rhett7660
macrumors G5
Sure what was the source file for the rip? What program was it ripped with? Was there any re-ripping from a 128---->320? Need some more information. Lots of reasons on why the 128 sounds better.
Apple Reportedly Looking to Offer 24-Bit Music Files in iTunes Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sure what was the source file for the rip? What program was it ripped with? Was there any re-ripping from a 128---->320? Need some more information. Lots of reasons on why the 128 sounds better.
iPhones and iPods currently play back 24 bit files up to 48k.. I know, because I've got a bunch of my mixes in my iPhone. Not sure if they contain a 24 bit converter, or if they're dithering on the fly... But it sure is handy to be able to sync 24 .wav files on them.
bommai
macrumors 6502a
I guess you have not heard of http://www.hdtracks.com. They have 24bit/96kHz music with NO DRM. I downloaded their sample album for free. Excellent recordings and sounds great using my Klipsch RF5 speakers and Harman Kardon AVR 745 receiver. I use optical cable from my iMac to the receiver. One thing to be careful about is before launching iTunes, set the 24-bit/96kHz setting in Audio Midi setup and then launch iTunes. iTunes sends the bit perfect audio out of the optical port.
That said, I don't think Apple is going to delve into this because they are a mass market merchant and don't do anything esoteric anymore. That is unfortunately - but that is the reality.
With bandwidth improvements across the globe as well as storage and processing improvement, compressed lossless audio (FLAC, ALAC) is very feasible.
Mr. Wonderful
macrumors 6502a
What hasn't been stressed enough in this thread is that CDs are actually compressed to fit in the memory constraints of the compact disc.
I've played around with a variety of audio formats on my computer lately, and in my experience:
1. I can hear a major difference between iTunes music at 128kbps and 256kbps.
2. I can't tell the difference between iTunes 256kbps AAC and Lossless CD.
-(I still tend to buy physical copies of albums whenever I want an entire album, however, simply because I know that more musical information is in fact there.)
3. I can sometimes hear a difference between iTunes and completely lossless 16-bit, 48kHz music.
-File size is slightly bigger than a Lossless CD rip, around 30MB/song.
-This to me would definitely warrant an upgrade.
4. I can sometimes hear a difference between 24-bit 44kHz music.
-This, once again, would warrant an upgrade for me.
-And for those wondering, you're looking at about 50MB a song in Apple Lossless.
5. I can hear a difference between iTunes and 24-bit/96kHz music.
-This personally sounds incredible to me. The best way of describing it is like it's live, except with a perfect recording studio and all the post-processing.
-File size is ~130MB per song in Apple Lossless.
-I would pay for this upgrade, but at this point, the file sizes start to get obnoxiously huge.
There's also of course 5.1+ lossless high-resolution surround sound, which, frankly, is pretty astounding, but that is not really a relevant outcome to this discussion.
***********************
All that aside, however, a well-mastered CD can sound just as impressive as a higher fidelity format. I think we could see some very good things just by going lossless 16-bit (not CD-compressed), perhaps (speculation) giving the people mastering the CDs more room to work with.
I've played around with a variety of audio formats on my computer lately, and in my experience:
1. I can hear a major difference between iTunes music at 128kbps and 256kbps.
2. I can't tell the difference between iTunes 256kbps AAC and Lossless CD.
-(I still tend to buy physical copies of albums whenever I want an entire album, however, simply because I know that more musical information is in fact there.)
3. I can sometimes hear a difference between iTunes and completely lossless 16-bit, 48kHz music.
-File size is slightly bigger than a Lossless CD rip, around 30MB/song.
-This to me would definitely warrant an upgrade.
4. I can sometimes hear a difference between 24-bit 44kHz music.
-This, once again, would warrant an upgrade for me.
-And for those wondering, you're looking at about 50MB a song in Apple Lossless.
5. I can hear a difference between iTunes and 24-bit/96kHz music.
-This personally sounds incredible to me. The best way of describing it is like it's live, except with a perfect recording studio and all the post-processing.
-File size is ~130MB per song in Apple Lossless.
-I would pay for this upgrade, but at this point, the file sizes start to get obnoxiously huge.
There's also of course 5.1+ lossless high-resolution surround sound, which, frankly, is pretty astounding, but that is not really a relevant outcome to this discussion.
***********************
All that aside, however, a well-mastered CD can sound just as impressive as a higher fidelity format. I think we could see some very good things just by going lossless 16-bit (not CD-compressed), perhaps (speculation) giving the people mastering the CDs more room to work with.
Dynamic Range
Like others have said, it has nothing to do with the format, bit-rate, or amount of lossy compression. If they take the master and compress the audio-range aka. 'the loudness war' to only use a tiny fraction of available range, then it will still sound like crap.
The content owners don't want to give you high quality originals anymore. CD's mastered in the 90's sounds 10x better than ones mastered today.
They can dress up the marketing terms any way they like but they are still handing you a pile of crap. It will only make a difference if Apple or someone can convince them the actual perceptible quality must be better that it will make any sort of difference. In that sense you don't even need 24-bit, you could just have 'HD' tracks or some other non-sense marketing term and put out better mastered tracks and they WOULD sound better.
Like others have said, it has nothing to do with the format, bit-rate, or amount of lossy compression. If they take the master and compress the audio-range aka. 'the loudness war' to only use a tiny fraction of available range, then it will still sound like crap.
The content owners don't want to give you high quality originals anymore. CD's mastered in the 90's sounds 10x better than ones mastered today.
They can dress up the marketing terms any way they like but they are still handing you a pile of crap. It will only make a difference if Apple or someone can convince them the actual perceptible quality must be better that it will make any sort of difference. In that sense you don't even need 24-bit, you could just have 'HD' tracks or some other non-sense marketing term and put out better mastered tracks and they WOULD sound better.
I'll believe it when I see it. Real 24/96 or 24/192 lossless FLAC downconverted direct from the master, that is, and not upconverted 16-bit CD tracks, or god forbid upconverted 128k MP3. I wouldn't put it past the labels to do the latter, by the way. The labels did a good job killing DVD-A and SACD because of their ridiculous fears of high-resolution tracks being pirated and total lack of marketing, so I'm not exactly sanguine about this rumor.
I totally agree! If Apple really wants good sound quality on iTunes they should demand record labels / producers / master engineers to start making recordings with a nice dynamic range again, like they used to do. Most modern pop/rock recordings sound really appalling. It didn't used to be like that. To give just one example: The first record of Level 42 was recorded in 1981 with analog equipment. The original cd release of this sounds great. It has a warm, dynamic and detailed sound with a nice stereo image, great! Now let's listen to their last studio album (retroglide) from 2006. It's awful! The sound it horrible compressed. There is no detail, hardly any stereo image and noticeable distortions. So much for progress! Although the songs aren't that bad, I just can't listen to it because of this appalling sound quality.
No wonder record sales have gone down! Because of the horrible sound quality of many modern recordings, I hardly buy any new music. And 24-bit wouldn't change a thing.
So come on Apple! Tell those labels to start producing quality recordings again. Even in 16-bit it would be a huge improvement over the current way of mastering records!
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 603
Given 24-bit over 16-bit only increases the potential dynamic range of the music and that the vast majority or recordings utilize far LESS than 16-bits of dynamic range as it is (and nearly none use more than 18-bits), this is really a bunch of hokum designed to try and get people to eventually buy their music libraries all over again under the pretense of better sound quality.
24-bit recording is very useful to avoid clipping, especially in live recording situations, but the end result can easily and safely mixed down to 16-bit with no loss in recording quality for nearly all recordings. Even the few that have more than 16-bits of dynamic range would likely not get played at the volume levels required in most households to actually hear the full dynamic range (96dB is VERY loud and a recording would have to exceed going from almost dead silence to over 96dB in a given room to need more than 16-bits to convey it. Throw in the average room noise level and you can see why they thought 16-bits was good enough to begin with. 24-bits can convey 144dB of dynamic range and 120dB is enough to destroy your hearing in under 3 minutes. 144dB would damage things in the room and destroy your hearing along with it (a jet taking off at close range is around 120dB; 144db is 1dB less than the payload bay on the space shuttle, which has to use water dampening equipment to survive the 215dB levels of the Space Shuttle taking off).
However, like most things of science, the average consumer inevitably believes that bigger numbers always equals better and that is how businesses re-sell the same items over to them again. Usually, it's something like "unrated versions" for movies that have hardly any differences or extra footage that was fairly terrible (which is why it was cut in the first place). But here, you'd literally be getting virtually nothing for your money. It's like buying the Beatles albums again from iTunes just to have it in another format even though you could have just scanned your own CDs and got the same result. Some people will gladly hand out their money anyway.
It would be far better to offer lossless compression options than 24-bit recordings, IMO. Even though tests have shown 256kbit AAC to be indistinguishable from the master uncompressed track in double blind tests, some people would question whether that was always the case with every possible recording section and this would help ease their minds. There's also the question of paying the same prices for music that sells on CDs uncompressed. But doing this would clearly cost Apple more bandwidth and so that may explain why they would prefer to jack up the bit-number instead of using lossless compression.
24-bit recording is very useful to avoid clipping, especially in live recording situations, but the end result can easily and safely mixed down to 16-bit with no loss in recording quality for nearly all recordings. Even the few that have more than 16-bits of dynamic range would likely not get played at the volume levels required in most households to actually hear the full dynamic range (96dB is VERY loud and a recording would have to exceed going from almost dead silence to over 96dB in a given room to need more than 16-bits to convey it. Throw in the average room noise level and you can see why they thought 16-bits was good enough to begin with. 24-bits can convey 144dB of dynamic range and 120dB is enough to destroy your hearing in under 3 minutes. 144dB would damage things in the room and destroy your hearing along with it (a jet taking off at close range is around 120dB; 144db is 1dB less than the payload bay on the space shuttle, which has to use water dampening equipment to survive the 215dB levels of the Space Shuttle taking off).
However, like most things of science, the average consumer inevitably believes that bigger numbers always equals better and that is how businesses re-sell the same items over to them again. Usually, it's something like "unrated versions" for movies that have hardly any differences or extra footage that was fairly terrible (which is why it was cut in the first place). But here, you'd literally be getting virtually nothing for your money. It's like buying the Beatles albums again from iTunes just to have it in another format even though you could have just scanned your own CDs and got the same result. Some people will gladly hand out their money anyway.
It would be far better to offer lossless compression options than 24-bit recordings, IMO. Even though tests have shown 256kbit AAC to be indistinguishable from the master uncompressed track in double blind tests, some people would question whether that was always the case with every possible recording section and this would help ease their minds. There's also the question of paying the same prices for music that sells on CDs uncompressed. But doing this would clearly cost Apple more bandwidth and so that may explain why they would prefer to jack up the bit-number instead of using lossless compression.
I hope tis is true but as a lot of people have said extra bit depth would be mostly useless, I'd like to see higher sample rates, but the people wanting 192k are dreaming most stuff isn't recorded any higher than 96k and a basic recording would only be at 48k besides the fact that 192k is insane, unless you have studio quality gear to listen to it on it's a waste of time over 96k.
but with all that said I'd be happy with just uncompressed CD quality over what itunes have now. AND with that being said I have a hand full of SACD's that I love to death and which the format took off
but with all that said I'd be happy with just uncompressed CD quality over what itunes have now. AND with that being said I have a hand full of SACD's that I love to death and which the format took off
mr.steevo
macrumors 65816
Given that the majority of listening environments are not studios or mixing rooms I doubt that the difference between 16bit and 24 bit would be noticed at all. Can anyone hear the difference while standing on the train listening to the iPod or driving in your car? Or what about at a party with people talking in the background? Will you really notice a difference with your LED covered Pioneer receiver and big box store speakers?
I agree with MagnusVonMagnum. This is a case of a bigger bit rate making more sales due to the bigger number than the sound quality.
I agree with MagnusVonMagnum. This is a case of a bigger bit rate making more sales due to the bigger number than the sound quality.
OK- I know you are not going to believe this, but I am just going to say it. It is a "feeling" thing. There is a warmth, a clarity and a fullness to the sound that simply comes out when the sound extends outside the range of human hearing. This is what live music does. It is a matter of hearing a 'wider' spectrum of sound.
I have double blind tested CD vs. SACD on a system with some crazy Krell monoblocks and a pair of Wilson Watt Puppies. I called it, every time. Every single time I could identify the CD vs. SACD. And I have had my hearing tested- I am no where near the "full range" of human hearing- probably 40 to 15K.
Now here is what was really weird- calling out CD through a CD player vs. CD lossless vs. 192KB MP3 vs. 128 KB MP3 vs. anything going down to I think 96KBs, I could not call the difference with any consistency. None of those have frequency response range extending beyond the CD limits, whereas SACD does up to 100kz I think.
The frequency response issue comes in to play when you get towards the outer edges of the sound- most music has elements that are outside of the range of human hearing. That sound may be something like the start of the fall off of a drum kick, and it signals to your brain that the sound is coming. It's almost subliminal. Resolution increase really helps out with multiple sounds combining. The engineers don't have to mix down so much- more resolution allows each sound to stand on it's own.
So those are my thoughts. It is a subtle feeling thing, and I notice a difference. Mostly with the increased frequency response.
The "majority won't notice the difference" argument is irrelevant. This is not about the majority vs. the minority. As i stated in my earlier post, the majority does not need to care- because they are not having anything taken away. They could benefit if the expanded market due to the standardizing effect Apple would have on higher quality music and the reach of itunes if the market is expanded, giving greater incentive for artists to produce quality music.
QuarterSwede
macrumors G4
A great system really does help. In school we did listening tests with CD, DVD-A and SACD and you could immediately tell the difference because the speakers were 20,000K+ each and sounded like it.
The source material also matters. Some mixes are better than others.
Yes! See, so many people have no idea how good music on a recording can actually sound. For me, I want a dedicated listening room- not even a video screen in there- acoustic treatments, the whole nine yards.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just when I ripped my entire library to ALAC/WAV too!
If Apple offers 24-bit music, I will probably be buying a few albums. But, how long will it take for all the record labels to jump on board?
The main reason I even buy CDs is to rip them in ALAC. If Apple can make a decent player with a high capacity HDD (way above 160GB) count me in. Hope they don't screw it up and make an iPod Classic 120GB again or something.
Just when I ripped my entire library to ALAC/WAV too!
If Apple offers 24-bit music, I will probably be buying a few albums. But, how long will it take for all the record labels to jump on board?
The main reason I even buy CDs is to rip them in ALAC. If Apple can make a decent player with a high capacity HDD (way above 160GB) count me in. Hope they don't screw it up and make an iPod Classic 120GB again or something.
I am an audio professional and I agree with some of the posters in this thread already that 24 bit is a complete waste of time for MOST of the material currently in the store. Let's face it - the majority of music in the store is pop styled music.
There seems to be a misconception in what 24 bit audio actually is. All it does is give you a greater dynamic range - that is, the difference between the softest possible sound and the loudest. 16 bit audio allows 96dB of dynamic range and 24 bit allows 144 dB. This is interesting in that even the most expensive and esoteric bits of analog equipment we need to actually listen to our music can only muster around 120dB or so - which in itself is incredible.
As mentioned, the average pop song today has a dynamic range of 10 dB or less, so CD's current 96dB range is no compromise at all in handling it. And even though we record at 24 bits, when mixing a track down to a final stereo master, we use a process call "dithering" which cleverly removes those bottom 8 bits but also injects some very soft noise ..... too technical to get into here but done correctly, the end 16 bit result has perceived depth of greater than 16 bits.
Then there's the 96K debate. Why does this sound better than the 44.1K sample rate we use now? Now again there's loads of misinformation about this. This is the sample rate and its only product is in terms of the highest frequency that will be reproduced. The whole spectrum won't magically sound better - just the high frequency extension. The current 44.1K sample rate allows high frequencies out to 20KHz which is above most people's hearing except pets and some exceptional children. The whole argument about whether frequencies above this even matter in sound reproduction is ongoing and far from settled.
Given the iTunes store is a mainstream consumer focused format, moving to 24 bit would be nothing but marketing based. I agree that a lossless format would be great - be it either Apple Lossless which locks it in only for Apple's devices, or FLAC so everyone can have a go. This stuff is very much subject to the laws of diminishing returns. Some people in this thread already have said they're more than happy with 256 AAC which is what we're given now. In a studio setting, I can easily hear the jump from this to normal CD quality 16 bit uncompressed, but beyond this I would think is just unnecessary, except for some jazz and classical recordings that warrant the extended dynamic range.
Don't get me wrong - from a purists (and archival) perspective it should be 24bit 96K all the way, but we must look at this practically in terms of what is possible in a trade-off between data size and real-world performance. It's not 1985 anymore and the humble aging CD can actually be made to sound pretty good these days with the advances in converter technology and other things.
There seems to be a misconception in what 24 bit audio actually is. All it does is give you a greater dynamic range - that is, the difference between the softest possible sound and the loudest. 16 bit audio allows 96dB of dynamic range and 24 bit allows 144 dB. This is interesting in that even the most expensive and esoteric bits of analog equipment we need to actually listen to our music can only muster around 120dB or so - which in itself is incredible.
As mentioned, the average pop song today has a dynamic range of 10 dB or less, so CD's current 96dB range is no compromise at all in handling it. And even though we record at 24 bits, when mixing a track down to a final stereo master, we use a process call "dithering" which cleverly removes those bottom 8 bits but also injects some very soft noise ..... too technical to get into here but done correctly, the end 16 bit result has perceived depth of greater than 16 bits.
Then there's the 96K debate. Why does this sound better than the 44.1K sample rate we use now? Now again there's loads of misinformation about this. This is the sample rate and its only product is in terms of the highest frequency that will be reproduced. The whole spectrum won't magically sound better - just the high frequency extension. The current 44.1K sample rate allows high frequencies out to 20KHz which is above most people's hearing except pets and some exceptional children. The whole argument about whether frequencies above this even matter in sound reproduction is ongoing and far from settled.
Given the iTunes store is a mainstream consumer focused format, moving to 24 bit would be nothing but marketing based. I agree that a lossless format would be great - be it either Apple Lossless which locks it in only for Apple's devices, or FLAC so everyone can have a go. This stuff is very much subject to the laws of diminishing returns. Some people in this thread already have said they're more than happy with 256 AAC which is what we're given now. In a studio setting, I can easily hear the jump from this to normal CD quality 16 bit uncompressed, but beyond this I would think is just unnecessary, except for some jazz and classical recordings that warrant the extended dynamic range.
Don't get me wrong - from a purists (and archival) perspective it should be 24bit 96K all the way, but we must look at this practically in terms of what is possible in a trade-off between data size and real-world performance. It's not 1985 anymore and the humble aging CD can actually be made to sound pretty good these days with the advances in converter technology and other things.
If they actually offer lossless (in any format) 24 bit music files, this is a good thing for people who have systems/hearing good enough to appreciate it (definitely not me).
However I have a bad feeling the majority of revenue will be from people who cannot tell the difference but think they can (if you haven't done double-blind testing through something like foobar's ABX plugin, there is no reason to believe you can tell the difference; I don't care how good your vocabulary is at describing the subtle differences in 'warmth' or 'texture').
I'm willing to bet the 16 bit / 256kbps offerings are already overkill for the majority of iTunes users, but Apple's marketing is really good at separating fools from their money.
However I have a bad feeling the majority of revenue will be from people who cannot tell the difference but think they can (if you haven't done double-blind testing through something like foobar's ABX plugin, there is no reason to believe you can tell the difference; I don't care how good your vocabulary is at describing the subtle differences in 'warmth' or 'texture').
I'm willing to bet the 16 bit / 256kbps offerings are already overkill for the majority of iTunes users, but Apple's marketing is really good at separating fools from their money.
michaelcyee
macrumors member
I have no idea; the track apparently changes. I'm assuming that it was ripped from the same source, all things the same, to eliminate the variables.
Haha! I love it when people try to correct other people and are even more incorrect than the OP. "going from 44.1 khz to 192 khz" would be analogous to increasing the resolution of a photo. Going from 16 to 24-bit is exactly the same as with photos it increases the signal-to-noise ratio.
BubbaMc
macrumors regular
The music snobbery in this thread is pathetic.
You're pathetic.
Go back to your 128k mp3 and stay out of this thread please.
edit: the only artist bashing I've seen in this thread is Lady Gaga, and for bloody good reason!
Last edited:
BubbaMc
macrumors regular
Incorrect.
Blatantly wrong.
Do some reading about Nyquists theorem. If the sampling rate is >2 times the highest desired frequency you will get an exact replication of the source material. Any higher will not result in "thicker" sound, your comment is subjective at best. What a higher sampling rate is eases the design requirements of the DAC - the low pass filter in particular.
Straight from the horses mouth, Iovine - chairman of Universal Music;
"We've gone back now at Universal, and we're changing our pipes to 24 bit. And Apple has been great," Iovine said. "We're working with them and other digital services -- download services -- to change to 24 bit. And some of their electronic devices are going to be changed as well. So we have a long road ahead of us."
"What we're trying to do here is fix the degradation of music that the digital revolution has caused," he said. "It's one thing to have music stolen through the ease of digital processing. But it's another thing to destroy the quality of it. And that's what's happening on a massive scale."
Last edited:
I can't hear the difference so wouldn't want to pay the increased price. I still laugh at my uncle's neighbour who spent £25,000 on a sound system back in 1997, he tried to convince people how good the sound was - TBH most couldn't tell the difference.
It's all about the music, if it's sh_t music it's sh_t music... no matter how you spin it.
Sh_t in = sh_t out
It's all about the music, if it's sh_t music it's sh_t music... no matter how you spin it.
Sh_t in = sh_t out
96KHz does a lot more than increase dynamic range. Look at the encoding of high frequencies. In 16-bit PCM you will see that only a few discrete volumes are available. You might see, for example, that only 96db, 90db, 84db, etc volumes are encoded at a given frequency even though volume is clearly a continuous function. That's why CDs are often said to have harsh high frequency sound, because 16-bit encoding loses too much information. 24-bit encoding restores the missing information. Also, 96kHz sampling isn't pointless even if few people can hear 20kHz, because it eliminates the need for an analog lowpass filter and its associated harmonics, which are audible at frequencies most people can hear.
"Changing the pipes" to 24/96, however, is worthless unless new digital masters are sampled. I fear the first batch of 24/96 tracks, if they appear at all, will actually be from upconverted 16-bit CD masters, rather than downconverted from 8-bit DSD masters like they should be. They might not even be 24/96, either, they might wimp out and go 24/48, like the 16/48 tracks that go into DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD movie soundtracks, which is still an improvement but not where I want to be.
"Changing the pipes" to 24/96, however, is worthless unless new digital masters are sampled. I fear the first batch of 24/96 tracks, if they appear at all, will actually be from upconverted 16-bit CD masters, rather than downconverted from 8-bit DSD masters like they should be. They might not even be 24/96, either, they might wimp out and go 24/48, like the 16/48 tracks that go into DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD movie soundtracks, which is still an improvement but not where I want to be.
Last edited:
vinylnut22
macrumors newbie
I'm a sceptic on this stuff. A fundamental result in digital signals is that with a sample rate twice the bandwidth you want (plus a little bit more to allow for imperfect real world filtering) you can perfectly reproduce the signal in the band - that's 40kHz plus a bit (44.1kHz in practice) for 20KHz audio. I've even seen a paper by Dan Lavry where he sums sinc functions to make perfect reproductions of square waves (the worst case for sampling) in the band. The 2x highest frequency = perfect result is not obvious, but you can show in the maths that if you take more samples than the formula requires those 'extra' sample simply don't contribute to the reconstructed signal.
I've never heard the idea that you can do away with the filter if you up the sampling rate - this would leave you prone to aliasing. I'd still use a filter if only to avoid annoying the neighbourhood cats and dogs.
I wish I went to your school! That said, one of the best know placebo effects is the value and or numbers of stuff. Again and again experimentally if people are told that something is more expensive or has more of something (like 'resolution') they act as if it was better, as if they could hear more - even when the experimenters cheat and switch to a cheaper/lesser system without telling the subjects. My favourite is a test for what were seemingly two amps where the A/B switch did nothing - the subjects were listening to the same amp but some still reported changes in the sound! Unless your school did true double blind trials you can't eliminate the possibly of placebo effect. A double blind would be that nobody involved in the trials knew which tracks they were picking until after the trials had finished. In the literature I've read, much hifi lore fares about as well as extra sensory perception in these kind of trials - ie. no proven cases.