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
Well in that case, the amount of Audio you'll get on a CD will be exactly the same. All "Audio CD" does is burn your files back to the uncompressed, 16-bit 44.1kHz audio CD format. The maximum size of an audio CD is about 80 minutes, and it doesn't matter if it's created from MP3 data or Apple Lossless (except for better sound quality resulting from the latter).
Hope that helps
I agree with all of these points.
The hugely increased file size of 24 bit lossless* (there's no such thing as 24 bit MP3) because the increased file size would only benefit 0.001% of the music listening population (if that).
This isn't to say that I would be against (16 bit) lossless: it would give much better sound to those with dedicated listening rooms, etc., but also give the option for people to convert music into whatever format they wanted (be it VBR v0 MP3 or Ogg q8).
I'd also add that - whether it's because of their ears or their audio equipment (read: computer speakers and Apple earbuds) - most people can't even tell the difference between 128 kbps and 320 kbps MP3, much less between a lossy format like MP3 and a lossless one like FLAC. When you look at it from this perspective, the 16 bit vs 24 bit argument seems somewhat irrelevant.
EDIT:
A rather more succinct way of putting what I just said.
* The Beatles USB set is 7.32 GB at 24 bit lossless, 3.75 GB at 16 bit lossless, and 1.39 GB at 320 CBR MP3.
Last edited:
I would take $1.99 a track. HDTracks.com offers single songs for $2.49 under their hi-res library.
On another note, my 24-bit 48kHz ALAC files play fine on my iPad, but my 24-bit 96kHz ALAC files will not even transfer.
at least offer whatever you've got 16bit but LOSSLESS!!!!!
there's no point to offer 24bit music if it's gonna be compressed.
I rip all my cds to lossless (so yeah, i've got loads of cds which have been used only once - during ripping), can't be bothered with compressed music and for those who say that you can't hear difference, well, my suggestion would be go and see your doctor.
there's no point to offer 24bit music if it's gonna be compressed.
I rip all my cds to lossless (so yeah, i've got loads of cds which have been used only once - during ripping), can't be bothered with compressed music and for those who say that you can't hear difference, well, my suggestion would be go and see your doctor.
24-bit is the best possible format even if they offered it in Apple Lossless. You could easily just transcode it to FLAC with no loss in quality. I would LOVE this and actually buy music from the iTunes store. This would probably also put the finishing touches on killing CDs, if the price of an album was less digitally still. Having my favorite albums in 24bit, without the pops in the vinyl rips is a something I've been waiting for.
Also, if this is true, there is virtually no way the iPod Classic will die. It will have to live in some form (HDD based player), because 24 bit files are absolutely huge. I have 2 24-bit vinyl rips that are about a gigabyte for an album, and that's not even a particularly huge album (Your Favorite Weapon and The Devil and God are Raging Inside Me by Brand New).
Great!
As long as mastering delivers a 24 bit file and this is not just upconverting bit depth.
As long as mastering delivers a 24 bit file and this is not just upconverting bit depth.
Sometimes it is hard to tell a difference, especially depending on the type of music, and obviously depending on the hardware you have. A 256 AAC rip or LAME V0 rip is pretty much impossible to distinguish from FLAC unless you have good equipment. For those people using cheap headphones or systems like the Logitech Z-2300s that are very popular, among people I know at least, or stock car stereos, lossless is really a waste of space. Or of course if you're listening to "music" by "artists" such as lady gaga and the like.
Also, to the comment or 2 about larger file sizes and smaller hard drive sizes in portable music players; that's what the option to convert to 128kbps AAC is for in iTunes.
Lossless music is great at home on your desktop's big hard drive. It isn't needed so much on your subway commute.
Lossless music is great at home on your desktop's big hard drive. It isn't needed so much on your subway commute.
But bear in mind that the harmonic distortion you get off these frequencies is higher than the human ear can perceive. This is why CDs were given the magic sample frequency of 44.1kHz... It's all about Nyquist-Shannon
If this happened I couldn't agree more. The CD as we know it would, I think, would almost die over night. Keep it the same price. Don't raise the price. Heck save on shipping costs, printing costs. Print a limited few copies etc.... But here is why it won't happen thou. Can you imagine what the retail outlets and other music outlets would say about this.
They might get the idea that they can pull a "HD" audio craze on people but it's not like video where you can instantly tell the difference and a lot of sound cards these days already support 24 bit. Most people don't have the equipment nor ears to tell the difference. I can tell you as a professional engineer that I can't tell the difference. I also run a digital label that is released on iTunes among other stores and I know the distros will laugh at them. Some sites already offer wav or FLAC. They should make this step. I know for sure a LOT of people that don't already shop there will look their way. I myself have never bought a tune on there. 256 is not high enough quality for me.
Glad to hear this. I hope it's true. Right now, I am still buying CDs, and imorting them as AIFF files (I gather that AIFF has the same quality as Lossless, but AIFF takes up a bit more space?)
Can someone verify this?
Can someone verify this?
On this note, I must HIGHLY recommend Max for transcoding between formats: http://sbooth.org/Max/
Max can convert FLAC to ALAC and back, for example, which is useful when you find music online in FLAC format and want to listen in iTunes or on your iPod. It also uses all available cores when converting and transfers all ID tags, so if you have a large collection of FLAC to convert to ALAC, Max is your man.
And it's free too.
I don't know if you have read this yet... but here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Interchange_File_Format
I do not know a lot about this format. But I am thinking it takes up about the same amount of space as other lossless formats IE Ape, FLAC and ALAF. Plus or minus a few megs here and there.
Same here, I was just gonna post that. Thanks.
Having 24bit or 16bit on the playback side is a difference that is truely inaudible. It's like selling 5000 Watts speakers (PEAK) just because the number looks better than 200 Watts speakers (Sustained).
I don't know if you have read this yet... but here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Interchange_File_Format
I do not know a lot about this format. But I am thinking it takes up about the same amount of space as other lossless formats IE Ape, FLAC and ALAF. Plus or minus a few megs here and there.
Good, so AIFF and Apple Lossless offer the same sound quality... It seems Apple Lossless if kind of line a AIFF file in a zip folder, so less space is needed, but they quality remains intact.
Unfortunately I've been with hi-fi and high-end for a loong looong time so my ears are 'trained' to spot difference between different releases, and I don't even bother with compressed music, tried few times, no point, there's no detail, no transients, dynamic is gone so is staging and color.
My friend he's done it even better - all his vinyls are copied to his revox reel tape recorder so he doesn't need to play originals
since it's analogue recording there's not much to be lost. I'm a sucker, got loads of LPs and the same albums on CDs too
This.
And this.Next-gen iOS devices, complete with support for 24bit audio and 64gb storage
I'm happy with the quality now, so I strongly doubt I'd pay a premium for a high bit-rate song. $1.29 still pisses me off.
Any increase in quality is welcome.
It would be an option, after all.
i would love i bit DSD, but of course, anit gonna happen.
most folks actually prefer mp3, especially young people who have only known this format.
And a lot of pop music is produced for this format and assuming listening on buds.
It would be an option, after all.
i would love i bit DSD, but of course, anit gonna happen.
most folks actually prefer mp3, especially young people who have only known this format.
And a lot of pop music is produced for this format and assuming listening on buds.
This is correct. Apple lossless just uses an algorithm to compress a lossless file into half its original size. Like a .zip file, the end product is identical, bit-for-bit, as the original. iTunes, I believe, does this on the fly.
The music snobbery in this thread is pathetic.
Eh, it happens. For some people listening to music is an active hobby, for me (at least) it's something in the background whilst I'm working or whilst out hiking.