Higher Quality iTunes Coming?

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by MacRumors, Jun 22, 2006.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]

    AppleInsider is reporting that an updated release of iTunes Producer includes the ability for record labels to encode music in Apple Lossless Codec (ALC), which may indicate that Apple is preparing iTunes for distribution of music in ALC.

    There has been other evidence of these developments, with one MacRumors source claiming that Apple is indeed planning to add higher quality songs to iTunes in the near future including the possibility of ALC's use. However, since similar previous claims were discovered to be unfounded, the claim was considered at best uncertain until AppleInsider corroborated the story.
     
  2. Administrator

    Doctor Q

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Location:
    Kepler-452b
    #2
    I can just hear the cries from the public: "I bought a song last year and I want it replaced, free of charge, with the higher quality version!"
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    #3
    that might make it worth it to start buying off the music store. but i'd still rather buy the cd
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    SFBA
    #4
    wow, I might actually buy things off ITMS now.. as long as they don't charge more for the loseless version (compared to what I could get the CD for used price at Amazon...)
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    rye9

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Location:
    New York (not NYC)
    #5
    haha i'd probably be part of that crowd. :eek:
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    celebrian23

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Location:
    Under the sun
    #6
    I still won't buy from iTMS since the reason I won't doesn't have much to do with sound quality
     
  7. Guest

    calculus

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    #7
    I want some things replaced with a better performance!
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    m-dogg

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #8
    I wonder if this is some sort of compromise between Jobs and the record labels?

    This way, Apple can keep songs available at 99 cents, but also offer the same songs in higher quality -- for a higher price. I bet lossless will be an option at a higher price point.
     
  9. macrumors regular

    Core Trio

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #9

    well...what is your reason?
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    kjr39

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    #10
    I'd still rather own the CD...

    Buying anything other than a single track on iTunes doesn't do much for me due to the controls imposed.
     
  11. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #11
    Nice

    I was just speculating on when Apple might consider upping the quality on iTSM tracks the other day on another forum. It's really about that time. I can understand their use of 128 bit encoding to start it all off. If they made tracks lossless or encoded at too high a bitrate, the larger file sizes may have turned away many customers. No-one wants to sit and wait for a long time for tracks to download. but broadband is becoming so common now, it shouldn't pose as much of an issue. Now that they have a large installed base of clients who are buying from it, it makes perfect sense to start giving us higher quality encodings.

    The only downside to it would be that less music will fit on iPods under the new scheme. Apple's "1000 songs in your pocket" claim will have to come with a disclaimer that states it's only true when using the lower quality tracks, etc. Or they'll have to change it to "500 songs in your pocket" or something ;)
     
  12. macrumors 68030

    quigleybc

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Location:
    Beautiful Vancouver British Columbia, Canada
    #12
    How does one vote this negative?

    and yes, i too may start using the ITMS if this happens.

    should have happened a long time ago IMO

    but, i'll believe it when I see it....
     
  13. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    The Amalgamated States of Central North America
    #13
    Isn't Apple lossless half the size of AIFF? Who has the hard disk space???
     
  14. Administrator

    Doctor Q

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Location:
    Kepler-452b
    #14
    Apple could counter that with clever marketing. They could come out with new iPods with correspondingly increased storage capacities, leave the "1000 songs" slogan the same, and conveniently ignore the fact that previous iPod models would lose song capacity with ALC downloads.
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    dextertangocci

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Location:
    Cape Town, South Africa
    #15
    What's wrong with the current iTunes quality? I'm sure it wouldn't really matter to the average consumer.
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    #16
    If you get it in ALC and then can burn it to CD (like you currently can with iTMS ACC songs) would you still have a reason not to buy?

    It doesn't to many customers.

    I don't think the fact that external parties can submit songs to iTMS in ALC means that Apple will start selling songs in ALC format. (it would be nice but I wouldn't expect it... maybe higher bitrate ACC)
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    yankeefan24

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Location:
    NYC
    #17
    I am a bit picky on sound, but I have never found a problem with iTMS quality. I might buy higher quality (depending on price), but if it's too much, lower quality is fine for me. The average consumer wouldn't pay any extra money for lossless. Only pro's. iTMS isn't directed to pro's.
     
  18. macrumors 68030

    Analog Kid

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2003
    #18
    If they don't change the price, I could see myself buying in ALC then reencoding to something smaller for the iPod keeping the high quality version for backup.
     
  19. Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #19
    I'd be perfectly happy with 192kbps.
     
  20. Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #20
    According to Apple (who got it from dolby)...
    • AAC compressed audio at 128 Kbps (stereo) has been judged by expert listeners to be “indistinguishable” from the original uncompressed audio source.
    • AAC compressed audio at 96 Kbps generally exceeded the quality of MP3 compressed audio at 128 Kbps. AAC at 128 Kbps provides significantly superior performance than does MP3 at 128 Kbps.
    • AAC was the only Internet audio codec evaluated in the range “Excellent” at 64 Kbps for all of the audio items tested in EBU listening tests.
    Link

    So in theory, we shouldn't need higher quality songs, right? :confused:
     
  21. macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #21

    Well other companys do that all the time. My friend has a Dell DJ, and its 30Gb but he says it hold 15,000 songs. I had to explain to him that my 60Gb iPod has more room for songs
     
  22. Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    #22
    that would be awesome if they offered lossless!!! I know im reaching out far, but it would be great to "upgrade" my library for free. Even if it did cost more, I would be willing to download my favorite albums again in lossless.
     
  23. macrumors 68030

    BlizzardBomb

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Location:
    England
    #23
    Ok maybe not free, but how about a heavily discounted rate for songs you've already downloaded, maybe $0.50/£0.30 for 10 songs. Some songs like acoustics wouldn't really benefit much from the better quality.

    Agreed. 192kbps would be the sweet spot for many people.
     
  24. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #24
    That makes sense to me--somebody has to pay for the extra bandwidth, and this WOULD be a higher offering than .99 songs at other stores.

    And yet... I don't see much demand (outside of a small but vocal group who I do respect) for better than the current MP4/AAC quality. So, low demand, higher price, AND adding new factor of doubt for the masses who were already buying the current format? That sounds like a recipe for a backfire.

    So I'll make a guess and say this will not be any large scale deployment. Maybe just some "special edition" stuff, ONLY available in the better format, as an incentive to pay for that special "box set" or whatever.
     
  25. Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #25
    What is CD quality? Other online music stores sell CD quality songs for $.99.
     

Share This Page