Higher Encoded Songs in iTunes?

[eji]

I'd like to second all the opinions that universal higher encoding would be a good thing. Honestly, I still go down less legitimate channels for my music because I want higher quality (320kbps or lossless) -- especially when it comes to classical or jazz. If the iTunes store offered something in that bitrate range at the same price, I'd buy a heck of a lot more. 128kbps just doesn't cut it when I'm listening with headphones.

Come to think of it, wasn't Apple supposed to be working on a codec or encoding method that delivered CD-quality sound at 64kbps? Whatever happened to that?

 

[unfaded]

Sadly, this is one area that Sony's Connect store/software bests iTunes. I have an ancient Sony Music Clip music player (about the same size overall as the shuffle, but less stylish,) that only has 64MB of flash. Just for fun, I decided to see if it worked with their Connect store. It does, but you MUST use the 'downsample' option to drop it to 64kbps for the Music Clip to play them. (If I try to use a non-downsampled file, the Music Clip freezes when I play that track, yet imported 128 kbps files play just fine. Only the purchased ones need downsampling.) It does the resampling on the fly, as it's copying over to the player. (It also uses this method to transcode any WMA or MP3 files, which the ancient Music Clip can't natively play.)

I would think the artists, who don't want their music sounding like total crap, wouldn't want anything less than 128. 128 is pretty crap as is (given that it's approx 1/12 the bit rate of a CD).

 

[Loge]

What about the quality of the downsampled files? For example going from 192 to 128, is going to sound worse than a 128 file encoded from CD because it's compressing a file again that's been compressed already. Plus downsampling to a 60GB iPod is going to take ages, and you can no longer regard the data on the iPod as a backup of your music.

I can see why they only do this on the Shuffle.

 

[PlaceofDis]

What about the quality of the downsampled files? For example going from 192 to 128, is going to sound worse than a 128 file encoded from CD because it's compressing a file again that's been compressed already. Plus downsampling to a 60GB iPod is going to take ages, and you can no longer regard the data on the iPod as a backup of your music.

I can see why they only do this on the Shuffle.

you actually cant tell, ive tried it with my shuffle, sounds pretty much like regular 128AAC, but then again im sure it depends upon the source, what is key to this though is getting HE-AAC out which will have even better sound quality at lower bitrates, i dont think the regular ipods need this, but they should perhaps include the minis as well

 

[virividox]

ummm....no. Simply, no. No, in that you simply should not be downloading from iTunes on 56k dialup. I think i would go nuts if i had to wait 10 minutes for a 3MB song to download. With higher encoding, that would increase to maybe 25 minutes. Download an album and you're at 5 hours.

No. Just don't.

for the money you pay in internet bills for the phone call u might as well buy the album

 

[elmimmo]

It's funny however, that FAAC is not considered particularly the best AAC encoder… while iTunes, and Nero's over it, are considered quite good. That is what I read, anyways, since I am not at all into audio compression.

Anyhow, of course ~300 had better beat 128, whatever the encoders are.

 

[nomore]

...

 

[nomore]

I would think the artists, who don't want their music sounding like total crap, wouldn't want anything less than 128. 128 is pretty crap as is (given that it's approx 1/12 the bit rate of a CD).

CD is 150KB/s which = 1200kbps... so it's 1/9th the bit rate of a CD.

However, since it's compressed the quality is still much better than 1/9 CD quality.

 

[Darwin]

Any encoding would be fine when you've got none at all.

WHERE'S THE DAMN AUSTRALIAN STORE?

It's the 28th, but still no go for Australia... "iTunes Music Store is not available in your country."

Does that mean Russell my-ego-is-too-large-to-fit-in-New-Zealand Crowe LIED to us?

Yeah, well I thought Gladiator was a crap movie anyway. And what's with making a movie about how stupid smoking is when you still smoke? And how can someone with a moron's mind play A Brilliant Mind? Why doesn't he just go romper stomp his own head.

(Not that I'm bitter or anything!)

Where abouts in Australia are you?

see your at least 10 hours ahead of the US sdo I think they will be releasing today, when they wake up

 

[winmacguy]

Any encoding would be fine when you've got none at all.

WHERE'S THE DAMN AUSTRALIAN STORE?

It's the 28th, but still no go for Australia... "iTunes Music Store is not available in your country."

Does that mean Russell my-ego-is-too-large-to-fit-in-New-Zealand Crowe LIED to us?

Yeah, well I thought Gladiator was a crap movie anyway. And what's with making a movie about how stupid smoking is when you still smoke? And how can someone with a moron's mind play A Brilliant Mind? Why doesn't he just go romper stomp his own head.

(Not that I'm bitter or anything!)

Check this out!
http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/04/27/1114462092704.html?oneclick=true

 

[d.perel]

it might happen...I overheard my cousin who works as some software thing saying that higher bit music was the 'next big thing' from download services. I don't know what that's worth, though

 

[cb31]

I've got a ipod mini and currently have everything on it and on my pc in 320kbit mp3 format. I would love to use lossless on my pc and aac 128 on my ipod. I realise that itunes doesn't do this now but is it likely to be in version 5?

 

[JRM PowerPod]

I would seriously prefer an iTunes Store before i start worrying about bit rates. Give me 128, 190, 250, 2500. Just give me a store! - A "Dual Core iTunes Stores Now Running at both 128 and 256".

 

[Jmitch]

Well I see no one read my post. But I would have to agree with bankshot on the fact that this is just an anomoly. If Apple was serious about anything like this, they would announce plans way ahead of time I believe just to spur interest like they have with previous announcements. This is not something in my opinion that would just pop up and bam we have a higher bitrate store to purchase from. I was actually interested to hear everyone's opinions on what I said earlier about the 2 versions of the store. No one really responded to it. If anyone has a response I would love to hear it.

 

[jocknerd]

I wish they'd enable that feature for all iPods and allowed us to control the format/bitrate (or at least the bitrate, I don't mind being locked to AAC).

What are you saying? Apple give us control? Ha! Never happen. I've never understood Apple's philosophy. They market to a "smarter" computer user but always dumb their products down (i.e. mouse, user control) to the lowest common denominator.

Ideally, I'd love to see a combination of Apple styling and sophistication in their software but feel like I have more control over it like when using Open Source products. I hate products that instill artificial restrictions. I can name three right off the bat with iTunes/iPod. One, no Ogg Vorbis support. The iPod might not be able to handle it, I'll give that to Apple. But iTunes should support it. Two, Apple shouldn't put a restriction on the iPod to prevent me from using it as a backup for my music. I'm getting ready to install Tiger. I only do fresh installs. So, I either backup all my music to DVD or I use a 3rd party app to get my music off my iPod. Three, I would like to export my purchased music to mp3 or aiff without having to burn it to cd. Of course, this probably would violate the terms of my purchase which is really another artificial barrier.

 

[jocknerd]

My dream store...

I would love to buy my music from a store that offered an open lossless format without the DRM. I still don't understand the logic behind the DRM. If I can buy the CD, there is no DRM. So what's the point in putting it on the downloaded file? The labels are missing the point. I would argue that free music was not the only reason the original Napster became so popular. The other big reason was convenience. Has the number of illegally downloaded music dropped? Would dropping Fairplay from iTMS cause an increase in the sharing of illegally downloaded music? I don't think so. Because I think those that are purchasing their music on iTMS have no interest in sharing it illegally. So there is no real reason for having DRM on our purchased music.

Here's why I want lossless:
I'm not locked in to a format. I have an uneasy feeling knowing I've got over 400 songs from iTMS that are locked in a proprietary format. The DRM is proprietary. And I'll argue that AAC is as well. Its not an open format when the cost to license that format is beyond the means of most developers. Truly open formats are the only answer.

I don't know how Apple will ever offer lossless in its store though. The record labels have already set the price too high for 128 bit. If a 128 bit AAC costs 99 cents per song or $10 per album, what will they charge for a lossless version? Many new CD's already cost around $11. If the lossless version of an album costs more than a CD, whats the point in downloading it? The labels would either have to lower the cost of the 128 bit version or drop it altogether. But in their infinite wisdom, they would probably charge $2 per song for lossless or $20 per album.

 

[LionelEHutz]

A higher bit rate should be the standard

not an option.

I don't use iTunes too often though, I prefer eMusic.com, a subscription service. More small independent labels, cheaper, and less restrictive use rights. Using a combination of services is the best way to go IMO. Now, if iTunes offered a $10 a month subscription I'd cut back my eMusic subscription a little and get an iTunes subscription so that I could benefit from the two of them.

 

[Jmitch]

Record industry doesn't get it

The record industry isn't getting it. This is the point. The record industry has to get it for them to survive. They are still thinking in old terms. We are in a new age now of digital information exchange. In order for the record company to survive they have to get out of their old ways and start looking ahead. They need to seek the guidance of companies like Apple to show them the way and where they need to go to succeed in this new age. As soon as they get it right music will be back on the market as hot as ever.

I just don't think Apple quite has it all right at this point. They have the right idea, but I see much better ways of doing it and no one has proved me wrong so far. Eventually the pay per song model will be out the window because who wants to pay $10,000 for 10,000 songs when you can pay $15/month and get the entire record industry library of music. It's only logical. Apple should create a new store wherein it is not really a store but a streaming jukebox. They need to re-design iTunes to be a streaming media jukebox instead of a local hard drive based player. This is the next step. Once Apple and the record industry gets on their feet with this one the record industry will go sky high. Who wouldn't pay $15/month to listen to any music ever produced and recorded any time? Of course there will be an option to download a copy of the music to be burned and stored to physical mediums but in the end this would be pointless.

At this point, however, I think Apple should at least get with the picture and see the fact that broadband users are being held down by the remaining slow connection user base. They need to move ahead and offer lossless encoding from their store. Can anyone come up with any reason why Apple shouldn't be doing this? Am I missing something? Or is this just too easy to be true? The #1 reason I hold back on purchases from the iTMS today is because I know I can purchase the cd from a store in all of it's full uncompressed glory for the same price. What's the incentive for me to purchase from the iTMS then? Not much. Nowadays I purchase few individual songs.

 

[slu]

Wasn't the first report of this over four months ago? And its just news NOW?

There are like thirty threads on MR that have people saying "Oh, this song is Higher Bitrate, maybe we'll get it soon!"

IIRC, iTunes is not 100% "OKAY WITH" the RIAA - having missed some meetings, and being so popular, the RIAA is barely allowing iTunes to continue. There were even some MR rumors that the RIAA was going to shut down iTunes. Why would iTunes take that risk RIGHT NOW?

Of course, if the price stays the same and Apple releases a new standard that makes a 128KBPS AAC2 (maybe...) file the same quality as a 320 KBPS MP3, than Apple will be selling their songs like wildfire...

All I know is these rumors are getting pretty annoying considering they have been said a long, long time ago.

This whole post makes no sense. What was your point?

First of all, and I don't care what MR threads you read, there is no way the RIAA shuts down iTunes, which is the only even remotely successful legit online music service. You think people hate the RIAA now, see what happens if they "shut down" iTunes.

Second, what does RIAA have to do with higher bit-rate songs?

Third, rasing the bit-rate will not sell songs like "wildfire". The vast, vast majority of people do not know or care about bitrates. They will get some of the audiophile market, but there will not be this rush to iTunes for songs.

Fourth, they are not Apple's songs. FYI, Apple makes computers and software, not music.

So your real point was to brag that you heard this rumor before. You wanna know something, I am tired of posts like yours complain about this or that being posted before or being old news. Jebus, find something else to complain about.

 

[AidenShaw]

Can iTunes transcode WMA ?

I've got a ipod mini and currently have everything on it and on my pc in 320kbit mp3 format. I would love to use lossless on my pc and aac 128 on my ipod. I realise that itunes doesn't do this now but is it likely to be in version 5?

I keep my ripped CDs in Windows Media Lossless, and do batch transcodes to compressed for portable devices.

If iTunes can transcode WMA files to AAC or MP3 (yuk), that would be an option.

 

[oskar]

Lossless? Probably not...

Lower bitrate songs means faster downloading for everyone. Just imagine the bandwidth Apple is using already with the millions of songs being downloaded a month. Eventually the bitrates could get higher, but as you can see in iTunes, 128kbps AAC is referred to a high quality.
I would believe that these few songs that have appeared at higher bitrates are the same average file size, which wouldn't affect the store negatively.

For those who expect Lossless anytime soon: Forget it! That eliminates the whole point of using the music store for many. You might as well go buy your CDs and rip them, because that's not going to happen in the near future.

 

[coolfactor]

stores are coming

Here's hoping they "innovate" the online music store business, since they technically created it.

Anyway, here's what my Store Selection page currently looks like. Won't be long now....

 

[coolfactor]

Anyway, here's what my Store Selection page currently looks like. Won't be long now....

Fixed now. More gooey evidence of work being done.

 

[Jmitch]

Lower bitrate songs means faster downloading for everyone. Just imagine the bandwidth Apple is using already with the millions of songs being downloaded a month. Eventually the bitrates could get higher, but as you can see in iTunes, 128kbps AAC is referred to a high quality.
I would believe that these few songs that have appeared at higher bitrates are the same average file size, which wouldn't affect the store negatively.

For those who expect Lossless anytime soon: Forget it! That eliminates the whole point of using the music store for many. You might as well go buy your CDs and rip them, because that's not going to happen in the near future.

Your thinking is flawed. You fail to realize the #1 reason the iTMS can fail. If this reason is eliminated the iTMS wins. Plus, you obviously don't see the acceleration and expontential growth of broadband. Your thinking is narrowminded and fails to see ahead even in the near future. Very soon bandwidth will not be a problem. Already millions have broadband connections in their homes which could easily capacitate the downloading of lossless audio. Get with the program man. You need to open your eyes to the big picture. Look where we are headed, because we are headed there fast.

 

[oskar]

Your thinking is flawed. You fail to realize the #1 reason the iTMS can fail. If this reason is eliminated the iTMS wins. Plus, you obviously don't see the acceleration and expontential growth of broadband. Your thinking is narrowminded and fails to see ahead even in the near future. Very soon bandwidth will not be a problem. Already millions have broadband connections in their homes which could easily capacitate the downloading of lossless audio. Get with the program man. You need to open your eyes to the big picture. Look where we are headed, because we are headed there fast.

I think we can see higher bit rates in the iTunes MS soon. But not lossless yet, not this year at least. I think there's too large a gap from 128kbps to an average 700kbps. Maybe we'll begin seeing more 320kbps songs, sometime soon. And it's not that I can't see it coming, but Apple pretty much has control over what is called good and what is called high quality. And as of now, 128kbps AAC still seems to be the "high" quality according to iTunes, although you and I know there's much better quality.

And just because someone differs from what you think doesn't mean their thinking is flawed or they are narrowminded. You're kinda describing yourself by thinking that an opinion on iTunes and a Rythm is a Dancer macrumors thread defines how a person thinks.

I am aware that the availability of faster broadband is expanding very fast in most countries where the iTMS is available. But I still think that Apple isn't going to make a whole new selection of their current songs at a higher bit rate based on that, when the vast majority is still going to prefer a smaller file size. Think iPod mini and Shuffle and how Apple says how many songs fit into them. The iPod is BTW the reason the iTMS exists.