Sidebar Sidebar
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

\-V-/ said:
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.
Click to expand...

are you joking? were talking about different things here
yes i can tell the difference between a badly recorded record and not... I'm talking about lossless vs. 256kbps vbr aac. whole different level
 
Thunderbird said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=57406

for one. don't kid yourself. when engineers record, most of the time they still monitor through hs50ms....'the way its meant to be heard' is overblown.

btw i was specifically talking about 256kbps vbr aac (iTunes plus) vs red book standard. and yeah numerous people have done lots of tests on that subject. hydrogen audio forums that i linked above, head-fi (yikes! i know...), gearslutz etc etc
 
The side effect of this wave of interest in hi-res music is that to justify the price and the re-purchase aspect, much of the original material is being remastered to sound better than the current CD versions. One result is a return to attention to dynamic range.

I have hi-res files that definitely sound better than the CD, but they've been remastered so that they sound great on hi-res playback systems. A 16/44.1 version might sound just as good, but there will never be one because CD is dead as a format.

If hi-res results in better-sounding music, I'm all for it. Current Apple devices can do 24/48, and the next gen will do 24/192 because that's all the audio chip makers want to produce. An album remastered to sound great at 24/192 will still sound great at 24/48. My hi-res FLAC files play just fine on my iPhone 5S (3rd party player, of course) because the chip automatically downsamples to the highest res it can handle. They sound way better on my Fiio X3, though, because it was designed for hi-res with an excellent DAC and its own amplifier. Fiio and maybe Pono will be the competition for the next-gen iPod.
 
Last edited:
AppleScruff1 said:
Any breakdown of how each individual user did? Did any of the 60 do better than 50%?
Click to expand...
If you read the article it says some groups did SLIGHTLY better and some did worse, but they summarized the results by saying that NOT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL could reliably pick the higher quality source.
 
fpnc said:
If you read the article it says some groups did SLIGHTLY better and some did worse, but they summarized the results by saying that NOT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL could reliably pick the higher quality source.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the breakdown for each individual user.
 
How about HI-DEFINITION music video files rather than the poor and sometimes below SD quality content that is currently sold by iTunes. It's a bit ironic that you can watch 720P and 1080P music videos for free on YouTube and other streaming services while Apple is still trying to sell standard definition music videos on iTunes.

I don't know how much of this is because the music studios don't want to sell HD content or whether Apple is blocking it for bandwidth concerns or for some other reason.
 
furi0usbee said:
I can't speak to *every* song, as I've not done testing on every song. Fro Come As You Are, I could hear the difference *every* time. It was *that* noticeable for me. I heard compression/hiss on the opening guitar riff, on the low end. That same "artifact" was NOT on the CD version.

I said the difference on that song was night and day, and that's a pure fact for me. I'm sure if I sat down and listened to 100 songs, there would be a great portion of those where I could hear audio artifacts of some kind. We are losing massive bits here.

----------



It was my original Nevermind CD I bought back in 1993-ish. The version of Come As You Are on iTunes wasn't the new releases, it was probably 2 years ago at least. I do have the new releases on iTunes and they sound great.
Click to expand...

do this:

import the CD into your itunes using these settings -- AAC 256kbps, with VBR turned on.
listen to the resulting file with your expensive headphones.
then click on the cd and listen to the same song (so its streaming off the CD).
tell me your results.
 
Why isn't Apple offering HD music? Have had it for a long time.

According to the MacRumors article Apple has had HD music in their library for a long time, and only now may offer it in 2 months. Why? Why have they been holding back when there are customers who want it?
 
fpnc said:
How about HI-DEFINITION music video files rather than the poor and sometimes below SD quality content that is currently sold by iTunes. It's a bit ironic that you can watch 720P and 1080P music videos for free on YouTube and other streaming services while Apple is still trying to sell standard definition music videos on iTunes.

I don't know how much of this is because the music studios don't want to sell HD content or whether Apple is blocking it for bandwidth concerns or for some other reason.
Click to expand...

Studios provide the content, Apple really doesn't care if they sell it at SD or HD as long as their bottom line is met. Presumably they haven't bothered to send Apple the files due to lack of sales (not that there wouldn't be sales, just that...well "there's apparently better uses of their time".
 
Luba said:
According to the MacRumors article Apple has had HD music in their library for a long time, and only now may offer it in 2 months. Why? Why have they been holding back when there are customers who want it?
Click to expand...

Maybe because Pono is currently in the news, although I doubt Apple feels threatened by anyone.
 
Razeus said:
Only a fool would by 24/192 "hi-res" files. It's placebo.
Click to expand...

Compared to what? 256 AAC? The difference would be night and day if you've got half decent headphones and a decent source and the material was recorded, processed and maintained hi-res throughout its history.

But don't ask me, ask any of the respected musicians and audio engineers like Neil Young who actually know what they're talking about!

Contrary to what the article states, the main benefit you'd notice with decent equipment is a much improved sense of "space", presence and realism. The compressed low-res format will just sound more flat and less exciting by comparison.
 
The Greed wagon kicks in again.

No thanks.

If you remember the last time:

Oh you want to get rid of the DRM that will cost you extra.

Thats one of the reasons I only rent movies on iTunes versus buying them.
 
Luba said:
What about 24/96, is 96kHz overkill?
Click to expand...

Yeah, probably. I stay neutral when it comes to 16-bit vs. 24-bit through a great system though as I admit that I do not know enough about this difference to judge this. May be a noticeable (if slight) improvement there.
 
Can we all get upgrades to our ears too?

ipodlover77 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Most adults ears are not capable of hearing any difference in the higher 'quality' and the player's ability is a mute point. Even the most expensive audio setup will not make a difference to objective adult listeners when they compare the two formats. Given the chance, anyone could prove it with a sample of 100 test subjects in these optimal circumstances and the results would be about 50/50 for preference (based on subjects not being told which was which beforehand).
 
darkslide29 said:
Forgive the stupid question.. If I buy the actual physical cd, do I have this hi-res music?
Click to expand...

Glad you asked it first. I have the same question. EDIT: It's been answered. I can hear the difference between MP3 and ALAC with everything else constant, I think, but I can't really hear anything better than CD quality.
 
Bring the download pricing from € 1,29 :)confused:) to let's say € 0,29 would make a lot of difference too. But I admit that online streaming is the future. Like the original iPod, the iTunes business model is becoming obsolete very fast.
 
Alumeenium said:
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!
Click to expand...

I bet you said "No thanks!" when each one of the additional formats came out, yet you still bought it anyways.
 
If apple goes 24bit show me the hardware

if you can't tell the difference between 16bit to 24bit then you need a better set of headphones & IEM. The white earbuds won't cut it nether will SOLOS or BEATS

You also need a better DAP (digital audio player) that can play 24bit. Thats why you have DAP like

astellnkern.com
 
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