High Definition iTunes Music Downloads May Be on the Horizon

[zhenya]

Thank You, thank you, thank you, thank you thank you. That's 5 thank yous.

24/48 is excellent for consumer hi-res audio, but 24/96 IMO, would be VERY welcome. I might actually buy from iTunes. But why stop there, I'd buy DSD128 files if iTunes could play them. With optical audio out, the weak links in the system would all be outside of the computer (as long as you're not using the headphone jack for audio-out of course)

To those of you saying that anything over xx/xxx is indiscernible to the human ear and that it's placebo are straight wrong. Read countless numbers of comments by all kinds of folks comparing various bit rates and DSD encoded audio. (FYI, DSD is kind of like 1/2800 and is what is used on SACDs). In blind and un-blind listening tests, in the proper setting,

Finally, whether you care or would or wouldn't buy the hi-res audio files is of no consequence. There is a VERY large market for hi-res audio and it's good that apple may finally give us what we want. I think that starts with 16/44.1 but should never end. As storage sizes go up, the question becomes less of why and more of why not.

thanks again

Link to the peer reviewed study that shows that. I am not aware of a single one.

No, a test conducted by Stereophile over an evening of cocktails does not count.

 

[bsolar]

Terrible analogy. No different then saying the same thing about the Sun. Take away Infrared or UV light from the sun to the earth may not effect what you see. But you will experience a difference. Same with higher resolution music. There is a difference. Some you will hear right away (usually in the bass and in the highs), but almost right away when you turn the music louder. If your on a cheap under powered audio system, don't bother. If you have anything decent, and you turn up an MP3 or AAC, you will start to hear it sound; well crappy. Same track on a higher res (FLAC/lossless, 24bit 96/192Khz source) sounds wonderful.

Actually the extra frequencies would reduce quality:

192kHz digital music files offer no benefits. They're not quite neutral either; practical fidelity is slightly worse. The ultrasonics are a liability during playback.

Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Nonlinearity in a power amplifier will produce the same effect. The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible.

There are a few ways to avoid the extra distortion:

1. A dedicated ultrasonic-only speaker, amplifier, and crossover stage to separate and independently reproduce the ultrasonics you can't hear, just so they don't mess up the sounds you can.
   
2. Amplifiers and transducers designed for wider frequency reproduction, so ultrasonics don't cause audible intermodulation. Given equal expense and complexity, this additional frequency range must come at the cost of some performance reduction in the audible portion of the spectrum.
   
3. Speakers and amplifiers carefully designed not to reproduce ultrasonics anyway.
   
4. Not encoding such a wide frequency range to begin with. You can't and won't have ultrasonic intermodulation distortion in the audible band if there's no ultrasonic content.

They all amount to the same thing, but only 4) makes any sense.

 

[Mago]

24bit@96Khz are the maximum sampling the human hear is capable to capture, 24bit@192Khz and up are keep for master recordings to avoid sample loss when remastering.

 

[csbo]

(FYI, DSD is kind of like 1/2800 and is what is used on SACDs).

DSD has it's own set of issues

There is a VERY large market ...the question becomes less of why and more of why not.

these points seem to go together. There's money to be made, so stop worrying about whether the up charge is worthwhile.

 

[furi0usbee]

do this:

import the CD into your itunes using these settings -- AAC 256kbps, with VBR turned on.
listen to the resulting file with your expensive headphones.
then click on the cd and listen to the same song (so its streaming off the CD).
tell me your results.

My father destroyed them! But, I will try the test with my Bose tonight.

 

[janstett]

An android version of iTunes?

For the same reason they put iTunes on Windows.

Do they want to evangelize the platform, or sell songs?

Plus the fact is Android will dominate marketshare, it's inevitable, it already does outside the US.

 

[fastlanephil]

Audio enginneers will tell you that CD quality is as good as it gets for the consumer. This has been known since the eighties. Higher sampling rates are only nessasary for studio headroom or for making lossless copies.

If you insist on the highest sampling rate files then for mobile listening there will be the Pono player where you can download from your computer wether the files are from Pono, iTunes or others.

A less expensive way to increase the fidelity of any digital audio file is to buy a high quality USB digital audio converter that you can hook headphones into or hook up to your quality audio system. These cost around $250.

 

[LordVic]

Audio enginneers will tell you that CD quality is as good as it gets for the consumer. This has been known since the eighties. Higher sampling rates are only nessasary for studio headroom or for making lossless copies.

If you insist on the highest sampling rate files then for mobile listening there will be the Pono player where you can download from your computer wether the files are from Pono, iTunes or others.

A less expensive way to increase the fidelity of any digital audio file is to buy a high quality USB digital audio converter that you can hook headphones into or hook up to your quality audio system. These cost around $250.

just out of curiosity (this question is out of my own ignorance).

What would a highquality USB digital audio converter do for listening? For those who already listen to their music with fairly good quality headphones, Why would it improve their experience?

Do sound cards in computers not provide the ability to output the audio as close to possible in the recording? If you're already listening to FLAC directly off the Audio CD, are modern day sound cards really that bad at audio playback? any technical resources that explains this would be awesome. thanks

 

[hleewell]

Great news! But alas, just a few days ago, my MacBook suddenly stopped recognizing my USB DAC.

 

[Mike MA]

Sorry, but 192k sampling rate is TOTAL overkill and simply a waste of space, even if you plug in your Mac/ future iPhone with 192k audio support into the best DAC/amplifier/speakers out there ...

Well, it seems like people (not me at this point in time) tend to stream their music. So actually storing music is a decreasing habit.

So if you really want to own it physically, you might be willing to spend additional storage on that while also getting better quality delivered (if you're keen on that).

 

[orioncrystalice]

I need to hear this one specific 2" tape-recorded guitar riff at a much higher quality than on the CD, or I can't listen to music anymore.

 

[Macist]

IIRC I can take 1000 songs at any one time offline with spottily and the quality seems as good as good quality downloads.

Streaming is the future.

However, artists get virtually nothing from even thousands and thousands of plays.

 

[zoozx]

its worth No Quarter


GREAT!

 

[janstett]

By the way, there is one very good reason for Apple to standardize on 24-bit 96 KHz sampling rate: that's the same encoding rate for Dolby True HD and DTS-HD Master Audio sound tracks used on Blu-ray discs.

Movies are 48-24 theatrically. Only concert recordings, et al, will use higher sampling rates.

----------

You need a fairly good equipment to appreciate the additional bit depth. $100 headphone won't be one of them. Plus, not all recordings are worthy of it, either. Some are better not to hear all the fine detail.

You don't need to spend $500+ on a good set of cans. Sony makes a set of studio monitors for $100 (MDR-7506) that most on headfi agree are the best cheap phones you can get.

 

[aarchitect]

Wwsd?

We can argue about the validity of high bit rate recordings but the fact is that it is about time Apple got on the lossless audio train. There is no reason why they can't hit both ends of the audio spectrum and still introduce a streaming music service to serve for those that prefer quantity over quality.

If I were a betting man, I'd say there is an iPod HD in the works as well. The iPod line is long in the tooth and with sales declining, it's either this or finally put a stake in it. Remember, Apple isn't always first to the table but they have a way of showing everyone else how things should really be done. Have you seen the Pono player? I can hear Steve whispering in Sir Jonny's ear from beyond the grave right now.

 

[janstett]

Forgive the stupid question.. If I buy the actual physical cd, do I have this hi-res music?

No, CD is 44.1/16 PCM -- uncompressed. This is better than what they sell on iTunes. But it is not hi-res.

The discs where you can get hi-res music are: DVD-Audio, Super Audio CD, DVD, and Blu-Ray.

 

[AppleScruff1]

If nobody could tell the difference with statistical significance, it wouldn't matter if one user was at 65% or whatever you might like to see. All it means is that one person had slightly different results from their guessing, not that they can hear better than someone who was at 50%

Why wouldn't it? Perhaps a few active listeners were able to tell the difference a higher percentage of the time? Or maybe they couldn't. I don't think it's a case of better hearing, it's paying closer attention to what you actually do hear. Personally I'd love to try this test myself. But one study of 60 people done 6 years ago doesn't necessarily mean that no one can tell the difference. Listen to 10 sets of headphones with the same electronics and the same sound source and they all sound different. Ditto for speakers. Yet some people can't tell the difference between $10 ear buds and Sennheiser HD 650's. But I do think that if people take the time to learn how to listen and what to listen for, most would be able to tell the difference in headhphones and speakers. I for one will demo the Pono as soon as it is possible and then judge how it sounds. Maybe I can't hear the difference between CD and higher rez formats, but it would be fun and interesting to try.

Many here keep saying that you can't hear the difference yet have never tried the comparison themselves. Then there is no difference between Windows and OSX, or iOS and Android. The iPhone is no better than a $200 phone. I'll bet the argument would be different about that.

 

[ActionableMango]

Any breakdown of how each individual user did? Did any of the 60 do better than 50%?

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

 

[janstett]

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?

If you're going to play on your computer (without relying on a receiver), then you need to worry about:

• quality DACs --
• bit-perfect playback/players that bypass the system mixer (Foobar on the PC, Decibel on the Mac)

 

[AppleScruff1]

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 different 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

Thanks, I'll check it out. I'd like to try it myself.

 

[djphat2000]

Actually the extra frequencies would reduce quality:

This would apply to source material that was converted up to 24/192. I'm talking about what the original source material was. If it was recorded Analog, there is no other way to go obviously. But, if it was recorded all digital. It would have to stay at the same bit/frequency it was recorded in. Not converted to something higher.

http://buy.soundcitymovie.com

If you can watch this movie on a good surround sound system. The audio (music) they play back sounds A W E S O M E. Go back and if you can play the same music on the same system with an MP3/AAC version of it and see if you can tell the difference.

 

[csbo]

This would apply to source material that was converted up to 24/192.

where are you getting that from?

I'm talking about what the original source material was. If it was recorded Analog, there is no other way to go obviously. But, if it was recorded all digital. It would have to stay at the same bit/frequency it was recorded in. Not converted to something higher.

Which still has to be played back on something, which still faces the problem of components not being able to reproduce the frequencies properly sand potentially causing audible distortion

 

[teknikal90]

My father destroyed them! But, I will try the test with my Bose tonight.

can't tell if you're serious or not haha

----------

No, I'm not joking. I'm sorry it's hard for you to understand anything outside your bubble.

my 'bubble' happens to be my profession

 

[bsolar]

This would apply to source material that was converted up to 24/192. I'm talking about what the original source material was. If it was recorded Analog, there is no other way to go obviously. But, if it was recorded all digital. It would have to stay at the same bit/frequency it was recorded in. Not converted to something higher.

That's not correct and actually it's exactly the opposite of what the article explains: the article explains that if the audio you want to reproduce has supersonic frequencies, trying to reproduce them can disrupt the reproduction of the audible frequencies. Basically you don't hear the supersonic part, but you will hear artifacts in the audible part caused by them. If you "convert up" to 24/192 from a source which lacks these supersonic frequencies I expect them not to exist in the "converted up" version too, which means you won't have any disruption in the audible frequencies.

If you can watch this movie on a good surround sound system. The audio (music) they play back sounds A W E S O M E. Go back and if you can play the same music on the same system with an MP3/AAC version of it and see if you can tell the difference.

You're confusing different issues:

One issue is lossy vs lossless codecs: lossy codecs can introduce audible artifacts, so if you compare FLAC (lossless) with e.g. MP3 (lossy) you can very well hear artifacts introduced by the MP3 lossy compression which have nothing to do with the sampling-rate or bits-per-sample choices.

The other issue is which impact has 16bit vs 24bit sampling and 44kHz vs 192kHz sampling rate. The article explains that if you take uncompressed or lossless-compressed audio (so that artifacts due to compression play no role) one at 16/44 and the other at 24/192, the one at 24/192 doesn't offer any advantage in audio quality compared to the 16/44 one.

 

[teknikal90]

just out of curiosity (this question is out of my own ignorance).

What would a highquality USB digital audio converter do for listening? For those who already listen to their music with fairly good quality headphones, Why would it improve their experience?

Do sound cards in computers not provide the ability to output the audio as close to possible in the recording? If you're already listening to FLAC directly off the Audio CD, are modern day sound cards really that bad at audio playback? any technical resources that explains this would be awesome. thanks

it all comes down to balance, stereo cross talk and amplification.
put simply, humans can hear 20hz to 20,000khz. on average, thats what a healthy human ear can hear.

now, audio data would tell a processor (DAC) to convert some data to an audio signal. the better the processor, the more 1:1 the conversion. Various tests are conducted (usually when the new iPod/iPhone is released) and measures how well a DAC translates sound data to actual audio waves, up and down the 20hz-20,000hz frequency range.
often times, cheaper processors do a good job in the middle but suck at the high range, or the very low range of frequency. the iPhones are consistenly good. to my knowledge the 4 > the 4S in this aspect. not sure about the 5 or the 5S, haven't looked.

this gets even more complicated by the existence of stereo sound (2 simultaneous signals). a good DAC is able to completely separate the signal and not make them affect each other. the end result is better positioning - you would be able to clearly identify the location of each sound source as you listen to a well recorded stereo recording. a bad DAC would make a stereo recording sound more 'mono' and the positioning of each sound source would be more 'blurred'.

Finally, amplification. Often, more expensive headphones require more electricity to run. The amplifier on 'stock' sound cards are often insufficient to drive these headphones and so will produce weak or tinny sound on the headphones.

the above is a simplification.