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
Frankly, Apple needs to make people excited about purchasing music again. Their digital music sales started sliding since the iPhone was introduced.
People used to lose their minds when a new iPod was launched. Apple supplied lots of commercials for those. They made it cool to buy music, digitally.
Those have disappeared since 95% of their money comes from iOS. And yet they wonder why their digital music sales are declining. There's a direct correlation here.
People used to lose their minds when a new iPod was launched. Apple supplied lots of commercials for those. They made it cool to buy music, digitally.
Those have disappeared since 95% of their money comes from iOS. And yet they wonder why their digital music sales are declining. There's a direct correlation here.
Sounds like 12MP cameras to me... a way to burn SSD space!
People who think they can tell the difference a good MP4 (or even MP3) vs. uncompressed formats, fail in a true blind test. That data is out there. Or: if they can perceive a boost in quality, it's actually because of a re-mastered source file (and thus not a real test case).
Options are not bad to have, though.
The #1 factor in music sales HAS to be the music itself, not bitrates or iPod launches. Not Apple.
I'm not going to buy a song because downloading form iTunes is cool, but because I like the song.
Certainly factors outside the music itself have a huge, trend-causing impact... but not AS big as the music itself.
That's where I'd start, not with Apple, if I wanted to boost the music industry.
People who think they can tell the difference a good MP4 (or even MP3) vs. uncompressed formats, fail in a true blind test. That data is out there. Or: if they can perceive a boost in quality, it's actually because of a re-mastered source file (and thus not a real test case).
Options are not bad to have, though.
The #1 factor in music sales HAS to be the music itself, not bitrates or iPod launches. Not Apple.
I'm not going to buy a song because downloading form iTunes is cool, but because I like the song.
Certainly factors outside the music itself have a huge, trend-causing impact... but not AS big as the music itself.
That's where I'd start, not with Apple, if I wanted to boost the music industry.
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 ?!
No Thanks!
Yep! In fact now you can hear Robert Plant not hit his notes in ultra fidelity!
Just kidding....my music tastes are a little off the beaten path.
Right.....Well, It's certainly not a placebo to me. People with less sensitive ears using subpar equipment and listening to super compressed radio music of today shouldn't be dictating to others what their own ears simply can't detect. Try listening to classical, jazz, or any other music with wide dynamics on a good pair of speakers or cans, and the difference is most definitely there.
I say bring on the lossless audio, Apple!
I say bring on the lossless audio, Apple!
Last edited:
I do have iTunes Match and enjoy having my music in the cloud and as to what you said in #3 that is correct most of my music are mostly from the early days a lot this albums are not even on iTunes and I doubt I would ever see them because they are Electronic music and the Record Labels are no more sadly.
Now I do appreciate listening to iTunes Radio listening without the ads but too often the song repeats and I wish they had option for Radio Edit the extended cut is a bit annoying, I like the idea of iTunes going the Spotify route but as a iTunes Match subscriber I do not want to pay separate Monthly Fees for it they need to come up some kind of a deal for iTunes Match subscribers.
I appreciate your honesty. I can't imagine I'd be able to tell either, despite my obsession with increasing my aural palette. However to call it a 'placebo' as Razeus did is going a little far, I think.
Agreed. Very much depends on your set up....if you're going to play the higher end files through standard issue anything, then yep its pointless. The sound will also depend heavily on what efforts were taken during the original recording process. If you possess a high quality audio file that wasn't recorded or mixed properly, then well you have a high quality POS.
Also remember....you can only improve a 40+ year old analog recording but so much. The source recording ultimately is still the orginal source.
Ya, I modified my "plan" a little, adding:
NOTE: iTunes Match no longer gives you or replaces the files (since your a streaming member you can always download the files to your device, like Spotify). It simply puts your songs that iTunes doesn't have in the cloud so you can download them to your device when on the go.
It is the analog side that matters. This starts with the D/A and goes all the way through the topology of the analog circuitry that makes the sounds you can recognize. Worst of all the components that are needed for quality sound are big. Way to big of an Apple product.
You will have to go elsewhere from iTunes since what Apple have to offer can only be played on low quality sound devices.
You will have to go elsewhere from iTunes since what Apple have to offer can only be played on low quality sound devices.
If this is a solution that the highest fidelity tracks on the systems that can handle it, why not have access to the highest fidelity tracks? I don't think the difference is night and day at all, but the more you listen to better quality material, the more you might find yourself noticing the differences, at least when played through systems capable of transparently reproducing all of the detail from the recordings.
A few things to keep in mind though is that source material plays a huge role here. 24/96 won't do anything for poorly recorded or mastered music, and there's a lot of music made today that is just poorly recorded and mastered. It would be very hard for even the most discerning of ears to really pick out the differences.
Bottom line though to me is that there's no reason to not make this stuff available to those who value it. I would prefer to see it integrated into iTunes Match even if it's in the form of say an "iTunes Match Plus," and I think $2.29 per track is utterly absurd in this day and age. But they need to find a way to make better recordings available as there's really no reason not to. They just need an adaptive solution which I believe they've already tinkered with based on patents. iOS devices can keep streaming/downloading in lower qualities due to space/cellular issues. iTunes on computers can have the option to download 16/44 or 24/96 if they'd like. Hopefully next-gen Apple TV/AirPort Express boxes will pass a 24/96 signal as neither does now. The size differences are nothing compared to the jump in video from even 720P to 1080P. Again, to me, there's just no reason why this shouldn't be an option that is available to customers in 2014.
A few things to keep in mind though is that source material plays a huge role here. 24/96 won't do anything for poorly recorded or mastered music, and there's a lot of music made today that is just poorly recorded and mastered. It would be very hard for even the most discerning of ears to really pick out the differences.
Bottom line though to me is that there's no reason to not make this stuff available to those who value it. I would prefer to see it integrated into iTunes Match even if it's in the form of say an "iTunes Match Plus," and I think $2.29 per track is utterly absurd in this day and age. But they need to find a way to make better recordings available as there's really no reason not to. They just need an adaptive solution which I believe they've already tinkered with based on patents. iOS devices can keep streaming/downloading in lower qualities due to space/cellular issues. iTunes on computers can have the option to download 16/44 or 24/96 if they'd like. Hopefully next-gen Apple TV/AirPort Express boxes will pass a 24/96 signal as neither does now. The size differences are nothing compared to the jump in video from even 720P to 1080P. Again, to me, there's just no reason why this shouldn't be an option that is available to customers in 2014.
Awesome! Hoping someday that Apple will require Digital booklets / Linear notes / credits for all releases as well
This is a pointless endevaour. (16 bit vs 24 bit blind test results: of 500+ listeners, they couldn't tell a difference)
Well of course, for Apple it makes sense if they think this will bring more revenue, so in that sense it may not be pointless, but it's not like there is a perceptible difference in sound quality.
So why did Apple want 24 bit audio on the back end? I'd say this is more due to re-encoding flexibility. That would at least make far more sense. How would you like to store your master photo if you are later to present it in a sensible non-bandwidth demanding way? Well, obviously it'd be a better choice to store a PNG in 4000x3000 and then re-encode it to JPEG and finally resize it to 1024x768, than storing the master photo in 1024x768 and re-encode that.
The audio mastering will matter much more (and is often in a much, much worse condition these days due to the loudness war) than 24 bit audio.
Well of course, for Apple it makes sense if they think this will bring more revenue, so in that sense it may not be pointless, but it's not like there is a perceptible difference in sound quality.
So why did Apple want 24 bit audio on the back end? I'd say this is more due to re-encoding flexibility. That would at least make far more sense. How would you like to store your master photo if you are later to present it in a sensible non-bandwidth demanding way? Well, obviously it'd be a better choice to store a PNG in 4000x3000 and then re-encode it to JPEG and finally resize it to 1024x768, than storing the master photo in 1024x768 and re-encode that.
The audio mastering will matter much more (and is often in a much, much worse condition these days due to the loudness war) than 24 bit audio.
Last edited:
So far most of what I've bought Mastered for iTunes has been very good sounding both via the iPhone and via Airplay/Sonos Connect with my Denon & Monotor Audio setup. Key thing is a good master that preserves the dynamic range of the original recording.
Overly compressed dynamics will sound awful in HiRes lossless as it will at 256Kb/s AAC. No point in having 24bit dynamic range if the master has been created by turning all the dials up to 11.
Preserve the dynamics, use a decent encoder for the target codec and file format of choice, have a high enough bitrate to cope with the above without detriment and I'm happy.
Overly compressed dynamics will sound awful in HiRes lossless as it will at 256Kb/s AAC. No point in having 24bit dynamic range if the master has been created by turning all the dials up to 11.
Preserve the dynamics, use a decent encoder for the target codec and file format of choice, have a high enough bitrate to cope with the above without detriment and I'm happy.
Personally I prefer music on CDs for the reason that it is true CD quality that I can make lossless files out of. If HD tracks get sold on the iTunes Store, I will have a reason to buy the download in leu of the CD. I think pricing HD downloads above AAC tracks would be a mistake; given a choice, most people may not be willing to pay more for the HD tracks and Apple will need to get the HD content in users libraries so that they could sell us the HD versions of the iPod, Airport Express, etc.
Eh, closed design headphones?
And without disclosing how and where you are using those headphones, its hard to draw any sort of conclusion. Are you using them in a quiet room or on a subway train?
That said, yes, I don't think 95% of people will hear the difference between say, 256 and full resolution. They won't have the equipment. And more likely, they won't care, since they are used to listening to terrible 128k files through ultra-cheap headphones or some clock-radio sound dock.
I think you are arguing an dated point of view. While 256k is largely fine and good, who cares? The whole point in compressing is to reduce file size. Storage is dirt cheap. I, for one, could care less about saving some space on a song file at this point.
Put another way, wouldn't you rather have the highest resolution possible for your music, all other things being equal?
Of course, if the prices turn out to be double 256k, then yeah, its probably not worth it.
I find that people who spend their lives insisting they hear a huge difference fail to pick which is which in a blind listening test.
Placebo is exactly the right word, audio is notorious for having some of the strongest placebo effect. People often convince themselves they're hearing a difference even when none is audible.
If you can't hear the difference in a blind listening test it is a placebo.
For it to be a valid comparison you have to know that both files come from the exact same mixes. Otherwise you're not comparing the sound of different formats, you're comparing different content. If you want a direct comparison, take the 24 bit files and convert them to 256 AAC. And you really do need to use something like an ABX app to eliminate the placebo effect.
If true it's funny how they finally get round to launching HD music just as the Pono player is about to be launched. Seems like a cynical attempt to kill off the competition before they gain any traction. I've ordered a Pono and I've no intention of going back to the iPod. Apple could have done this years ago but they couldn't be bothered. They don't deserve our support now. We need genuine competition in the download to buy marketplace.
It should be noted that in double-blinded studies, people who claim to be able to hear 22kHz-48kHz-96Khz (the frequency ranges opened up by 96k and 192k sampling) quite provably can not. The average young ear can discern tones to about 18kHz. There is a bell curve as always, but the curve descends down to less than 1 in 10Billion at a little above 20kHz. As people age through their teenage, young adult, and middle ages, that max tonal range decreases; even without damage-related hearing loss, the ears age and lose sensitivity. The average dude who thinks he can hear the golden bits coming off his gold-plated Monster cables and is psyched to buy 192k sampled audio to feed his $10,000 audio system most likely can not hear noises above about 17kHz.
Edit: If you believe that you can hear even 22kHz tones (the max 44.1k sampling can reproduce), see this page and try the 20kHz tone. If you're above 30 and can hear above the 15k you are in extraordinary shape (I'm not; I top out at 12k on that page, although there's a bit of a gap between 12k and 15k and I can discern 12k at very low volumes, so probably could discern a bit higher at normal volumes). http://www.egopont.com/hearing_tests.php
On the other hand, your common everyday housecat, quite provably, can hear a large portion of that range (to about 79kHz on average).
There is a lot of pseudo-science woo in the audio industry. Raising the sampling rate is one of those.
That said, the sampling rate is good for source material, as it allows more significant editing to be done without degradation. That's why you want to record and process in high sample rates.
The other side of this is bit depth. That lowers the "noise floor" so that we can have much quieter parts as well as much louder pieces. I think (I haven't done the research to prove it though) that there you might see some advantages, but only if you have a high-end system which properly responds to very faint audio sources with equivalent response to how it handles ver loud sources.
Too bad the bit depth per sample is being paired with a useless high sampling rate.
Last edited:
I was going to post the same thing.
I did a test of a CD ripped to Apple Lossless and to 256 AAC. Then I added the iTunes store version through iTunes match and did a listening test. The only one where I could even barely discern the difference was the iTunes store version, so I'm sure the difference was not the compression format but the fact that they came from different sources.
The reality is that 98% of us won't correctly differentiate in an ABX test a good AAC 256 kbps file against an ALAC file, not even with audiophile equipment, however, I would gladly pay for loseless music, however, 24bit 192 files won't, I repeat, won't help us at all and you can search the web why is that.
I think Apple should push companies to give us
1.- great music again
2.- Improve dynamic range.
I think Apple should push companies to give us
1.- great music again
2.- Improve dynamic range.
