High Definition iTunes Music Downloads May Be on the Horizon

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
49,579
10,893



Earlier this week, a report suggested Apple was planning a "dramatic overhaul" of its iTunes Music store to combat declining music downloads, which could include an on-demand streaming music service and an Android version of iTunes.

Apple may also be planning to add high resolution audio downloads to iTunes as part of the revamp, allowing users to download lossless 24-bit audio files. According to music blogger Robert Hutton, who cites an unspecified source, Apple is going to roll out hi-res iTunes music downloads in early June, possibly at WWDC.
For several years, Apple have been insisting that labels provide files for iTunes in 24 bit format - preferably 96k or 192k sampling rate. So they have undeniably the biggest catalog of hi-res audio in the world.

And the Led Zeppelin remasters in high resolution will be the kick off event - to coincide with Led Zep in hi-res, Apple will flip the switch and launch their hi-res store via iTunes - and apparently, it will be priced a buck above the typical current file prices.

That's right - Apple will launch hi-res iTunes in two months.
Apple has been working on offering music in a 24-bit format for several years, with a 2011 report suggesting the company was in talks with record labels to increase the quality of iTunes Music. Currently, Apple sells audio files on iTunes in 16-bit lossy AAC format encoded at 256 kbps to minimize file size.

High-definition 24-bit downloads are said to offer better detail, greater depth, and a deeper bass response compared to traditional 16-bit music downloads, but the file sizes are much larger.

Though Apple only offers 16-bit audio files at present, the company does encourage artists to submit music in a 24-bit 96kHz resolution, which it uses to "create more accurate encodes." Apple accepts the audio files as part of its Mastered for iTunes program, an initiative that has produced higher quality music for the iTunes Store. Because Apple has already accepted 24-bit files for years, it does, presumably, have a large catalog of high quality audio files that could be offered for sale, reportedly at a premium of $1 over traditional iTunes tracks.

Hi-res audio has been gaining popularity in recent years, with music sites such as HDtracks securing deals with multiple major record labels. Recently, musician and song writer Neil Young launched a Kickstarter project for the PonoPlayer, a $399 digital music player designed to play high resolution audio files.

Thus far, the project has earned over $5.7 million, suggesting there is indeed a sizable demand for hi-res audio. Should Apple choose to begin selling 24-bit audio tracks, it could quickly dominate competing sites given its existing user base and boost its digital downloads by appealing to audiophiles unhappy with the current quality of iTunes tracks.

Thanks Phil

Article Link: High Definition iTunes Music Downloads May Be on the Horizon
 

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,559
12,089
So, they want to charge a PREMIUM on top of their already "premium priced" music? They're already one of the more expensive music stores.

They should be swapping the old low bitrate music for free with the higher better quality.

Do i have to buy all my music AGAIN? do i have to pay a premiumm upgrade fee just to get better quality of the same music?

Sounds like a desperate money grab
 

Alumeenium

macrumors regular
May 15, 2013
200
67
we bought zeppelin on

vinyl
reel to reel
8-track
cassette
cd
mini disc
sa cd
hd dvd
blueray
mp3
m4a
aiff
wav
ringtone
flac
and now they want to make a new format ?! :mad:

No Thanks!
 

Peace

Cancelled
Apr 1, 2005
19,546
4,552
Space The Only Frontier
So, they want to charge a PREMIUM on top of their already "premium priced" music? They're already one of the more expensive music stores.

They should be swapping the old low bitrate music for free with the higher better quality.

Do i have to buy all my music AGAIN? do i have to pay a premiumm upgrade fee just to get better quality of the same music?
Tell that to the music labels not Apple.
 

ipodlover77

macrumors 65816
Jan 17, 2009
1,224
242
I thought to really take advantage of higher fidelity, the player also needs to have a high quality chip.

Would the iPhone/iPod's DAC be able to handle the bump in quality?
 

Fabian90

macrumors regular
Feb 19, 2013
159
168
Bonn, Germany
finally... :)
looking forward to that, i just hope that the price is reasonable. i'd love to pay a bit more for a HD option on iTunes Match.
 

lars666

macrumors 65816
Jul 13, 2008
1,072
1,008
192k???

Sorry, but 192k sampling rate is TOTAL overkill and simply a waste of space, even if you plug in your Mac/ future iPhone with 192k audio support into the best DAC/amplifier/speakers out there ...
 
Last edited:

jrswizzle

macrumors 603
Aug 23, 2012
6,107
128
McKinney, TX
I wonder how this affects iTunes match - which matches your music to 256 Kbps AAC even if its a lower quality to begin with.

If they start adding higer-res versions of songs, will we see a more expensive iTunes match "premium"? I'd be up for paying more than $24.99/year to get full lossless audio tracks.

Though I suppose that would only apply to music not purchased on iTunes because you'd only get the quality you pay for via iTunes purchases.....

Meh, I'm starting to get irritated with owning music. Sucks too - used to have such a nice CD collection. If individual songs will cost a full $1 more now, what will that do to album prices? Double? Are we seriously going to be paying $20+ for a 10-12 song album?

Its insane - the price difference between DVD and Blu-Ray is no where near that stark - a $5-$8 difference. I might be inclined to pay $14.99 for a higher quality album versus $9.99. But any higher and I'm out - sign me up for iTunes radio or some streaming service.

Owning music is going the way of the birds. Oh - and really looking forward to increasing the file size of my music while we still are stuck on 16GB base storage for our iDevices....you up the quality and file size, you need to up our storage as well.
 
Last edited:

chr1s60

macrumors 68000
Jul 24, 2007
1,979
1,534
California
So basically for the average user, Apple will be saying "Here, you can buy the old version of the song for $1.29 OR for $2.00 you can buy the exact same version that will likely sound exactly the same to you, but will have HD next to it and take up more space on your iPod."

Essentially they are the salesman off of Family Guy.
 
Last edited:

Aragornii

macrumors 6502
Jun 25, 2010
432
75
I"d like to see them putting stuff out there in multi-channel format. Many people listen to music over Apple TVs, and many ATVs are hooked up to surround sound systems.
 

Razeus

macrumors 603
Jul 11, 2008
5,256
1,926
Just the same old industry tactic that's been going on for decades. Sell them music they already purchased on a "new format". No thanks. 16-bit/256k is damn good and I can barely the difference between iTunes and the CD 5% of the time.

This is why streaming is the feature. Negates all of this nonsense.
 

Cougarcat

macrumors 604
Sep 19, 2003
7,766
2,552
So, they want to charge a PREMIUM on top of their already "premium priced" music? They're already one of the more expensive music stores.

They should be swapping the old low bitrate music for free with the higher better quality.

Do i have to buy all my music AGAIN? do i have to pay a premiumm upgrade fee just to get better quality of the same music?

Sounds like a desperate money grab
I'm guessing it'll be like the 128--256 transition. Offer an upgrade fee, then later, make it the norm.
 

Razeus

macrumors 603
Jul 11, 2008
5,256
1,926
I find that people who have spent their lives listening to music through crummy laptop speakers often say similar things.
You'll find people with high end headphone setups like mine saying the same thing.

See what you get for assuming what I listen through? I don't even own a laptop.

For $2 a song, Apple is out of their mind.
 

tenton

macrumors newbie
Jun 29, 2004
13
6
Only a fool would by 24/192 "hi-res" files. It's placebo.
I don't trust the industry to deliver me useful 24/192 "hi-res' files when they can't even give me good 16/44.1 normal res files.

On the flip side, maybe they'll stop dynamically compressing the hell out of the music for the "hi-res" files. There's not a need for 24/192 to do this (16/44.1 is plenty), but maybe it'll just come along for the ride. I know, I know, pipe dream. But sometimes dreaming is fun.

I'd be happy with lossless 16/44.1, but properly mixed. I'd pay an extra buck per song just for that.
 

Plutonius

macrumors G3
Feb 22, 2003
8,628
7,651
New Hampshire, USA
Just the same old industry tactic that's been going on for decades. Sell them music they already purchased on a "new format". No thanks. 16-bit/256k is damn good and I can barely the difference between iTunes and the CD 5% of the time.

This is why streaming is the feature. Negates all of this nonsense.
Of course the streaming is lossless and has the quality of the new format ?
 

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,559
12,089
Just the same old industry tactic that's been going on for decades. Sell them music they already purchased on a "new format". No thanks. This is why streaming is the feature. Negates all of this nonsense.
I dont really like streaming for my music to be fair, especially mobile with really expensive and low mobile data caps that we have in Canada.

I also like owning a copy of the music in DRM free local files so that I have control over it. I can choose where and when to listen to. I put Mp3's on a memory stick for the car. Ipod Touch, or my phone.


i'm not against streaming. it works for many things. But if I'm paying for music on an individual basis. I want to actually have a copy, thats all. Though, I still buy physical CD's to rip sometimes. But I do currently buy most of my music Digitally from iTunes.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.