Apple Music Launches 'Digital Masters' Initiative Out of Old 'Mastered for iTunes' Program

[Salty Pirate]

Now I cannot tell one lick of perceived difference between the streaming bluetooth and plugged in via lighting cable to car play.

I am fine with the streaming bluetooth. It's not terrible and it is very convenient.

 

[simonmet]

No, it wasn´t.


Better mastering is more important (that is, easily appreciated by our ears) in perceived audio quality , than lossless, specially when we´re dealing with high quality lossy encodings with bitrates well beyond the transparency level.

Lossless wont fix ****** mastering, but guidelines with better practices for engineers and extremely easy to use tools to avoid clipping and distortion and preserve dynamic range will.

That´s what Apple has been doing since 2012 with their mastered for Itunes initiative. As a result, many albums sounds better in Apple Music than Spotify, Google Music, or Tidal. Dynamic range matters.
[doublepost=1565196734][/doublepost]

THIS. A thousand times this.
[doublepost=1565196842][/doublepost]As for this...

I THINK that this is merely a view of all the mastered for Itunes releases in one organised section in Apple Music, or at least that´s what I can gather from the article. But... whatever this is, is not live yet. I cant find any mention to it in Apple Music UI, or the Itunes Store. So, we don´t know yet what this is exactly, nor how to look for it. Correct?
[doublepost=1565197024][/doublepost]

Cool! But I guess it won´t be live soon, since current Airpods only support AAC.

I agree with some of your points; chiefly that mastering matters and lossless can’t fix a poor master, but on others I think you’re confused, especially in refuting my claim that the Mastered for iTunes programme was mostly a marketing gimmick or stunt.

Do you really think that, with the ‘Mastered for iTunes’ “standard”, Apple was telling audio engineers how to do their job; to “master better”; to change their master to suit Apple’s demands; or even to create unique and dedicated masters for the iTunes, and now Apple Music, platforms? Sorry, but I don’t buy it. We don’t even know what the requirements were other than what we’ve been told: that files served by iTunes have to be encoded directly from high-resolution masters, not in a multi-step encode process that might include standard CD-format lossless. Apple verifies this, I presume, by requiring the studios supply them with the high-resolution masters for Apple to encode.

I stand by my claim that this should’ve been the default method anyway. Does Apple do some kind of filtering on the master in order to make it sound better? We’ll never know, but I doubt it. If I were an audio engineer there’s no way I’d let anyone else take over creative control like that.

And sure, you say mastering is more important than bit-rate. But I’ll take a lossless CD format or lossless master format over Apple’s lossy format produced from the same master and for the same album any day. They are objectively higher quality. I don’t care how much better you or anyone else thinks they may or may not be: or whether the higher cost is worth it. That’s for me alone as a consumer to decide. What can’t be argued, however, is that even with high quality M4A encoding and whatever trickery Apple might use, they can’t be technically better than the lossless formats some competitors like Tidal are using.

I stand by my claim that, as with many things at Apple (like iPad is a computer*) Mastered for iTunes was almost entirely an act of pure marketing because they chose not to compete on bit-rate or quality with some of the other providers. They had control of devices and market penetration to compete on instead. With Apple, economics of scale means that even small marketing efforts can go a long way, and this was one of them. They’re the masters of marketing.

*Off-topic point of order: I’m using an iPad and I can’t even copy tables from Wikipedia and paste them into Numbers (such that I might do some basic analysis) easily or successfully on iPad. Thanks an ultra-basic task. I’m a data analyst by trade and even an old 13” can do most of what I need. An iPad, hardly anything.

 

[AgentElliot007]

There are many claims from people that they believe lossless sounds better but there has yet to be a study where people can prove it in a blind test. It is very easy to be fooled into thinking something sounds better, a placebo type of effect occurs and people do not realize it.

Apple pushing properly mastered music does a lot more for sound quality than simply pushing lossless will ever do.

I think Apple's AAC sounds really good for the size, and I don't think I'd ever be able to tell the difference between 256 AAC and 24/192 on wired earbuds, and obviously AirPods transcode anything down to 256 AAC anyways, but at home on my big A/V system with moderately good receiver/speakers/amps, I can absolutely tell the difference between a 256 AAC and HD audio standards. On higher end audio systems, it's even more transparent. Redbook might be tougher especially depending on the recording which is true across the board.

But I'll say, I think you notice it more the more you listen to higher-res audio. I've been doing a lot more listening to lossless and/or HD audio (24/96 and up) and I was AirPlaying some stuff from my phone today for convenience sake and I was shocked by how noticeable the downgrade in quality was. On some level it's subtle, but in the higher-res recordings in particular, there's an unmistakable air and sustain that's missing in lossy audio. It's easier to miss if you're not used to hearing it, but again, listen consistently for long enough and all of the sudden your ears tune into things that you weren't even aware were there because you've spent so much time listening to lousy audio.

Granted, I'm an enthusiast, former professional musician, and have worked in recording studios and production. I'm aware of a lot more to listen for to begin with than most, and I do think on some level a lot of hi-fi stuff is lost on many people who don't critically listen or have a system capable of reproducing higher resolution appropriately. That said, I see no reason why Apple and others shouldn't offer the option to those interested. Like others have said, I'd gladly pay double for lossless, though I'd really love to see a 24/96 option given that much of the music being submitted to Apple at this point is in 24/96 before being converted down to 256 AAC. A $19.99 24/96 Apple Music (ideally that let me upload my collection of non-streaming HD music in lossless as well) would be incredibly compelling. If I had to pay $24.99 to upload my collection that isn't on streaming (live recordings released directly by acts mostly), I'd gladly pay that, though I'd hope they'd adapt Apple TV to output it correctly. I'm very much over the crudeness of HEOS and Plex...
[doublepost=1565204115][/doublepost]

Pretty much this.

Even on very expensive gear into the $10k range it's nearly impossible to tell the difference between a well encoded 256kbps AAC track and a lossless track at any bitrate/resolution. Correct mastering matters FAR more than simply releasing lossless tracks will ever do.

If audio quality matters to you, invest in a better pair of headphones and/or speakers. A good separates amplifier even a very modestly priced one will do a better job than the one in your phone. If you're using speakers, good quality cable matters, it doesn't really matter what (digital) coax, hdmi or optical cable you use. You can build from there if you want. Only after you've exhausted all those details to the point you're flat broke and close to ruin should you even consider lossless audio as an option, and even then you're better off spending the money on whisky.

100% agree that good mastering is the most important part if you've been given a good set of recordings/mixes. **** mastering will sound like **** at 24/192 just as much as it does at 256 AAC. But good mastering of a good recording on a good system is absolutely better sounding than a 256 AAC if you are an avid listener. Again, you can't just plunk someone down and ask them if they know the difference. Most people won't know, and most people might not even realize what they're missing if they're not familiar with the improved fidelity of higher-res music reproduced on a decent system. By no means am I suggesting that this is as glaring as the jump from SD to HD video, it's more like HD to 4K HDR, in that many won't see a difference, or at least not right away, but if you are familiar with what to look for or get used to it, when you step down, you likely will notice more of what's missing.

 

[DukeSilver79]

One thing I hate about Apple Music is music is at different volume levels, some songs are louder than others. And often times if I listen to something on YouTube and then the same thing in Apple Music without changing the volume the YouTube song is louder. I get that louder doesn’t mean better but I’m still not impressed with the sound quality of songs on Apple Music.

But to play devil's advocate, it's the same with cd's. That's not necessarily up to Apple.

Let me clarify, that is something Apple could do, but do artists or some artists have a say in this on iTunes?

 

[Ralfi]

In Apple Music, Apple doesn't designate whether a song is under its Digital Masters program or not. Still, for people who care about lossless audio, it's a good sign that the company has formally acknowledged a plan to move forward with adding more high-quality audio tracks to Apple Music.

It would be great (& logical) if we could see which specific tracks/albums are available as Digital Masters!

 

[efktd]

So now I might actually be able to understand what the mumble rappers are saying?! Cool!

 

[BODYBUILDERPAUL]

I agree with some of your points; chiefly that mastering matters and lossless can’t fix a poor master, but on others I think you’re confused, especially in refuting my claim that the Mastered for iTunes programme was mostly a marketing gimmick or stunt.

Do you really think that, with the ‘Mastered for iTunes’ “standard”, Apple was telling audio engineers how to do their job; to “master better”; to change their master to suit Apple’s demands; or even to create unique and dedicated masters for the iTunes, and now Apple Music, platforms? Sorry, but I don’t buy it. We don’t even know what the requirements were other than what we’ve been told: that files served by iTunes have to be encoded directly from high-resolution masters, not in a multi-step encode process that might include standard CD-format lossless. Apple verifies this, I presume, by requiring the studios supply them with the high-resolution masters for Apple to encode.

I stand by my claim that this should’ve been the default method anyway. Does Apple do some kind of filtering on the master in order to make it sound better? We’ll never know, but I doubt it. If I were an audio engineer there’s no way I’d let anyone else take over creative control like that.

And sure, you say mastering is more important than bit-rate. But I’ll take a lossless CD format or lossless master format over Apple’s lossy format produced from the same master and for the same album any day. They are objectively higher quality. I don’t care how much better you or anyone else thinks they may or may not be: or whether the higher cost is worth it. That’s for me alone as a consumer to decide. What can’t be argued, however, is that even with high quality M4A encoding and whatever trickery Apple might use, they can’t be technically better than the lossless formats some competitors like Tidal are using.

I stand by my claim that, as with many things at Apple (like iPad is a computer*) Mastered for iTunes was almost entirely an act of pure marketing because they chose not to compete on bit-rate or quality with some of the other providers. They had control of devices and market penetration to compete on instead. With Apple, economics of scale means that even small marketing efforts can go a long way, and this was one of them. They’re the masters of marketing.

*Off-topic point of order: I’m using an iPad and I can’t even copy tables from Wikipedia and paste them into Numbers (such that I might do some basic analysis) easily or successfully on iPad. Thanks an ultra-basic task. I’m a data analyst by trade and even an old 13” can do most of what I need. An iPad, hardly anything.

Apple DOES set the rules and standards. It's the world's leading and most respected digital store and has been from day one. It's the Apple ethos for quality.
They DO have a PDF which you can check out for yourself on the matter. I work with distributors for HD / 4K video and Apple's guidelines are FANTASTIC! NOTHING gets through without it being perfection. Files sent are a MINIMUM of ProRes422 for which Apple then have FULL CONTROL on the AAC converting/compression. EVERY detail is checked. Even the artwork has to reach a minimum standard with no copyright notices on, event promotion, dates etc. EVERYTHING HAS to be to Apple's standard - if not, it is immediately rejected!

I believe that Apple is honest on their 256AAC. It's simple - especially with Tim Cook & Eddy Cue loving money - IF they thought that there was an audible difference, surely they'd implement it and charge 20 dollars a month for the service just like Tidal. The answer could be...
1. Apple feels that charging more for a 'lossless' streaming service is dishonest
2. Not enough people would pay for it
3. It goes against Apple's 'keep it simple - it just works ethos' - Confusing having two price tiers and trying to explain what lossless is
4. AirPods are EVERYWHERE. You simply would not hear the audio difference with them
5. Poor HomePod sales are showing that people are not willing to pay very much for a home sound system. Listening is done on the move for the majority - travelling, running, driving, commuting

I stand by my claim that Apple would have offered this in 2011/12 to the iTunes store IF they felt that it made a difference OR if there was a market for it. The rumours come and go every year on this subject. I believe that the lossless market is simply too small. Heck, most people that I know what their music for free! I'm not convinced that many would pay £20 a month just for music streaming. I wouldn't.

What I can say, coming from a broadcasting background is that it not about bitrates at all, in fact, it's used by the ignorant simply because they've read time and time again about it from other ignorant people BUT the form of compression used and the way that it is applied. In this case, Apple is truly king of their field.

For broadcasting 320AAC is regarded as the ultimate but 128AAC is often used. The HORRENDOUS DAB radio uses 96kpbs MP2 and my word, that is damn awful however, we regard DAB as a very early year 2000 stopgap (DAB+ never really got adopted here in the UK) between FM and iPhone app (which using HLS AAC is the finest and most accurate way to broadcast - used by Beats 1 and the BBC iPlayer/Sounds App).

 

[kukhuvud]

Needs FLAC support.

 

[B/D]

But even more that lossy compression or well mastered sources, audible watermarking that severely distort the audio is the main problem right now with streaming services, only Apple has recently get rid of it completely because they told UMG that they wont take their ******** anymore. UMG has a LOT of labels, and watermarked files are still very much present in Spotify, Qobuz, Tidal and Google, but since a few months ago, not in Apple Music

Again excuse my English.

 

[iDento]

Mastered for What?

 

[Doc C]

In addition to a Lossless format ... I would like to see ANY Distribution of Classic Rock songs that *don't* play back at a 3% higher audio-pitch than the studio song was originally recorded at... decades ago. I know... I know... it's just a pipe-dream.

Has this been documented somewhere or tested?
I ask because on a few occasions, I have wondered if the Apple Music version of a song is slightly different from my vinyl platters (I no longer have a turntable, so I can't even check properly now.) In some cases, I thought that the pitch was off, but in some cases, it seemed like the tempo was just a bit off.

 

[Doc C]

Apple DOES set the rules and standards. It's the world's leading and most respected digital store and has been from day one. It's the Apple ethos for quality.
They DO have a PDF which you can check out for yourself on the matter. I work with distributors for HD / 4K video and Apple's guidelines are FANTASTIC! NOTHING gets through without it being perfection. Files sent are a MINIMUM of ProRes422 for which Apple then have FULL CONTROL on the AAC converting/compression. EVERY detail is checked. Even the artwork has to reach a minimum standard with no copyright notices on, event promotion, dates etc. EVERYTHING HAS to be to Apple's standard - if not, it is immediately rejected!

Thank you for providing a knowledgable/informed background - I suspect that I'm not the only one who didn't know this

I believe that Apple is honest on their 256AAC. It's simple - especially with Tim Cook & Eddy Cue loving money - IF they thought that there was an audible difference, surely they'd implement it and charge 20 dollars a month for the service just like Tidal. The answer could be...
1. Apple feels that charging more for a 'lossless' streaming service is dishonest
2. Not enough people would pay for it
3. It goes against Apple's 'keep it simple - it just works ethos' - Confusing having two price tiers and trying to explain what lossless is
4. AirPods are EVERYWHERE. You simply would not hear the audio difference with them
5. Poor HomePod sales are showing that people are not willing to pay very much for a home sound system. Listening is done on the move for the majority - travelling, running, driving, commuting

Couldn't they just position a lossless stream as "Pro" version?
Those who would appreciate the difference (because they are more tuned to it personally, or because they have the appropriate equipment, or because they just believe that they hear the difference) could spend the extra. This would be a bit like the 4K tier on Netflix.

I stand by my claim that Apple would have offered this in 2011/12 to the iTunes store IF they felt that it made a difference OR if there was a market for it. The rumours come and go every year on this subject. I believe that the lossless market is simply too small. Heck, most people that I know what their music for free! I'm not convinced that many would pay £20 a month just for music streaming. I wouldn't.

What I can say, coming from a broadcasting background is that it not about bitrates at all, in fact, it's used by the ignorant simply because they've read time and time again about it from other ignorant people BUT the form of compression used and the way that it is applied. In this case, Apple is truly king of their field.

For broadcasting 320AAC is regarded as the ultimate but 128AAC is often used. The HORRENDOUS DAB radio uses 96kpbs MP2 and my word, that is damn awful however, we regard DAB as a very early year 2000 stopgap (DAB+ never really got adopted here in the UK) between FM and iPhone app (which using HLS AAC is the finest and most accurate way to broadcast - used by Beats 1 and the BBC iPlayer/Sounds App).

Given how many of us grew up with FM radio (and even AM - ugh), the current quality is a step up. However, having had a decent audio system at home with a higher-end turntable and CD player, I still feel like I notice a bit of a difference/degradation in streamed versions. As was noted in prior posts, there seems to be less dynamic range, and less clarity in the sounds. I'm sure some of this is an artifact of current recording/mastering patterns, but doesn't the compression quality play a role? To me it seems like the master is important, because "Garbage in, garbage out", but if too much is removed in the compression process, then it seems impossible not to lose some quality and fidelity. Am I understanding the process incorrectly?

(While I rely on my ears as part of my profession, I would never profess to have perfect pitch, or even anything close - I just have a feel for what sounds good to me - so if I am off base on this, please let me know)

 

[ntlman]

My audiophile 2 cents or few...

Whoever posted above that CD rips are still better than Apple's iTunes ACC MfI standard are correct. I'm not even sure why in 2019 anyone bothers with FLAC or ACC instead of just the full size AIFF/WAVs when storage is cheaper than ever. It's like buying a 720 HD TV that is "incredibly close to 1080" when you could just easily buy a 1080. If you want real quality, go to HDtracks and buy the AIFF/WAVs. Or buy used CDs/borrow CDs from the library to rip at home.

You don't need to go broke anymore to have a nice audiophile setup. You just have to know what to buy (and what not to). I have a Fiio K3 USB-C DAC headphone amp ($87 refurbished) currently hooked up into my Mac Mini. My headphones: Status Audio CB-1s ($79). I thought my previous cans (Sony MDR-7506) plugged direct into the Mac was ideal, but the CB-1s alone improved my listening experience significantly. I also have a Dragonfly Black ($99) that I plug into my iPhone/iPad when I'm on the go.

I genuinely feel bad for people who only listen through standard streaming, because they don't know how much quality they're sacrificing needlessly.

[doublepost=1565236176][/doublepost]

Has this been documented somewhere or tested?
I ask because on a few occasions, I have wondered if the Apple Music version of a song is slightly different from my vinyl platters (I no longer have a turntable, so I can't even check properly now.) In some cases, I thought that the pitch was off, but in some cases, it seemed like the tempo was just a bit off.

Errors can happen in mastering. True fact: for 30 years, the Rolling Stones album "Beggars Banquet" (it has "Street Fighting Man" and "Sympathy for the Devil", and was the first of their legendary 4-album hot streak) was distributed with a flawed master, resulting in a slowed down version of the entire album that was in the wrong tempo, wrong key, and 30 seconds longer than actually recorded! It wasn't caught until they re-mastered the album in 2002. You can definitely hear it in those 2 songs if you compare the CDs.

 

[xyz01]

Coming from the cassette and CD generation, all of this music sounds WAY better than what I grew up on.

While cassette is pretty awful, CD is the best of the conventional formats and superior quality wise to Apple Music. CD quality is the normal definition of normal lossless quality.

Today's music is usually of much lower technical quality than during the early CD era - compressing to lower than CD quality is one reason, but the main one is the loudness war.

PS: CD technical quality is also much higher than vinyl.
[doublepost=1565243705][/doublepost]

My audiophile 2 cents or few...

Whoever posted above that CD rips are still better than Apple's iTunes ACC MfI standard are correct. I'm not even sure why in 2019 anyone bothers with FLAC or ACC instead of just the full size AIFF/WAVs when storage is cheaper than ever. It's like buying a 720 HD TV that is "incredibly close to 1080" when you could just easily buy a 1080. If you want real quality, go to HDtracks and buy the AIFF/WAVs. Or buy used CDs/borrow CDs from the library to rip at home.

There is no reason to use AIFF/WAV over FLAC or ALAC. These are lossless, and you can decode them to the original sound.

FLAC and ALAC work like zip and png, not like JPEG or MP3.

 

[jeffkoontz]

While cassette is pretty awful, CD is the best of the conventional formats and superior quality wise to Apple Music. CD quality is the normal definition of normal lossless quality.

Today's music is usually of much lower technical quality than during the early CD era - compressing to lower than CD quality is one reason, but the main one is the loudness war.

PS: CD technical quality is also much higher than vinyl.
[doublepost=1565243705][/doublepost]

There is no reason to use AIFF/WAV over FLAC or ALAC. These are lossless, and you can decode them to the original sound.

FLAC and ALAC work like zip and png, not like JPEG or MP3.

FLAC and ALAC are lossless, yes, but lossless to a CD quality 44khz, 16bit file. ntlman was referring to purchasing 24bit high resolution files from a place like HDTracks which are distributed in the AIFF/WAV formats. From a comparative standpoint, a 24bit/192 file in AIFF/WAV is much better than a FLAC/ALAC of a 16/44 source - also way larger.

 

[Rogifan]

Enable "Sound Check" on Settings > Music. Sometimes, it comes down to how the album or song was mixed and mastered. Compare Nirvana's Nevermind and In Utero for example. The former is always significantly louder.

I have sound check enabled. Still have inconsistencies. And things I listen to on YouTube are usually louder than Apple Music.
[doublepost=1565270070][/doublepost]

But to play devil's advocate, it's the same with cd's. That's not necessarily up to Apple.

Let me clarify, that is something Apple could do, but do artists or some artists have a say in this on iTunes?

No idea. Play GNR’s Paradise City on Apple Music and then do the official music video on YouTube. YouTube is noticeably louder at the same volume setting. I find that a lot of things sound better (not just louder) on YouTube than Apple Music.

 

[SBlue1]

I personally would pay 2x my monthly subscription cost for lossless audio..

Just curious, have you tested your hearing lately? When I was young I could hear the difference, but anybody 25 and up should just do a test to see if paying more for lossless audio isn't a waste of money.

People start to wear glasses and contacts for their eyes after a certain age, but believe somehow the ears are immune to aging. There are countless apps for testing, but I prefer Mimi Music because not only do you get a pretty accurate test but it also plays your music back while enhancing the sonic range you hear less, and for each ear separately. Test it by yourself and hear the difference.

 

[Ike17055]

Pretty much this.

Even on very expensive gear into the $10k range it's nearly impossible to tell the difference between a well encoded 256kbps AAC track and a lossless track at any bitrate/resolution. Correct mastering matters FAR more than simply releasing lossless tracks will ever do.

If audio quality matters to you, invest in a better pair of headphones and/or speakers. A good separates amplifier even a very modestly priced one will do a better job than the one in your phone. If you're using speakers, good quality cable matters, it doesn't really matter what (digital) coax, hdmi or optical cable you use. You can build from there if you want. Only after you've exhausted all those details to the point you're flat broke and close to ruin should you even consider lossless audio as an option, and even then you're better off spending the money on whisky.

Agree fully. Bitrate is highly overstated in importance, at least above a certain level. AAC files are pretty good quality, and I have personally also found the "Mastered for iTunes" versions to be a decent step up on speakers, but they are not widely enough available.

Itunes on a good system is helped by use of a decent DAC as well -- and again, you do not need to go top-dollar to get good results. If you have a few bucks, spend it there instead of on full bitrate subscription providers, especially if you mostly play tunes in the car!

I have a nice Onkyo system, equipped with good sized, floor-standing Polk Audio speakers, and I feed it with iTunes fed into a digital dock that extracts the digital signal. bypassing the internals of the ipod (which really is, after all, designed mostly to serve up its content on earphones). Its sound quality is very, very nice. It is pretty to rare to hear anything so garish that it becomes distracting, and when that occurs, it is usually on a older track where the original recording was less-than-stellar mastering to begin with. I have done a great deal of side-by-side testing of full bitrate WAV files vs. my compressed AAC (both 256 downloads and 320 rips from C.D.) and it is very difficult in most cases to know which is which.

 

[B/D]

I suppose we all agree, no matter what our opinion about the fact is, that lossless audio will be the norm in the near future. In home video, it´s the standard since the Blu Ray came along, and it´s only a matter of time until it will be a standard in streaming music services too. Just give it a few years more.

It´s perfectly feasible, and it consumes A LOT less bandwidth than high quality video does.

 

[BODYBUILDERPAUL]

My audiophile 2 cents or few...

Whoever posted above that CD rips are still better than Apple's iTunes ACC MfI standard are correct. I'm not even sure why in 2019 anyone bothers with FLAC or ACC instead of just the full size AIFF/WAVs when storage is cheaper than ever. It's like buying a 720 HD TV that is "incredibly close to 1080" when you could just easily buy a 1080. If you want real quality, go to HDtracks and buy the AIFF/WAVs. Or buy used CDs/borrow CDs from the library to rip at home.

You don't need to go broke anymore to have a nice audiophile setup. You just have to know what to buy (and what not to). I have a Fiio K3 USB-C DAC headphone amp ($87 refurbished) currently hooked up into my Mac Mini. My headphones: Status Audio CB-1s ($79). I thought my previous cans (Sony MDR-7506) plugged direct into the Mac was ideal, but the CB-1s alone improved my listening experience significantly. I also have a Dragonfly Black ($99) that I plug into my iPhone/iPad when I'm on the go.

I genuinely feel bad for people who only listen through standard streaming, because they don't know how much quality they're sacrificing needlessly.

[doublepost=1565236176][/doublepost]

Errors can happen in mastering. True fact: for 30 years, the Rolling Stones album "Beggars Banquet" (it has "Street Fighting Man" and "Sympathy for the Devil", and was the first of their legendary 4-album hot streak) was distributed with a flawed master, resulting in a slowed down version of the entire album that was in the wrong tempo, wrong key, and 30 seconds longer than actually recorded! It wasn't caught until they re-mastered the album in 2002. You can definitely hear it in those 2 songs if you compare the CDs.

Compared to WAV - can you honestly hear the difference if you rip a CD at 320AAC? Studio wise, we have no difference. WAV does not allow artwork to be stored in it.
IF you can hear a difference between a ALAC and a AIFF/WAV, then your most definitely fooling yourself. A 320AAC can be of outstanding quality.
All very well talking about HD Tracks but of zero use if the music that you love is not available on it!!!
[doublepost=1565281707][/doublepost]

I suppose we all agree, no matter what our opinion about the fact is, that lossless audio will be the norm in the near future. In home video, it´s the standard since the Blu Ray came along, and it´s only a matter of time until it will be a standard in streaming music services too. Just give it a few years more.

It´s perfectly feasible, and it consumes A LOT less bandwidth than high quality video does.

But then the BluRay is compressed too! Did you know that the 'master' file of the film is 12TB uncompressed! Even with a 100GB UHD BluRay, that's still a ton of compression to get it from 12000 to 100!!!!!!!! And that's why we shouldn't be talking regarding this as the chances are that Apple the finest computer & software company on the planet will have the ultimate in compression methods. I'd say far far better than any of the BluRay companies inc' SONY.

 

[bluespark]

Unless I’m missing something, the statement that “for people who care about lossless audio, it’s a good sign” is a complete non-sequitur and highly misleading. These are not lossless and have nothing to do with lossless audio.

 

[B/D]

Compared to WAV - can you honestly hear the difference if you rip a CD at 320AAC? Studio wise, we have no difference. WAV does not allow artwork to be stored in it.
IF you can hear a difference between a ALAC and a AIFF/WAV, then your most definitely fooling yourself. A 320AAC can be of outstanding quality.
All very well talking about HD Tracks but of zero use if the music that you love is not available on it!!!
[doublepost=1565281707][/doublepost]

But then the BluRay is compressed too! Did you know that the 'master' file of the film is 12TB uncompressed! Even with a 100GB UHD BluRay, that's still a ton of compression to get it from 12000 to 100!!!!!!!! And that's why we shouldn't be talking regarding this as the chances are that Apple the finest computer & software company on the planet will have the ultimate in compression methods. I'd say far far better than any of the BluRay companies inc' SONY.

I was talking only about the audio part. A DTS-HD Master Audio track IS a lossless file, equivalent to FLAC on stereo music.
[doublepost=1565283542][/doublepost]

Unless I’m missing something, the statement that “for people who care about lossless audio, it’s a good sign” is a complete non-sequitur and highly misleading. These are not lossless and have nothing to do with lossless audio.

It´s a good thing only in that since 2012, Apple have gathering high resolution well mastered masters from which create polished AAC files. In the future, they could stream this high resolution files directly.

 

[Rigby]

FLAC and ALAC are lossless, yes, but lossless to a CD quality 44khz, 16bit file. ntlman was referring to purchasing 24bit high resolution files from a place like HDTracks which are distributed in the AIFF/WAV formats. From a comparative standpoint, a 24bit/192 file in AIFF/WAV is much better than a FLAC/ALAC of a 16/44 source - also way larger.

Not that I think it makes much sense for home listening, but both FLAC and ALAC support high sample rates and sizes, including 24 bit/192 kHz. Using uncompressed WAV or AIFF is just a waste of space.
[doublepost=1565284573][/doublepost]

I suppose we all agree, no matter what our opinion about the fact is, that lossless audio will be the norm in the near future.

I don't. Bandwidth cost is significant for large-scale streaming services. If anything, the market has proven that the vast majority of people don't care about lossless audio (and with good reason IMO).

 

[B/D]

But Rigby, what I meant was.... there will be a point in the future that home internet and mobile data speeds will be so fast and widespread, and along with that probably new lossless formats will be invented that retain original quality with much less size than current FLACs and ALACs do... which would take care of bandwith costs. I think (and I agree with you despite of what I´m saying), that´s inevitable, that´s all. Just a matter of time.

 

[Rigby]

But Rigby, what I meant was.... there will be a point in the future that home internet and mobile data speeds will be so fast and widespread

It's not so much access speed that's the bottleneck, but rather what the streaming providers pay to ISPs and CDN operators for the millions of streams they are serving. Small differences in compression rates have large financial consequences for them. There are also a number of technical issues with lossless codecs other than just the bandwidth requirements, such as the high variability of the output bitrate (which can vary between almost zero for a clean sinus signal to the full uncompressed bitrate for white noise).

and along with that probably new lossless formats will be invented that retain original quality with much less size than current FLACs and ALACs do...

Maybe. But I don't think there is much room for improvement left in lossless audio encoding. Also remember that the compression rates for such codecs depend on the content (the more entropy, the less compressible).

I think (and I agree with you despite of what I´m saying), that´s inevitable, that´s all. Just a matter of time.

I don't think it will become pervasive unless people are willing to pay a premium for it, and from what we have seen so far that doesn't seem to be the case (otherwise Tidal would rule).