High Definition iTunes Music Downloads May Be on the Horizon

[Avatar74]

Back to audio, since humans can hear only up to 20kHz at best there is no reason to go above that as Nyquist frequency.

This is not an inherent property of what the nyquist limit does. Your statement is only true if you've used a lowpass filtering in your mastering process so that frequencies and harmonics above the Nyquist limit are filtered out before they are recorded.

For example: A Nyquist limit of 22.05kHz does not mean that it will not sample 33kHz. ANY sampling frequency will intersect with that 33kHz wave in a way that produces a series of values that result in a different wave at a lower, and often audible frequency.

There are only two ways around this phenomenon:

1. Use a lowpass filter at the nyquist limit to completely prevent any frequencies above that limit from being captured at all. The nyquist limit is a conceptual limit, not an actual barrier to sampling frequencies above it.

2. Choose a Nyquist frequency so far above the A-weighted range that frequency roll off and frequency aliasing become completely immaterial, as they will not produce other artifacts inside the range of human hearing.

The other general rule is to work in multiples of 24. So if you're sampling at 192kHz during the recording stage, don't mix down to 44.1, but rather 48 or 96. This reduces downsampling error... though computer processing is so powerful these days that this is a far smaller concern than it used to be.

But again, I want to be clear that the Nyquist limit does not prohibit frequencies above it from being sampled. Even the sampling frequency doesn't prohibit that. If you sampled a 33kHz wave thirty-thousand times a second, it would produce an audible distortion... not the original wave, mind you, but the resulting ALIAS of the wave--a lower frequency wave--which ends up inside the A-weighted spectrum.

More detail here.

Excerpt:

"Although sampling at twice the Nyquist frequency will ensure that you measure the correct frequency of your signal, it will not be sufficient to capture the shape of the waveform. If the shape of the waveform is desired, you should sample at a rate approximately 10 times the Nyquist theory."

192 is closer to 10x nyquist than 22.

 

[bsolar]

This is not an inherent property of what the nyquist limit does. Your statement is only true if you've used a lowpass filtering in your mastering process so that frequencies and harmonics above the Nyquist limit are filtered out before they are recorded.

For example: A Nyquist limit of 22.05kHz does not mean that it will not sample 33kHz. ANY sampling frequency will intersect with that 33kHz wave in a way that produces a series of values that result in a different wave at a lower, and often audible frequency.

There are only two ways around this phenomenon:

1. Use a lowpass filter at the nyquist limit to completely prevent any frequencies above that limit from being captured at all. The nyquist limit is a conceptual limit, not an actual barrier to sampling frequencies above it.

2. Choose a Nyquist frequency so far above the A-weighted range that frequency roll off and frequency aliasing become completely immaterial, as they will not produce other artifacts inside the range of human hearing.

The other general rule is to work in multiples of 24. So if you're sampling at 192kHz during the recording stage, don't mix down to 44.1, but rather 48 or 96. This reduces downsampling error... though computer processing is so powerful these days that this is a far smaller concern than it used to be.

But again, I want to be clear that the Nyquist limit does not prohibit frequencies above it from being sampled. Even the sampling frequency doesn't prohibit that. If you sampled a 33kHz wave thirty-thousand times a second, it would produce an audible distortion... not the original wave, mind you, but the resulting ALIAS of the wave--a lower frequency wave--which ends up inside the A-weighted spectrum.

More detail here.

Excerpt:

"Although sampling at twice the Nyquist frequency will ensure that you measure the correct frequency of your signal, it will not be sufficient to capture the shape of the waveform. If the shape of the waveform is desired, you should sample at a rate approximately 10 times the Nyquist theory."

192 is closer to 10x nyquist than 22.

If I understand correctly, this merely determines a higher sampling frequency given a Nyquist frequency, but you still need to decide what your Nyquist frequency is in the first place. Assuming that you need 10x Nyquist to capture correctly the Nyquist frequency, if you decide that you want to correctly capture frequencies up to 50kHz you'd need 500kHz sampling rate.

I guess the issues you're discussing are detailed in this article in the "oversampling" chapter?

 

[joeray]

Only a fool would by 24/192 "hi-res" files. It's placebo.

Call me a fool. I have recorded in studios at 24 bit only to not recognize my recordings after they were compressed to CD's... 24 bit at 192 will let you feel music like you did with an LP on a great sound system using Klipsch LaScalla speakers...

 

[csbo]

24 bit at 192 will let you feel music like you did with an LP on a great sound system using Klipsch LaScalla speakers...

It makes you feel like you're using a system with limited dynamic range and frequency response?

 

[jettredmont]

Me too,
The insistence of many on this forum that no one can or will appreciate better audio because they can't is childish.

To be clear: we are insisting that people can not tell the difference because, scientifically speaking, it has been proven that people can not tell the difference. Not even 1%. People, as a whole, can not.

Sony spent s HUGE amount of money in the early 2000s funding research in this area, with the express aim of proving that the higher bit rates mattered to some people. Large company, practically unlimited research funds, some of the best audio engineers on the planet to assist in setting up A/B comparisons. Came up empty.

I am not impressed that you claim to have super-human ears. You might do well, if that is actually true, to contact Sony and see if they will fund some research into your hearing. Might make a pretty dime, there. But, in the end, I have to say there is a 99.999% probability you have simply fooled yourself into thinking you hear a difference (either purely psychological, or because you are listening to different mixes as many folks on this board have described). A lot of people swear by homeopathy and acupuncture and faith healing and you name it as well. When something (1) has no plausible physical mechanism, (2) disappears under scientific tests (and the more precisely controlled the tests the less any potential effect shows), and this despite (3) a large research budget directed by a multi-billion-dollar industry with a massive stake in showing that effect exists ... then that thing is just not scientifically sound.

I am sorry to tell you this. And I know you won't believe me. But maybe it can stop others from believing you.

 

[RoboWarriorSr]

If this goes though, (hopefully, many classical/orchestral tracks will benefit from this) then there might be a possibility that Apple will "reboot" the iPod Classic to complete with Pono and have a device that can store all of your music, in a thin profile (not going to lie, the Pono music device looks way too thick to fit inside jeans). If they want gapless playback on the new iPod Classic, it's almost guaranteed that it will either have a bigger RAM cache, go full SSD, or some type of fusion drive like for their desktop designs. Just if they slap on a iPhone 5 or 5S DAC, they benefit would be neglected.

 

[massprince]

old trick

apple will charge twice the price and will launch new device that can only play HD file.

 

[217833]

You work in the audio field?

Yes I do and that's how and why I can know and tell 24/192 is just completely useless for music distribution.

 

[217833]

This is not an inherent property of what the nyquist limit does. Your statement is only true if you've used a lowpass filtering in your mastering process so that frequencies and harmonics above the Nyquist limit are filtered out before they are recorded.

For example: A Nyquist limit of 22.05kHz does not mean that it will not sample 33kHz. ANY sampling frequency will intersect with that 33kHz wave in a way that produces a series of values that result in a different wave at a lower, and often audible frequency.

But back in audio recording prospective, it actually doesn't matter because your recording will be set higher than what you can actually really hear.

If you're recording, let's say a trumpet, it can have some harmonics up to 100 kHz. But in reality any people in the audience won't hear anything above 20-22kHz (15-16kHz for most of the adult people). So whatever happens above the 22kHz doesn't really matter to the audience.

Even if some harmonics, above the Nyquist frequency, interact with audible frequencies, the audible interactions will be correctly captured during the recording (sampling) and therefor properly reproduced during the playing (even with a sample rate set at 44,1kHz). And therefor the reproduction will be accurate to what any human being can hear.

So the downfall here from the "technical" side doesn't matter, because it does exceed the downfall from the "human being" capabilities.

 

[iBreatheApple]

I guess I'm part of the 1% then. Never bought a single album off iTunes because of it. Looking forward to this update!

I, on the other hand, purchase music all the time from iTunes and am NOT looking forward to this if they charge a premium. The song is produced and mastered in a lossless format anyway, then they compress it. Why on Earth are they going to charge more for the same exact process. Only the higher quality version wasn't available to us before.

The entire sales model for the iTunes store is ridiculous, in my opinion. So a 30 second clip of a song (ringtone) costs the same as the full length HQ track? And then they sell music videos for a mere $0.20-$0.70 more than a song?

Drop 256k music to $0.99 and sell the hi-def for $1.29 and maybe I'll stop bitching.

 

[bhudkins]

Hopefully this is true and Apple actually releases hi-res audio files This rumor surfaced a few years ago on Gizmodo and I wrote then what I think still holds true:

"This ain’t so simple. At first glance 16-bit should be more than enough. There are 65,536 gradations of volume (just like gradations of color across the spectrum) possible with 16-bit audio. That’s a whole lot. 16-bit audio (what we currently have) is reported to have a dynamic range of 96 decibels. Once again, that’s a lot. Who can possibly hear that many gradations? No one.

But there’s a dirty little secret to those numbers. 32,500 of the 65,000 gradations are used on the loudest 6 decibels of the 96 decibels of dynamic range. 16,000 are used on the NEXT 6 decibels of range. In other words 75% of the gradations are devoted to the loudest 12% of the range. The other 88% of the range gets 25% of the bits devoted to it. That’s where the problem comes in.

A 24-bit solution increases the number of gradations by over 500 times! That’s especially important in quieter passages. It’s where the difference between a Stradivarius violin and a student violin are found. It’s where the difference between a Stratocaster and a Telecaster are. Now maybe you don’t care, but some of us do.

Sure, 24 bits will take more storage space than 16 bits. Storage space is a commodity that is ALWAYS coming down in price, so who cares? Should the studios charge more for 24 bit? Probably not, especially if they’re already recording in 24 bit.

When Edison demonstrated the gramophone, he did a live versus recorded test to show that no one could tell the difference between his recorded wax cylinders and a live orchestra. Reportedly no one could tell the difference. Do that today and you would be laughed out of the room.

Video for years was 480i. Then we got 480p and it mattered. Then we got 720p and it mattered. Then we got 1080p and it matters. Now we have 2160p and it matters!

As Bob Dylan wrote years ago, “Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone, For the times they are a-changin’ ”

Recordings, audio and video, are a permanent record, an historical document. Should we throw out some of the document to save space on digital storage, or should we treasure all of it and make sure we preserve it at it’s very best?"

 

[csbo]

That’s where the problem comes in.

specifically, what problem?

That’s especially important in quieter passages.

technically it's only important in the quieter passages. And let's be clear, we are talking about trying to have a normal conversation at a rock concert quiet

It’s where the difference between a Stradivarius violin and a student violin are found. It’s where the difference between a Stratocaster and a Telecaster are.

no. Both of those differences exist at normal volumes, not super quiet ones. If you can't hear them at normal volumes your hearing is damaged beyond the point of even appreciating 16/44.1

Recordings, audio and video, are a permanent record, an historical document. Should we throw out some of the document to save space on digital storage, or should we treasure all of it and make sure we preserve it at it’s very best?"

You also demand photographs that record from infrared to ultraviolet, right?

 

[Sol]

If the film is good, you tend to completely forget about the resolution; you admire the picture, not the canvas.

When a film has exquisite cinematography the compression artefacts and banding of gradients becomes very distracting for me. Most films have functional cinematography but something like Valhalla Rising or The Thin Red Line should be seen at the best possible format to appreciate their artistry. Likewise, there are many classic albums that would be worth re-purchasing in HD to appreciate on new levels.

 

[hagar]

If this is true, it will be a huge selling point for the iPhone 6. "Back to the iPod" with hardware support for the new format, double the storage for the same price and better earplugs.

" iPhone 6, the best iPod since the iPod. "

" Because music is in our DNA"

They have become so easy to predict ;-)

 

[rlhamil]

FLAC is lossless, as is Apple Lossless, he could easily convert the files over and suffer no degradation *at all*

Experimenting suggests that existing iDevices can handle up to 24 bit @ 48KHz ALAC files (without an external DAC and separate app). Not as OTT as 192KHz, but only 1/4 the size, and noticeably better than CD quality provided they were mastered at the higher quality (or even higher) and that one has better-than-standard earphones.

If nothing else, this might be a way to keep people signing up for iTunes Match.

What can be done about the long-term trend of people wanting all content for free, I have no idea. I don't mind free, but I'd rather have the option of paying for quality, variety, and no advertising. But most folks who don't yet have a well-paying job probably want free more than anything else.

 

[bsolar]

But back in audio recording prospective, it actually doesn't matter because your recording will be set higher than what you can actually really hear.

If you're recording, let's say a trumpet, it can have some harmonics up to 100 kHz. But in reality any people in the audience won't hear anything above 20-22kHz (15-16kHz for most of the adult people). So whatever happens above the 22kHz doesn't really matter to the audience.

Even if some harmonics, above the Nyquist frequency, interact with audible frequencies, the audible interactions will be correctly captured during the recording (sampling) and therefor properly reproduced during the playing (even with a sample rate set at 44,1kHz). And therefor the reproduction will be accurate to what any human being can hear.

So the downfall here from the "technical" side doesn't matter, because it does exceed the downfall from the "human being" capabilities.

That is actually not true, as the parent explained frequencies above the Nyquist frequency would "disrupt" the correct measurement of frequencies at or under it unless you filter them out (in this case 2xNyquist sampling is enough) or sample at a very high rate (above the theoretical 2xNyquist). Today most digitizers internally do oversample to address this issue.

The point is, even if it matters for recording and/or production, it still doesn't matter for reproduction: in the context of distribution and end-user consumption 24/192 makes no sense and 16/44.1 or 16/48 are perfectly capable of providing the highest fidelity human hearing is able to perceive.

 

[LastQuadrant]

we bought zeppelin on

vinyl
reel to reel
8-track
cassette
cd
mini disc
sa cd
hd dvd
blueray
mp3
m4a
aiff
wav
ringtone
flac
and now they want to make a new format ?!

No Thanks!

Well, if they do it, it will probably be using AAC compression so the file size should be smaller than other formats currently on the market. Hopefully they won't be charging as much as other 24 bit downloads currently on the market. HD Tracks has a limited amount of content available on a variety of formats. They usually offer FLAC, AIFF and ALAC. I prefer AIFF whenever possible, but I just don't like paying the high prices they charge. I think that's a big obstacle on why 24 bit isn't as popular as 16 bit, plus the file sizes are pretty damn big. DSD is even bigger which Sony has been talking about releasing this year, but I'm not sure how much they are going to charge and how much of their catalog they are planning on releasing.

----------

apple will charge twice the price and will launch new device that can only play HD file.

Sorry, that's not true. What Apple will most likely do is change out the current 16 bit DACs in all of their products in favor of 24 bit DACs and when we purchase a new product, it will just simply play 24 bit if we have a 24 bit file and 16 bit if we are playing a 16 bit file. I'm just hoping they can work things out with the record labels so we aren't paying $25 that HD Tracks charges for a typical 24 bit album. HD Tracks and a few others are the only games in town right now, and they charge varying prices depending on the sample rate (they all have different file sizes they have to store). But if Apple does it, they'll most likely use AAC but the 24 bit version and hopefully with their mastering software, it will sound as close to lossless but with a smaller file size and HOPEFULLY less expensive.

I sure wish they can do it eventually for the same amount of money as 16 bit, but something tells me the record labels will want more money, which will prevent adoption rates. Either way, I already download some content from HD Tracks when I can and their recordings have been far better than 16 bit CD or anything else that I've heard. It will be interesting to see what Sony does since they are supposed to pushing out an even higher level of resolution for their DSD than what they were selling with SACDs.

I'm not sure whatever built in 24 bit DACs will be able to compete with the higher priced/quality USB DACs on the market since internal DACs in computers are generally just average, but at least it's a step up. I will still use an external DAC because they'll be better than anything internal, but for those that won't, they'll at least start to be able to get better audio if they start downloading 24 bit files with an internal 24 bit DAC.

It would be nice if they could redesign their power supplies to have linear PSU with lots of noise filtration, but that's expensive and I doubt Apple will do that on their desktop computers.

----------

This is not an inherent property of what the nyquist limit does. Your statement is only true if you've used a lowpass filtering in your mastering process so that frequencies and harmonics above the Nyquist limit are filtered out before they are recorded.

For example: A Nyquist limit of 22.05kHz does not mean that it will not sample 33kHz. ANY sampling frequency will intersect with that 33kHz wave in a way that produces a series of values that result in a different wave at a lower, and often audible frequency.

There are only two ways around this phenomenon:

1. Use a lowpass filter at the nyquist limit to completely prevent any frequencies above that limit from being captured at all. The nyquist limit is a conceptual limit, not an actual barrier to sampling frequencies above it.

2. Choose a Nyquist frequency so far above the A-weighted range that frequency roll off and frequency aliasing become completely immaterial, as they will not produce other artifacts inside the range of human hearing.

The other general rule is to work in multiples of 24. So if you're sampling at 192kHz during the recording stage, don't mix down to 44.1, but rather 48 or 96. This reduces downsampling error... though computer processing is so powerful these days that this is a far smaller concern than it used to be.

But again, I want to be clear that the Nyquist limit does not prohibit frequencies above it from being sampled. Even the sampling frequency doesn't prohibit that. If you sampled a 33kHz wave thirty-thousand times a second, it would produce an audible distortion... not the original wave, mind you, but the resulting ALIAS of the wave--a lower frequency wave--which ends up inside the A-weighted spectrum.

More detail here.

Excerpt:

"Although sampling at twice the Nyquist frequency will ensure that you measure the correct frequency of your signal, it will not be sufficient to capture the shape of the waveform. If the shape of the waveform is desired, you should sample at a rate approximately 10 times the Nyquist theory."

192 is closer to 10x nyquist than 22.

It's not to do frequencies above 20K Hz, it's to get better resolution recordings that are more analog sounding with less noise, more dynamic range. Nyquist Theories do not cover everything there is to know about digital conversion. It's impossible for his theories to do so. They are related more to just simple wave forms and assuming that everything is perfect, which it is not. There is a LOT more when these companies design converters for capturing and playback of complex wave forms, handling noise, jitter, etc.

I don't know if you are able to listen to a 24 bit sound file on your computer now, but if you have a decent USB DAC, a decent playback software like PureMusic, Amarra, etc. and a decent stereo, download a track from HD Tracks in AIFF format and then compare to the same track from a CD that's been ripped to AIFF. I've been doing this for about 6 months and every recording I've done that was originally recorded on analog tape, the over all sound quality of 24 bit AIFF vs 16 AIFF ripped from a CD is worlds apart. 24 bit ROCKS if the mastering engineer did their job properly. But so far, I haven't been disappointed. Old analog recordings from the 60's and 70's that they have are just REALLY nice sounding and my system isn't super expensive. Even on a sub-$1000 pair of speakers/amp/DAC the difference is noticeable.

I would highly recommend you just take some time listening and avoid Nyquist theories that are just a bunch of math. His mathematics don't cover everything there is to know about digital conversion. they are only theories to explain a small portion of what's going on with digital conversion. The real proof is in the listening. Top end recording studios have been replacing their converters over the years and they are using far superior equipment than they did when digital recording first came out. Seriously, Abbey Road and other top studios are NOT going to switch converters unless they hear a dramatic improvement, which they do. Theories are only theories and they assume everything to be perfect for which they aren't in REALITY.

 

[bsolar]

I don't know if you are able to listen to a 24 bit sound file on your computer now, but if you have a decent USB DAC, a decent playback software like PureMusic, Amarra, etc. and a decent stereo, download a track from HD Tracks in AIFF format and then compare to the same track from a CD that's been ripped to AIFF. I've been doing this for about 6 months and every recording I've done that was originally recorded on analog tape, the over all sound quality of 24 bit AIFF vs 16 AIFF ripped from a CD is worlds apart. 24 bit ROCKS if the mastering engineer did their job properly. But so far, I haven't been disappointed. Old analog recordings from the 60's and 70's that they have are just REALLY nice sounding and my system isn't super expensive. Even on a sub-$1000 pair of speakers/amp/DAC the difference is noticeable.

You cannot do a comparison like that, you don't know whether the master is the same or whether the mastering engineer did his job properly in one case but not in the other (Death Magnetic "Guitar Hero" vs CD...). If you want to do a test you should take the 24/192 "highest fidelity" version and resample it to 16/44.1, or you can read the results of those who already did (emphasis mine):

Empirical evidence from listening tests backs up the assertion that 44.1kHz/16 bit provides highest-possible fidelity playback. There are numerous controlled tests confirming this, but I'll plug a recent paper, Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback, done by local folks here at the Boston Audio Society.

[...]

This paper presented listeners with a choice between high-rate DVD-A/SACD content, chosen by high-definition audio advocates to show off high-def's superiority, and that same content resampled on the spot down to 16-bit / 44.1kHz Compact Disc rate. The listeners were challenged to identify any difference whatsoever between the two using an ABX methodology. BAS conducted the test using high-end professional equipment in noise-isolated studio listening environments with both amateur and trained professional listeners.

In 554 trials, listeners chose correctly 49.8% of the time. In other words, they were guessing. Not one listener throughout the entire test was able to identify which was 16/44.1 and which was high rate [15], and the 16-bit signal wasn't even dithered!

Another recent study [16] investigated the possibility that ultrasonics were audible, as earlier studies had suggested. The test was constructed to maximize the possibility of detection by placing the intermodulation products where they'd be most audible. It found that the ultrasonic tones were not audible... but the intermodulation distortion products introduced by the loudspeakers could be.

This paper inspired a great deal of further research, much of it with mixed results. Some of the ambiguity is explained by finding that ultrasonics can induce more intermodulation distortion than expected in power amplifiers as well. For example, David Griesinger reproduced this experiment [17] and found that his loudspeaker setup did not introduce audible intermodulation distortion from ultrasonics, but his stereo amplifier did.

 

[Mike8833]

Did this test...

http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_index.php blindtest

Did the above mentioned test. I can hear the following: (i have bead ears i guess)
(i have to say there is birds and cars around here all the time so that might have influenced the results XD)

0,5 db smallest difference in sound levels
14 Khz highest frequency
10c smallest difference in pitch
60 db dynamic range
16bit/8bit differenciation = failed

So a normal CD offers more than enough to me and for years i went for cd quality since i was not satisfied with (at the beginning) 128 mp3's. Also the 256 aac do not convince me. although it might be just a bad feeling coming from the knowledge that there is in fact something missing.

Long time i have been wishing for normal CD quality ALAC coming to the Itunes store and now they probably shoot highly above the target -.-

cheers Mike

 

[LastQuadrant]

I, on the other hand, purchase music all the time from iTunes and am NOT looking forward to this if they charge a premium. The song is produced and mastered in a lossless format anyway, then they compress it. Why on Earth are they going to charge more for the same exact process. Only the higher quality version wasn't available to us before.

The entire sales model for the iTunes store is ridiculous, in my opinion. So a 30 second clip of a song (ringtone) costs the same as the full length HQ track? And then they sell music videos for a mere $0.20-$0.70 more than a song?

Drop 256k music to $0.99 and sell the hi-def for $1.29 and maybe I'll stop bitching.

I know, the pricing of 24 bit right now through HD Tracks and other sources is ripping expensive, but they do sound much better (with a good DAC and a decent stereo system), but in order for 24 Bit to really go mainstream for the masses three things HAVE to happen.

1. They have to have TONS of content PROPERLY mastered.
2. AAC compression has to be as good as lossless. I'm sure they are working on that.
3. The price for single songs and albums HAS to be affordable. Paying upwards of $25 an album and $2.50 a song IS NOT AFFORDABLE for the masses.

Apple has only so much control over the price these record labels want to charge and Apple has to have a 30% margin off of retail in order for them to make a reasonable Net Profit. The amount of money in overhead costs/taxes, etc. per download only allows Apple to actually make $.05 per $.99 download. Apple currently pays for their iTunes legal department, which they have to have, they have to pay for marketing/advertising, they have to pay for maintaining the servers, they have to pay Akamai or whomever for content delivery, they have their iTunes support handling support issues, etc., etc. A lot goes into this, plus they also have storage, etc. for the massive amount of free content that they don't charge anyone for. The problem is the record labels have a bug up their rear ends about charging more for higher resolution which is EXACTLY why SACD and DVD-A never caught on. The price of admission for content and lack of prevented the masses from obtaining SACDs and DVD-A and that's why both of those failed to catch on. Sony is getting ready to release DSD downloads but better versions than they had for SACD, but i'm not sure how they are going to price it either.

Why isn't Blu Ray getting as popular as regular DVD's? Price of the content. They just simply charge to freaking much. Same thing with these HD movies. They charge more because they take up more room. Well, if they charged the same, they would sell more. Plain and simple. They would rather sell less for more money per unit, then dropping the freaking price and selling more.

Oh well, the brainless people at record labels and film makers never cease to amaze me.

I hope Apple and the Record labels get this one right. Apple has the ability to get their players, iDevices, laptops and desktop with internal 24 Bit DACs much faster to market than any other platform, since they could probably REALISTICALLY do it within 3 years from the first product launch and NO ONE can do that as quickly. And since iTunes is the defacto standard for MOST digital downloads, they do have their system in place and they spend more time/money getting it to work better.

iTunes does have some room for improvement in terms of operation with switching between 16 bit and 24 bit, plus they could learn a lot or at least add useful features that are seen on 3rd party apps like PureMusic, Amarra, Audirvana, etc. that Apple has to either license, buy out one of these smaller companies, or develop internally.

I hope Apple gets it right sooner than later, they are definitely in the driver's seat on this one. Pono is as far as I'm concerned a dead issue and the company will most likely fold within 6 months to a year after Apple starts releasing product and content to iTunes.

I'm wondering if Apple might make this announcement at WWDC along with iPod upgrades or if they'll just wait until Christmas per usual. They didn't upgrade the iPod lineup last year and it will be interesting how much they will update.

I am also wondering if they will really make the MacMini an even better unit to create a music server.

 

[Xiroteus]

Good for those who have the equipment to tell the difference. The price is far too high so that is a strong negative. I'm good with 320k because I have flat laptop speakers and eight dollar ear buds. I really need to get some power to my sound system in the future.

 

[zedsdead]

If this is true, it will be a huge selling point for the iPhone 6. "Back to the iPod" with hardware support for the new format, double the storage for the same price and better earplugs.

" iPhone 6, the best iPod since the iPod. "

" Because music is in our DNA"

They have become so easy to predict ;-)

Well hopefully fix the iOS music app that they destroyed with iOS 7.

 

[dragje]

A new iTunes would be good, I really don't like iTunes the way it is now, I'm not using it for years simply because I find the GUI terrible designed and the functionality is somewhat limited.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

The other thing to note is that the Broadwell platform from Intel is going to have better audio processing capabilities, which would coincide well with this upgrade.

24-bit processing in a low power mode, and enhanced speech recognition processing.

Boy, what company does that sound perfect for?

 

[visualanté]

Just the same old industry tactic that's been going on for decades. Sell them music they already purchased on a "new format". No thanks. 16-bit/256k is damn good and I can barely the difference between iTunes and the CD 5% of the time.

This is why streaming is the feature. Negates all of this nonsense.

i would have to disagree....the details in compressed music are missing...some people may not notice but I can and so do others. HD audio is actually better than CD quality and when you have nice speakers you can truly tell a difference.