced their recent range of earbuds as ‘the same as listening to quality speakers in a quality room’. Pardon my French, but that's ********ting people.

Click to expand...

chabig said:

You have a fundamental misunderstanding. Digital audio does not produce an on/off waveform. It exactly reproduces the same smooth analog waveform as the input signal.

Click to expand...

Digital audio is stored digitally, what you will hear in the end is the work of converters. This thread is about digital files, not about hardware. On a vinyl record the signal is stored analog, not in Ones and Zeros.

chabig said:

What is "definition"? The digital production will have the same frequency content as the original, with a better signal-to-noise ratio than vinyl.

Click to expand...

I didn't speak of vinyl here but of higher resolution than 16/44. Most of the 30+ productions in my name where made @24bit with frequency content below and beyond 20/20 Hz/kHz and most of them were released on vinyl and where cut from the original resolution files for exactly the reason you've mentioned. The CDs released always have a certain flatness to my ears, so I'm offering full res downloads. In the end everybody is free to shrink them down to their preferred format. For me as a producer who squeezes every little Bit in the process there's no point in releasing 16bit audio, simply because I don't have to limit myself to this standard, today more than ever. I can hear if space that once was there is missing in a digital format, that's what I call definition and I might be wrong with my terminology.

That said, I won't argue the point a 16Bit master can sound great while a 24/96 master can sound not so great. It really depends on the production and there's certainly a lot of hoax going on in the name of high res, and it's only the beginning. With my own music I'm taking advantage of what's possible, I'm constantly learning and right now I'm evaluating what makes sense for me, and what not. 24/96 sounds pretty amazing to me.

Luba said:

When you were listening to hi-res audio what was it? 24/96? And how much was the equipment you used? I'm one of those people that thinks it takes a megabucks equipment set up to enjoy hi-res.

Click to expand...

I'm listening to music in my studio, in an optimized environment. I produce my own stuff at 24/96 and listen to a lot of 24bit material from 48-192khz or to DSD files. Personally, I can't say if a 192kHz file sounds good because of the etxra bits or rather because its a great master.

For my wife's studio (she's a music nut rocking the house around the clock) we've got a pair of British vintage studio monitors (mint condition / €200 - lucky find!!) a rather esotheric little amp (€500) + a 2nd hand Apogee Duet 2 audio interface (€300). Her setup is so much fun, everybody loves it ; )
For my desktop at home I have a pair of active nearfield monitors used in German broadcast studios during the 80s, a highly linear secret weapon that you can get here for around €150.

I personally prefer linear, uncolored sound, and vintage broadcast equipment can be really great and affordable.

The only A/B check I've made was with the HD Tracks 24/192 version of Stevie Wonder's Talking Book, converted You are the Sunshine of my Life to 16/44 and the vocals of the converted track obviously sound more harsh to me, especially at higher volume.
I'm certainly not the one who wants to spend big money on files (€20 for a non-physical item of platinium selling pop?! You must be kidding…), so my encounter was shocking at the same time. Luckily I still don't pick my music because it sounds good and a lot of things I'm interested in does not exist in real high res. So I either purchase vinyl or FLAC directly from musicians/labels, often from Bandcamp at 'name your price'. iTunes or Amazon were never an option for me unless I wouldn't find the music anywhere else in a better format.

My first encounter with MP3 was in 1997, when a friend offered me to sell a version of a brand new vinyl master in his new mp3 store. He played me a converted version (192kbs back then, I guess) promising I wouldn't tell a difference and I just had to laugh! The track was completely shrivelled. Compression certainly got better since then, but I can still hear the pixels, even at 320. The sound of lossy audio simply annoys or even stresses me after a while and it's not much different with CD audio. Back then I completely neglected SACD or DVD Audio, today their quality blows me away.

I just read this entire thread. You won't believe what I saw!

... not a single reference to the fact that Apple still does not support FLAC in iTunes. LAME.

Get with it Tim Cook! No one cares about Apple Lossless ...

Samuel Hahneman said:

Digital audio is stored digitally, what you will hear in the end is the work of converters. This thread is about digital files, not about hardware. On a vinyl record the signal is stored analog, not in Ones and Zeros.

Click to expand...

'Instead of a digital On/Off signal you'll hear a continuous audio stream.'

No, you weren't talking about storage. And why does it matter that digital is the result of converters? Sound from vinyl is the result if dragging a stylus across bumps on plastic

Samuel Hahneman said:

Monty @ XIPH.org's often quoted piece is purely based on scientific measuring, it ignores the fact that we do not only listen with our ears but with our whole body, so while our ears may stop well under 20khz, we definitely can experience audio beyond 20Hz-20kHz.

Click to expand...

fact? Show it. And then show why it matters given that most mics can't pick up beyond 20k and most systems can't reproduce it

Samuel Hahneman said:

The frequency range truncated by the 16/44.1 CD standard is responsible for space, sound stage, depth in a great recording and master.

Click to expand...

again, it would be great if anyone making claims about high frequencies could actually back them up with anything. Or show that humans can reliably perceive them

csbo said:

And why does it matter that digital is the result of converters?

Click to expand...

Because there are good DACs and not so good DACs. All your high res collection of music makes no sense if you'll squeeze it through your Mac's mini jack out. This issue is addressed clearly by Pono with their duckling player which has the Toblerone shape it has because they use quality components, apart from their quality DAC. I'm curious on Apple's reply to this.

Samuel Hahneman said:

Because there are good DACs and not so good DACs.

Click to expand...

There are good turntables and not so good turntables. So your point really doesn't distinguish between digital and analog, and certainly has nothing to do with continuous sound or 1s and 0s

csbo said:

There are good turntables and not so good turntables. So your point really doesn't distinguish between digital and analog, and certainly has nothing to do with continuous sound or 1s and 0s

Click to expand...

Read me:

Samuel Hahneman said:

The quality of reproduction for both formats largely depends on the playback components used and in my very own opinion a good vinyl setup always outplays a CD system of comparable quality. However, a cheapo turntable can sound so much better than a cheapo lossy file or even CD playback.

Click to expand...

Samuel Hahneman said:

Read me:

Click to expand...

I don't dispute your preferences, only your factual claims

csbo said:

I don't dispute your preferences, only your factual claims

Click to expand...

In the end this is MacRumors, not the AES convention. Many people here claim there is no perceptible difference between say 24/96 and CD while other's go as far as 256 AAC is just fine. So what I'm sharing is my own experience and I'm far from saying this will be a benchmark for you. Also I'm far from showing or proving you, not only because I can't. Whatever will make you happy is fine with me, I will be happy if this lossy stuff will go the way of the dodo, or at least will take several steps back from the importance it has today. I'm quiet sure this will have an effect on the future quality of music, at least to some music and it's listeners.

xiph.org is the developer of Ogg Vorbis compression, so they are not exactly unbiased. Yet again I'm curious to see how Apple will sell their new discovery after all the years of feeding expensive audible junk to the masses.

Not everyone's ears or perceptions of what they hear are identical.

I've heard people describe hearing a noise at CD quality and at higher quality being able to identify the noise as a guitar pedal being stepped on (not the effect it produced, but a mechanical sound from the pedal rubbing its case).

On some examples, I've definitely noticed a more persuasive sense of space with higher than CD quality that was lacking in CD or lesser quality. It's much closer to pretending you're there, but with your eyes closed (and no jerk next to you coughing, talking, or fidgeting).

For a lot of rock and metal (or for those who have been exposed to too much loud sounds), it probably doesn't matter anyway, but for those who are (or think they are) more selective, there are those who are willing to pay extra. Whether or not you can _prove_ in some sort of double-blind ABX test whether or not a statistically significant number of people or comparisons with any given person can reliably distinguish that is beside the point; people buy useless snake oil all the time, and even if only the placebo effect is making them feel better, they're still happy.

I've got an ABX test app or two, and if I can find some samples of reasonably subtle music mastered at a multiple of the highest I can currently play (24bit@48KHz ALAC, on the iPhone with some good quality earbuds) and also well converted down to CD (16@44.1) quality, I may try the ABX tests for myself to see if it's just my imagination that the higher quality is better. But I'm in no hurry, because there's little immediate availability of higher quality content anyway.

If they are proper 24bit/96KHz or 24/192 masters, there could be some advantage because often the high def masters were made with a bit more care and can sound better as a result; better mixing/mastering etc.

It's not because 24/96 or 24/192 sounds better than good old 16/44.1 though, because it simply does not. Countless people will say otherwise, but they are all mistaken, some are dishonest and some are simply deluded.

A human cannot detect any difference between music stored and played back at 16/44.1 or 24/96 or 24/192. No-one has ever been able to demonstrate that they can, which is unsurprising really because it is impossible.

The ONLY thing the bit depth affects is the noise floor, which at approx 100dB down with 16 bit is already below the threshold of human hearing by several orders of magnitude. And no-one can hear/feel/smell/ anything above 20KHz which is anyway produced PERFECTLY at 44.1KHz sampling frequency. So that really is all there is to it and honestly there is no room for debate. Any perceived differences are due to better recording/mixing/mastering and/or placebo. That's it.

----------

jowie said:

Has anyone yet come up with any scientific proof that any human can tell the difference between CD quality and HD audio?

Just give me ALAC 16/44.1 and I'll be happy.

Thanks, Nyquist.

Click to expand...

No, they haven't. The opposite has been demonstrated several times however!

Chippy99 said:

If they are proper 24bit/96KHz or 24/192 masters, there could be some advantage because often the high def masters were made with a bit more care and can sound better as a result; better mixing/mastering etc.

It's not because 24/96 or 24/192 sounds better than good old 16/44.1 though, because it simply does not. Countless people will say otherwise, but they are all mistaken and some are simply deluded.

The human ear cannot detect any difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 and 24/192. No-one has ever been able to demonstrate that they can. End of debate.

Click to expand...

How about a few credible sources to back this up? If you're going to be calling people deluded, at least be convincing.