What do you usually play your tunes on in the car? If you usually burn an MP3 CD, then re-ripping as Apple Lossless won't work for you, because your car stereo won't be able to read them.
So beware...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Reportedly Looking to Offer 24-Bit Music Files in iTunes Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So beware...
I suspect one day there'll be a backlash against the loudness wars. We'll probably never see the death of limiters at the end of the mixing chain, but things go in cycles. Modern music, especially dance and hip hop with their natural tendency to fill the audio spectrum, and maintain a high RMS have influenced most other styles, but eventually those sounds will seem dated, and maybe you'll see teenagers wandering around listening to open and airy music simply because it doesn't sound like that noisy crap their parents listened to.
Could Folk be the teen angst of the next decade. God I hope not.
dont worry - no one's can. oh, except so-called 'audiophiles', because when you buy hi-fi gear your hearing actually becomes more sensitive in direct proportion with the amount you spend.
do audiophiles even use itunes? i would have thought they come out in a rash if someone plays them a compressed music file.
although, i expect they all use ipods when no one's looking. who can resist a lovely shiny ipod?
Even if the transform was linear (which it isn't) your math is way off. If 16 bit = 3MB, then 24 bit would only be 4.5MB.
As it is, in practice I'd expect more like 3.5MB to 4MB.
This mean the iPod Classic won't be dead!!!!!!Come on bring us 220G, 50hours battery life, and prices for 199$
What do you usually play your tunes on in the car? If you usually burn an MP3 CD, then re-ripping as Apple Lossless won't work for you, because your car stereo won't be able to read them.
So beware...
when i burn a cd from playlist I always have it set to "audio cd"
They could even come up with a dynamic compression format for 24-bit, in the same way that some LCD TVs change their backlights depending on the action on-screen. I'm guessing the change from 16- to 24-bit is to provide more detail in the quieter moments, rather than more detail between the individual peaks and troughs... In which case they could still have 16-bit detail but have the volume range controlled dynamically... If you see what I mean.
This is ignorant on a variety of levels. Bottom line, audiophiles use their equipment to get closer to their music. It's nice that 16-bit, compressed audio is absolutely fine for you. For the few of us that care about fidelity, there's a substantial, and audible, difference between a 6MB MP3, a 60MB WAV file, and a 160MB+ 24/96 file.
This..... I could see this, but the big question is do we think the Music Industry wants to let us hear this? Then on the flip side is there enough "want" from the people to warrant this?
Yes, it appears that Apple is going crazy.
They no longer have a consistent strategy that actually ties media content to the hardware device. On one hand, they want to SIGNIFICANTLY increase the size of music files while silmultaneous significantly decreasing the maximum iPod storage in Touch based devices from what it used to be on the old iPod Classics. They also want to move to cloud based streaming instead of storage, but not go to 4G in devices coupled with all the broadband limitations that carriers are imposing.
Given also the recent craziness surrounding subscription based in-app purchases and the affect on developers, the potential delays in the iPad and iPhone next gen releases, the illness of Steve Jobs, and the increasingly very good competition that is more in tune with the actual matket - this is shaping up to be a very bad year in Appleland.
Tony
They no longer have a consistent strategy that actually ties media content to the hardware device. On one hand, they want to SIGNIFICANTLY increase the size of music files while silmultaneous significantly decreasing the maximum iPod storage in Touch based devices from what it used to be on the old iPod Classics. They also want to move to cloud based streaming instead of storage, but not go to 4G in devices coupled with all the broadband limitations that carriers are imposing.
Given also the recent craziness surrounding subscription based in-app purchases and the affect on developers, the potential delays in the iPad and iPhone next gen releases, the illness of Steve Jobs, and the increasingly very good competition that is more in tune with the actual matket - this is shaping up to be a very bad year in Appleland.
Tony
Not to forget that most stuff on the iTunes Store is more like 10-20 MB already anyway...
Great, but not for Pop
Lady Gaga in 24bit uncompressed audio won't sound ANY different than Lady Gaga in 16bit, 256khz audio.
The real issue here is the source. Modern popular music is created, processed and dynamically compressed to sound great on the radio, with constantly loud volume levels. There is no real dynamic range to speak of, and everything is electronically enhanced to "sparkle."
What 24bit uncompressed audio WILL sound good with is classical, jazz, and recordings over 20 years old when this kind of nonsense didn't exist.
Lady Gaga in 24bit uncompressed audio won't sound ANY different than Lady Gaga in 16bit, 256khz audio.
The real issue here is the source. Modern popular music is created, processed and dynamically compressed to sound great on the radio, with constantly loud volume levels. There is no real dynamic range to speak of, and everything is electronically enhanced to "sparkle."
What 24bit uncompressed audio WILL sound good with is classical, jazz, and recordings over 20 years old when this kind of nonsense didn't exist.
Apple Lossless would be an excellent first step, because you can actually play it. It would give you a good improvement if you use just a Mac or iPod with a good set of headphones. It would give you more improvement if you output via USB and then spend whatever money you want on USB digital to analog converter, amplifier, and speaker. And it all just works.
Compression doesn't work like that. If you use lossy compression, then 24 or 16 bit source doesn't make a difference, neither in size, nor in sound quality. If you use lossless compression, then 24 bit is much harder to compress. Basically, the contents of the extra 8 bit precision is unpredictable and therefore cannot be compressed at all. On the other hand, 96k instead of 44.1k samples per second can be compressed _better_ because a sample that is only about 10 microseconds away is easier to predict than a sample 22 microseconds away.
Last edited:
Hmmm yes I think it's about time I did an Oldfield binge too.I think I'll go listen to that album right now
Been on a huge Oldfield binge lately.
Amarok here I come...Why do so many people assume that it is Apple's decision alone what bit rate is allowed to be server up to customers? It is the recording industries decision as to how these files are available via Apple, Amazon or Rhapsody. It seems to always to easier to simplify the blame in ones head and cast all that blame on the company you hate most, as oppose to actually educating ones self as to how the deal making comes together
This. Oh my god, this. Compare The Eagles Hell Freezes Over CD with the DVD version, both on the same good quality 5.1 digital surround sound system. The DVD sounds amazing, but it's lossy. The CD sounds like crap in comparison, but it's lossless. I just can't fathom how all these supposed "audiophiles" insist on lossless above all else, as lossless crap is still crap (CD quality is crap). I'd much much rather have 24-bit 96kHz 5.1 Dolby Digital or DTS than have lossless CD quality. Blegh.
I also maintain that the increased frequency is very important (if not more), as at 44kHz, an 11kHz sound wave is only sampled four times per cycle, so there's no real resolution to the sound, and a 22kHz sound wave is only sampled twice, so it's no more than a square wave in playback.