Sidebar Sidebar
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

Prime Mover said:
On the flipside, lossy compression *IS* something that quite a few people can hear. Also, so is the difference between 44.1kHz and 48kHz audio. These are far more relevant.

This is so bewildering, there are only two explanations I can come up with:

A) This really is a scam, and apple are banking that putting a higher number in the specs will make people pay more.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying. Personally I'd be happy enough just seeing uncompressed 16/44.1 in the iTunes store, but if the marketeers want to do 24/44.1 then so be it.

B) There is something else that they are thinking of doing with this, like building in mastering dynamics processing right into the software (a bad idea in most cases). This would be kind of neat, except for the fact that there's NO WAY that you could control it enough to sound as good as a professionally mastered recording. Maybe if it were sort of like camera raw, which has metadata outlining exactly what the master's processing is, and then just gives the user a few ways of tweaking it for their environment. Still iffy, but might be interesting.
Click to expand...

That would be fantastic! Imagine having different compression profiles for different playback devices... fairly compressed for the car and mobile use, more dynamic for home listening!

Problem is that the mastering compression is often frequency or sub-track dependant (I'm thinking of bass-ducking on R&B music). That would be very difficult to implement!
 
color guy said:
qoute:The music snobbery in this thread is pathetic.

Well, i'm not crazy about mp3's. i find them grating.

Some of us care a bit more about sonics, that's all. No big deal to me if you don't.
Click to expand...

If you see my later post you will see I was talking about the artist bashing NOT the idea of higher quality music files. :rolleyes:
 
chirpie said:
You know, I have a top flight a/v system (dedicate room, acoustically treated, various brands of speakers that swap out like B&W, Energy Veritas, some DIY creations, etc) and I have some fairly nice phones (Grados SR325) and I've heard my fair share of great sounding recordings... (The stereotypical stalwarts of Patricia Barber and Diana Krall come to mind) and I'll agree there's a benefit to the jump to lossless 24 bit from 256kbps.

Honestly though? For 90% of music out there, it's so dynamically compressed and mastered poorly that the much bigger enemy of higher quality sound isn't the 16 bit - 256kbps thresh hold, but the development process of bringing it to market.

Whether it's the loudness wars, or every producer thinking they need to degrade the sound for the sole purpose of getting their own "stamp" on the audio of it, it'll all need to change before this type of news will truly benefit the average listening taste out there.

(I don't want to poo-poo the announcement though, I think something like this would be a good option for those musicians who do take pride in the sound quality of their work...)
Click to expand...

I wanted to bring up this post again which is fantastic and only too true. There is not much trade-off from the poor over compressed masters these days to warrant 24bit. I totally agree with you here.

Just to add, some studios record in 16bit so it makes no different
furthermore, the studio's have to REMASTER in order to give you true 24bit. Not a lot of re-releases will come of this....

24bit won't happen
24bit doesn't make sense
it's all a gimmick if it does come true
this sound negative but it's all valid.
 
You may prefer the "sound" of vinyl, but let's not pretend it's higher fidelity than a good digital recording. And CD is not "far superior" to iTunes Plus — the difference is small.

Anyway, as far as pop music goes, less squashing at the mastering stage would be a bigger improvement than upping the bit depth or sampling frequency. But 24-bit could be used as a handle for higher fidelity music, without implying that iTunes Plus is less than it's been marketed as, and part of that could be different mastering from CD/iTunes Plus.

ericinboston said:
WAV files are LOSSLESS. Not lossy. Have been since the very early 90's that the WAV format was born.
Click to expand...

WAV files can contain lossily compressed audio.
 
Last edited:
If Apple does this, I will officially ditch the buying of physical media to shop there. I refuse to pay the same price for 1/5 the music, compressed, which is what iTunes has been doing up to now. They offer lossless, and I'm so there.
 
The lack of a lossless option for music is the main and only reason I've never purchased music from the iTunes store. Instead, I've built up an iTunes library of over 20,000 songs from CD-ripping and needle-dropping.

If Apple could somehow make 24-bit lossless the industry standard and widely available (even if it is 48 khz instead of 96 khz), it could be revolutionary for a big segment of the market. Not only would I stop buying CD's, but a lot of vinyl releases as well if a 24-bit lossless alternative was available.

This is the true future of high-end audio, IMO, and Apple could be the one to drive it forward.
 
CQd44 said:
If they want to appeal to audiophiles they should offer FLAC.
Click to expand...

I would rather use 24-bit 96-kHz Apple Lossless with NO DRM. If someone wants to use FLAC, they can always convert it to FLAC with no loss! Currently, the whole method of using Audio Midi Setup and its sample rate cripples iTunes and it ends up cross converting unnecessarily. This has to be fixed within Mac OS X and iTunes. I wonder how the Windows version works.
 
This definitely would appeal to me. It might actually finally move me away from buying physical media. Currently I purchase physical CDs and then rip them to ALAC files for my digital library. Uncompressed files from 24bit masters would definitely hold appeal for me.

Let's see how this goes. I'd happily upgrade my iPods for this.
 
Finally... something worth listening and something I'd pay to get from iTunes :D
I hope they don't overcharge these. And if this really happens, HDTracks will be in trouble.
Welcome to the black hole of audiophiles...:rolleyes:

But, like many have said, I don't think 24bit will make it. The file size is simply huge and takes too much bandwidth to download. Probably 16bit apple lossless CD quality will be high enough for itunes.
 
Not Happening

you guys at macrumors need to use common sense and/or education to realize that there is absolutely NO reason for apple to do this and discard this post immediately. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY to obtain 24bit/44.1, 48, 96k or whatever other high resolution format is available from the record companies. Not to mention, a 24bit, 44.1k song would be well over 100MB per file! Everything sold in the itunes store is compressed, HIGHLY. Even if you could get a 320k mp3 which is still highly compressed, it would be a HUGE step forward just to offer an upgrade to CD quality audio at 16bit/44.1kHz. I could go on and on and on about how music is recorded, mixed, mastered, etc., but I've already wasted too much time. NOT HAPPENING.
 
To make the jump to higher-quality music attractive for Apple, the Cupertino, California, company would have to retool future versions of iPods and iPhones so they can play higher-quality files.
Click to expand...

Or, in the meantime, iTunes (or the as-yet-non-existent iTunes cloud server) could temporarily do the downsampling to 16-bit when syncing or streaming, similar to how you currently have the option in iTunes to re-compress to 128 kbps when syncing.

But having said that, this seems like it would have VERY niche appeal, I think it's unlikely. I seriously doubt 99%+ of iTunes users could tell the difference between that and a 256 kbps, 16-bit AAC file.
 
jeffspicole said:
you guys at macrumors need to use common sense and/or education to realize that there is absolutely NO reason for apple to do this and discard this post immediately. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY to obtain 24bit/44.1, 48, 96k or whatever other high resolution format is available from the record companies. Not to mention, a 24bit, 44.1k song would be well over 100MB per file! Everything sold in the itunes store is compressed, HIGHLY. Even if you could get a 320k mp3 which is still highly compressed, it would be a HUGE step forward just to offer an upgrade to CD quality audio at 16bit/44.1kHz. I could go on and on and on about how music is recorded, mixed, mastered, etc., but I've already wasted too much time. NOT HAPPENING.
Click to expand...

not really, a 24 bit 44.1 file hardly goes beyond 100mb per file. For example William Orbit's "My Oracle Lives Uptown" 24 bit 44.1 is 788mb (16 tracks).

Unless Apple could introduce something else but still lossy, even at 24 bit.
 
one more

and unless youre a recording engineer or mastering engineer, chances are you cant hear the difference between 16 and 24bit anyways.. and if you can, you probably already own REALLY expensive speakers, vinyl, sacd, and dvd-a and like me, think this post is ridiculous.
 
I love Macrumors forum posters. Half the people in this thread seem to think that if Apple offers 24bit lossless hi-fidelity music that something will be taken away from them and they will not be able to buy lossy music that will fit on their current devices. IF APPLE DOES THIS THEY WILL NOT TAKE SOMETHING AWAY FROM YOU! THIS, LIKE MOST MOVES APPLE MAKES, IS NOT A "ZERO-SUM" GAME!

Grow up people! It's like someone saying they don't want light rail trains built to help commuters because they like driving their cars- no one is going to take away your cars!

I for one am amazed at how good SACD sounds with a proper album- Dark Side of the Moon for example- breathtaking on a real audiophile system. The dynamics extend beyond the 20-20K floor to ceiling level on regular CD and the resolution clears up the sound. It simply sounds better.

The problem is that SACD competed with DVD-Audio and no clear market winner emerged. These became niches and no artist really engineers for them. There needs to be a standard like CD but for higher quality lossless audio as music. Apple could do it with iTunes offering lossless audio and this could be a huge win for the music industry. This win would expand the choices for consumers as well in quality both in terms of sound quality and artistry in general.

Now its true that if you want background music to study to or to jog to, or in your car you won't notice a difference. But for some people that enjoy sitting down and listening to an album- THIS IS A BIG DEAL! Stop poopooing on this idea just because you don't appreciate it.

It's ridiculous how self-centered some of these arguments are. But hey- for the self-centered amongst you that aren't audiophiles, let me propose how this could benefit you- the more digital music has a chance to penetrate different market levels- say the extremely high end with this potential move by Apple- the more music gets made because people will make more money and the audience will widen for all forms of music. We have seen a tragic slowdown in musical creativity over the last decade because of the commercialization of the simple pop single. Get it out, make it catchy, sell a bunch of songs, and let it go is the music strategy and real musical artistry is under attack. Heck- reissuing classic albums in higher fidelity sound will push the industry to realize that when artists make a really really good album that becomes a classic, it will continue to sell in multiple formats over many years... I will buy any and all Led Zepplin brought out in a higher fidelity lossless format offered by iTunes and I will also pick up albums by Michael Jackson and Dr Dre's The Chronic! Good music exists in any genre, but good music in general is under attack as not being worth the effort. So to expand the market in any legitimate way and expand the overall revenue stream in to the music industry is a good thing for everyone- even those who just pop in their cheap earbuds and listen to something in the background.

Say it with me- "Higher fidelity itunes music will not hurt me. It will not take anything away from me. And it may help me by expanding the market for music." And now breathe... you're going to be ok! Even the most narcissistic amongst you!
 
rhett7660 said:
Wow... if this is true this would be freaking huge for me anyways. I wonder if they would increase the price thou?
Click to expand...

I bet they would. Probably more like the old "iTunes Plus" model. The difference here would be very significant though, as the "Plus" merely got the file to near-CD quality (please don't flame me here on that-I know the quality arguments). This however would provide a quality that really hasn't generally been available, true studio-quality - or master quality (SADC has not been generally adopted, and can be argued that it is not a lossless format, although it is sampled at a rate 64 times higher than CD).

So, my guess is that these files would be significantly more expensive. Especially with studio concerns over giving out Studio Master equivalents to their libraries. I bet it will be a long time before the White Album is released as a Studio Master.
 
Some interesting conversation on this thread.

Personally I agree that with most modern music, the dynamic range doesn't need to be expanded in the delivery file, I'd rather recommend to people with expensive taste to invest in a nice stereo first. The ipod dock systems marketed for apple products are an insult to such files.

Whoever said they can't tell the difference with audio but they can with video, I think most would agree that digital audio formats are generally of a much higher quality than most video you see around the web and on TV. 1080p displays and video files are not all created equal. Increase the bit rate on TV and internet video before we get 24bit audio please!
 
jgrant83 said:
Some interesting conversation on this thread.

Personally I agree that with most modern music, the dynamic range doesn't need to be expanded in the delivery file, I'd rather recommend to people with expensive taste to invest in a nice stereo first. The ipod dock systems marketed for apple products are an insult to such files.

Whoever said they can't tell the difference with audio but they can with video, I think most would agree that digital audio formats are generally of a much higher quality than most video you see around the web and on TV. 1080p displays and video files are not all created equal. Increase the bit rate on TV and internet video before we get 24bit audio please!
Click to expand...

OK- fair enough- but try this- find a way to have a bluray played with an awesome audio system- full surround, closed room- but a crappy tv or something. For me at least, its the lossless audio that makes the movie...
 
I hope they do this and instead of discontinuing the iPod classic with its huge storage capacity, re-market it as something akin to an "iPod Pro" with upgraded D/A converters etc. (maybe sourced from a well-respected brand such as Apogee, for example).
 
iansilv said:
I love Macrumors forum posters. Half the people in this thread seem to think that if Apple offers 24bit lossless hi-fidelity music that something will be taken away from them and they will not be able to buy lossy music that will fit on their current devices. IF APPLE DOES THIS THEY WILL NOT TAKE SOMETHING AWAY FROM YOU! THIS, LIKE MOST MOVES APPLE MAKES, IS NOT A "ZERO-SUM" GAME!
Click to expand...

Agree - apple can offer as many formats as it likes - as long as people buy them. Given the experience with DVDA and SACD I suspect 24bit will be minority sport.

iansilv said:
I for one am amazed at how good SACD sounds with a proper album- Dark Side of the Moon for example- breathtaking on a real audiophile system. The dynamics extend beyond the 20-20K floor to ceiling level on regular CD and the resolution clears up the sound. It simply sounds better.

Now its true that if you want background music to study to or to jog to, or in your car you won't notice a difference. But for some people that enjoy sitting down and listening to an album- THIS IS A BIG DEAL! Stop poopooing on this idea just because you don't appreciate it.
Click to expand...

Couple of interesting questions in here :

Given that human hearing extends 20Hz to 20KHz (less if like me you are getting on a bit, particularly at the top end) how are you hearing these dynamics beyond that range? Particularly as most speakers (so called supertweeters and huge subs aside) can't reach beyond these limits?

In what way does the extra resolution 'clear up' the sound? Given that 44.1KHz will give you up to at least 20KHz with PERFECT reproduction at 96dB dynamic range above your room background (say 130dB all in) what are you hearing and how loud are you having to play to hear it?

The SACD of DSOTM is apparently a different master from the CD with the loudness different (different sound pressure to the CD at same volume setting on your HI-FI). Since the frequency response of human hearing varies with sound pressure (see fletcher-munson equal loudness curves) this may be involved in what you are hearing - the upshot being that you hear different things, maybe different from what you heard before, at what is on first inspection the same volume.

YMMV, but I can't separate the 16 and 24 bit formats in volume matched double blind tests (neither do I know of anyone who can) so I'm not inclined to pay more for something I can't hear.
 
iansilv said:
OK- fair enough- but try this- find a way to have a bluray played with an awesome audio system- full surround, closed room- but a crappy tv or something. For me at least, its the lossless audio that makes the movie...
Click to expand...

Sounds like a nice scenario. :) Blu-ray quality is light years beyond anything downloadable at the current point in time unfortunately. I've heard people raving about those 'audiophile vinyls' lately, if iTunes released a format for audiophiles it may give this market quite a challenge to survive.
 
dehory said:
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.
Click to expand...

can someone explain the purpose of the test for me? I just did it. I could tell that Track B was Track X, clearly, but it sounded "better" than track A, and so thought Track B was 320kbps, but it was actually 128kbps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back