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.
High Definition iTunes Music Downloads May Be on the Horizon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm an OCD audiophile type on many levels, a musician, I've worked in the recording industry some and likely will a lot more in the future, and I'm a huge music lover, but I can't think of any reason why consumers really need 24/192. I think 24/96 would be a nice option for consumers to have, and when in consumer mode, I'd like that option. I can fully admit that for many, 24/96 would be excessive (I'd bet most wouldn't even know how to output it correctly in their systems let alone realize that it does them no benefit on current iOS devices), but I'd still like to see the option there seeing as there's no real technical reason for it not to be an option in 2014. But 24/192? Please. Wholly and completely unnecessary.
But all that said, if you gave me a choice between AAC and better mixing and mastering in general, I'd say improve mixing and mastering in a heartbeat. Red Book audio from CDs and even lossy formats could sound so much better than they do if better mixing and mastering was employed. That would do far more to improve the sound of music than any new format or standard would. Vinyl isn't a magically better format because of some mystical power; it's better because it has very real built in physical limits that force engineers to master the music in a manner that most music fans find to be more, dare I say, musical? If the principles of vinyl mixing were applied to mixing for digital formats, music would be in a lot better shape no matter what format it was being sold in.
So if I could get both 24/96 audio across the board and better mixing and mastering, obviously that'd be ideal! Hop on it, world...
By the way, there is one very good reason for Apple to standardize on 24-bit 96 KHz sampling rate: that's the same encoding rate for Dolby True HD and DTS-HD Master Audio sound tracks used on Blu-ray discs.
Anyway, the sound quality will be better than Compact Discs, since with this new format higher frequency sounds will be more clearly reproduced, and that means way less audible harshness. Pity we never settled the rivalry between DVD Audio and SACD, because otherwise by the early 2000's we would have an audio format with 24-bit 176.4 KHz sampling rate stereo sound, and that would have effectively ended the LP once and for all.
Anyway, the sound quality will be better than Compact Discs, since with this new format higher frequency sounds will be more clearly reproduced, and that means way less audible harshness. Pity we never settled the rivalry between DVD Audio and SACD, because otherwise by the early 2000's we would have an audio format with 24-bit 176.4 KHz sampling rate stereo sound, and that would have effectively ended the LP once and for all.
I've taught people what to listen for in higher quality recordings and once you start noticing things like drums and the "air" around notes of acoustic instruments, you start noticing the lack of quality in lossy formats quickly. It doesn't necessarily make the lossy formats unlistenable, but I absolutely believe that many can and will come to appreciate the benefits higher-resolution audio formats bring to the table.
The visual equivalent to me is single-chip DLP projectors with color wheels. Many people don't notice the rainbow effect at first, but once they do notice it or someone points it out to them, it's hard not to notice it anymore. Is it a make it or break it thing for most people? Not so much. But I don't think 3-chip LCD projectors would've had the relative success they've had if not for the rainbow effect and the premium price on 3-chip DLP projectors.
All of this stuff is more enthusiast oriented, which is why a projector example doesn't feel out of place. But to me, it just doesn't make sense not to have HD Audio as an option at this point. HD video is ubiquitous now, and I'll tell you, I've been to way, way too many people's houses only to find them watching standard definition cable channels on their HDTVs and not knowing any better, even when there were black bars on the sides. I've been to houses where people have Blu-Ray players connected to HDTV's with the class red/white/yellow A/V cables. People love to say that it's easier to see the difference with video, and I don't really disagree with that, but clearly, there are a lot of people who even after all these years with access to HD video, still can't tell the difference between HD and SD video. Should we just go back to having SD video then?
In this day and age, we can have it all. We can have a system that sends the optimal file (or user-definied files) to specific devices based on the needs and abilities of the device. There's just no technological reason not to have an HD audio option in this mix. It doesn't need to be an argument. It doesn't need to be the only way. It doesn't need to utterly and completely replace anything. It just needs to be an option, and one that works seamlessly with all the other options. This is incredibly possible at this point, and again, there's no good reason for an adaptive option not to exist in 2014.
You need a fairly good equipment to appreciate the additional bit depth. $100 headphone won't be one of them. Plus, not all recordings are worthy of it, either. Some are better not to hear all the fine detail.
Sounds like Apple. Did you know that they still charge a premium for HD movies and TV shows?
No, you didn't fall in to a time warp. It is 2014: you can easily and cheaply stream HD movies from the internet, 3D televisions have come and gone, 4K televisions are just beginning to build momentum, and Apple are still charging £1/$1 surcharge to rent films in HD, and a £4/$5 surcharge to buy them in HD.
They really do seem to live on another planet as far as iTunes prices are concerned. I think Apple make great products, but I'll be glad to see the death of the iTunes store to the likes of Netflix and Spotify. That's what they get for stubbornly refusing to embrace streaming and refusing to see the potential it had to lower the cost of enjoying media content.
The format war or rivalry had nothing to do with the failure for consumers to adopt SACD or DVD-Audio. Napster pretty much turned the music industry upside down when those two products were launching. Even if they had a prayer in a world without Napster, they were dead in the water once Napster kicked in as the labels were way too busy dealing with that and failing to get a digital model going to really support one of those formats like they would've needed to. And ultimately, people just started moving away from physical media during this time. DVD-Audio and SACD weren't portable formats, and that wasn't going to fly in the 2000s.
I'm a little out of the loop and foggy on some of this stuff, but I've heard the real mistake was the rush of CDs to the market based on PCM as opposed to waiting another couple years and basing it around DSD. But it's all such a mixed and convoluted bag of crap to sort through at this point, hence why I don't keep up on it too much anymore. I just want better availability of lossless and HD audio and more than anything, better mixing and mastering!
If you get a good recording that's mixed well and is well-mastered well and you have it in an HD container and play it back on a good audio system, you're going to have an incredible experience no matter if you use a $300 Tara Labs digital interconnect or a coat hanger to connect a source to a DAC. Whether it's based on PCM or DSD or has such and such jitter and runs over toslink as opposed to coax makes up about .01% of the listening experience at absolute best, and I'm being generous. If some of these audiophiles saw the gear and cables being used in the recording studios to make this music, I think they'd be shocked. There's absolutely something to be said for good recordings, good audio formats, and good playback systems, but it just gets way too crazy way too fast with some audiophiles.
----------
Yep. This is what I use and it's been a joy for me. I didn't think I'd use it or like it but it's been a great little feature that's helped me discover quite a bit of new music.
The ones that set the prices are the music labels. Interestingly, I remembered when Apple insisted on 99c per tracks, while people wanted variable pricing. Well, you get what you wished for.
Your music that you already purchased do not self destruct. Nobody is forcing you to "buy" all your music "AGAIN." When you bought a cassette tape, you didn't get a free upgrade to a CD. When you bought a CD, you didn't get a free upgrade to SACD. So how is this different now?
This is too true! I can't tell you how disappointing it's been to listen to some music on a really nice and transparent audio system. A pair of Magneplanars with an amp powerful enough to drive them without breaking a sweat will help great recordings shine so incredibly bright that you feel like you're in the room with the musicians if you close your eyes. But play a bad recording through them and it'll be completely exposed for the bad recording that it is. Those speakers will teach you how to listen to music.
Harvey Norman 50% off iTunes cards every 2 months my friend. Or 20% off every week somewhere.
Or open a US account as well, and get iTunes cards online.
Last edited:
Should have been this from the start. They've got the uncompressed version, but they compress it lossily then sell it to us. Just use lossless compression for those who want it! Reminds me of all those AVCHD camcorders that take good HD video and compress it into ruin before you can use it.
----------
Also, someone just kill MP3 already. It is useless unless you live in 1999.
----------
Also, someone just kill MP3 already. It is useless unless you live in 1999.
Unless you're processing the audio files, 96khz is an overkill. The XIPH link posted earlier in the thread explains it.
But I guess it could be useful for producing sound for dogs which have much higher range of hearing than humans do
True HD video would be fair...
If you download a music video from youtube you have better quality than those bought on iTunes...
I know it's not quite as good as BluRay, but to call it non-HD is a bit harsh. It's better than Netflix, which is already good enough for me.
Evidence please. Let's see those "countless" studies. I have only seen one or two truly independent papers on this.
I can hear the difference between SACD and redbook, and I would be happy to volunteer in any of these "countless" studies.
It largely depends on the quality of the recording. You can tell when an album was badly recorded with good equipment.
And yes, it really is night and day. Not an exaggeration. Sorry, bud. If you really can't tell then I'm grateful for my ears because I love music.
Agreed.
And can an audio engineer or someone else who is qualified comment on a few things:
It seems like the audio quality debate perpetually rages on the internet, with one group who thinks 256kbps AAC is just as good as lossless tracks, while the other end of the spectrum you have people collecting 24-bit, 96/192hz Super audio CD/DVD-Audio files.
1) will 20/24-bit sampling actually make a perceptible difference to anyone using headphones or speakers that weren't > $5,000?
2) Wouldn't 16-bit, 44.1khz (ie CD quality) tracks in Apple Lossless format (or FLAC) be more reasonable for the average user? Would there be any discernible difference between these CD quality tracks and a theoretical 24-bit, high sampling rate master track??
This will be awesome for the .00001% of Apple customers who have a sound system and ears that can actually discern the difference.
Any breakdown of how each individual user did? Did any of the 60 do better than 50%?
Headphones, yes. If you get into the over $100 range (minimum), but even that's iffy. AND that's also only if you have converters and pre-amps that are up to snuff, which very few people do. Straight out of say an iMac, iPad, or iPhone, forget it, even with good headphones. For speakers you probably need even more gear that costs more money. Also, don't forget the listening space. You'll head a clean listening environment with good acoustics, which again, very few people will have.
For the average user, absolutely. But then, the average user isn't even going to be able to tell the difference between 256 kbps AAC and lossless either. Technically, yes, there is a difference between 16-bit and 24-bit that can be heard (again, will all the right gear and environment). For one thing, you get much more dynamic range. But the benefit of that dynamic range is debatable, especially since most music today is mastered for lower end environments (i.e. iPods) anyway.