Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don't think they're going to release in a lossless format. There will still be compression.

lossless does not mean compression.

Lossless means that nothing is lost in the file. WAV files, for example are lossless. APE files (which are compressed file formats of WAV files) are lossless. Zipping or RARing up a WAV file is still lossless but you can't play a ZIP or RAR file. :)
 
If they want to appeal to audiophiles they should offer FLAC.
Point I was going to make... 24-bit would be nice for the small percentile, but surely the best first-step would be Apple Lossless?

If they are catering for audiophiles I'd have to assume that the 24-bit format would also be lossless. The files would be huge though (at least 50MB for a single).
 
too bad their current software does not support it. If I play a 24bit file in my ipod it craches...
 
The record companies are to greedy to allow this to happen, which is why I still cling to CDs.
 
Last edited:
Better than CD quality? Awesome.

It would also finally make use of Apple's own lossless format.
 
Unless the files are offered in a lossless format the 24bit stuff is just a scam.
 
I was actually surprised when I downloaded a song about a year and a half ago from iTunes, and saw that it was 256 kbps. I usually rip MP3s at 160 or 192. 256 was overkill for me. So, I dunno if I would be able to tell the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit. It would be interesting to give it a listen though and see.
 
Yes, and no...

Although this would be a nice addition to the iTunes store, price increases are not good:(

99p per track in the UK is very expensive, and iTunes already has some competition here in the UK for internet music purchasing, so would a price increase just send iTunes plummeting here? Probably.
:apple:
 
lossless does not mean compression.

Lossless means that nothing is lost in the file. WAV files, for example are lossless. APE files (which are compressed file formats of WAV files) are lossless. Zipping or RARing up a WAV file is still lossless but you can't play a ZIP or RAR file. :)

No. Most wave files are compressed using a lossy codec. During compression, quality and dynamic range are affect, thus... not lossless. Most of the audio and video files people download to their iStuff are compressed and lossy. You sacrifice quality for portability.

It's great to see Apple catching up with the audiophile community. Maybe they'll start streaming better quality video too, in about 5 years.
 
If they switched to 24 bit lossless, I'd be buying from the ITMS instead of buying on CD and ripping (as I do now).

To the FLAC fans... What is the big deal for you about FLAC over Apple Lossless? It's LOSSLESS - so you can make bit-perfect translations between one and the other!
 
Hey Apple How about not making us inverst in new Hardware again, how about jst offering a Apple Lossless version that existing hardware already suppors I'd be fine with that.
 
However, 24bit is completely irrelevant for music that has been heavily compressed and limited (ie dynamic range compression, not data-storage compression as in lossy mp3/aac etc): the dynamic range that you can get with 24bit audio is really only of interest for jazz and orchestral music, or for other styles where there is a large dynamic range: flatline-limited rock and pop has virtually no dynamic range these days. Just google "Loudness War" or read this page:
http://flowingdata.com/2010/01/05/a-visual-history-of-loudness-in-popular-music/
There's a relevant comment on that page:

In that context, 24bit is really irrelevant.

There are plenty of us jazz and classical listeners who appreciate it. It may be irrelevant for Britney Spears, but that does not make it irrelevant for music.
 
No. Most wave files are compressed using a lossy codec. During compression, quality and dynamic range are affect, thus... not lossless. Most of the audio and video files people download to their iStuff are compressed and lossy. You sacrifice quality for portability.

Most WAV files are uncompressed. WAV is a container format so it can contain both, but most of the time WAV files are uncompressed 16-bit linear PCM. From Wikipedia:

Though a WAV file can hold compressed audio, the most common WAV format contains uncompressed audio in the linear pulse code modulation (LPCM) format.
 
People use audio equipment to listen to their music.

Audiophiles use music to listen to their audio equipment.

16-bit/256k sounds absolutely fine to me.
 
There are plenty of us jazz and classical listeners who appreciate it. It may be irrelevant for Britney Spears, but that does not make it irrelevant for music.

Kind of reminds me of the day with SACD. The sounds you would hear on a good system. Oh the days......

If you haven't done so, check out the 24 bit remasters of the Beatles.

The exquisitely crafted, apple-shaped USB drive is loaded with the critically acclaimed re-mastered audio for The Beatles' 14 stereo titles, as well as all of the re-mastered CDs visual elements, including 13 mini-documentary films about the studio albums, replicated original UK album art, rare photos and expanded liner notes. A specially designed Flash interface has been installed, and the 16GB USB's audio and visual contents will be provided in FLAC 44.1 Khz 24 bit and MP3 320 Kbps formats, fully compatible with PC and Mac.
 
What's the difference between "lossless" audio, such as an Apple Lossless file ripped off a CD, and this 24-bit audio?

CD's have a bit depth of 16bits. Studios usually record in 24bits. The advantage is increased dynamic range (a much lower noise floor).

I'd be happy enough with 16bit lossless from itunes.
 
i'm the opposite of a audiophile so as long as its not mono i dont really hear a difference no matter what lol 1080p on the other hand ... :D
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.