Err... no.Correct.
It has been stated that Apple encourages encoding from master digital recordings which are often these days done at 24/96 (24 bits per sample and 96,000 samples a second). Standard CDs are encoded at 16/44 (16 bits per sample and 44,100 samples a second).
24 bits = 16,777,216 levels per sample
16 bits = 65,536 levels per sample
Doing a perceptual based lossy encoding (e.g. ACC) from 24/96 will result in a better product then doing that same thing from 16/44. Also if the perceptual encoding is done at a high enough bit rate it can surpass the human perceived fidelity of a lossless encoding from 16/44.
I would argue that 256 kbps ACC is of sufficient bit rate to achieve CD or better then CD quality (perceptually) when being encoded from 24/96 (for many types of music).
Encoding from a 24-Bit 96KHz source to 256Kb/s AAC would introduce a level of quantization error and aliasing which would strip any benefit over a CD that has been professionally mastered down to 16-Bit with correct dithering and a decent sample clock. I agree, encoding from a 24/96 source to AAC would be better than ripping the AAC from a CD, but using AAC at 256Kb/s on the master wouldn't get as good a result as a CD made correctly.
Also the decoding algorithms built into the iPod don't even process 44.1KHz sampling correctly (it drops samples and introduces jitter). A Lossless 24/96 file wouldn't even decode on an iPod, and that requires less processing than a compressed file. The iPod wasn't built for HD audio.
Audio obviously isn't your field.Pretty much sums it up and should shut up people wishing for Lossless (if they use the master that is).
Because some people want the same quality from iTunes as they get on a CD. I don't think that's too much to ask considering the broadband speeds available these days, it's not like it's impossible.I can't imagine why anyone would want iTunes to sell lossless.