Higher Encoded Songs in iTunes?

[slu]

The user's broadband connection is not the only thing to consider. Apple has to pay for bandwith as well as disk space, webservers, and other infrastructure. They make very little off iTMS and the additional overhead required for higher bit rate songs or choices of bit rate may turn a slightly profitable venture into an unprofitable one. And that would be a bad thing to happen to the whole digital music distribution industry.

I think it is narrow minded to say more people have broadband now, so raise the bit rates. Again, you need to look at the big picture. There is a cost associated with that AND 99.99% of the people do not care about bit rates.

 

[PlaceofDis]

eventually 128AAC will not be a good enought bit rate and we will move up to 192AAC, there will be no jumping, just slow steps like this for sure, just as people slowly transition from cds to digital formats

i only buy some albums on the music store, but if its an artist that i love i will get the cd because its a backup and i can encode it how i want

 

[jcshas]

Keeping my fingers crossed

I really hope this is an early indication of the next BIG thing Apple has in store for the ITMS. All though I enjoy the convenience downloading music from iTunes, the quality of some of the songs occasionally leave something to be desired.

 

[IanC]

heh, just checked my purchased music and theres none that are higher than 128k...

(strange, the store seems to be acting up for me right now)

 

[czardmitri]

I call BS on this.

Purchased songs shouldn't report what they were encoded with.

I agree. Purchased songs don't reveal what they were encoded with on the "get info/summary" tab. At least mine don't.

 

[Jmitch]

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.

You do make a lot of very good points. But the hard drive sizes of iPods are drastically increasing in capacity. Lossless format won't be a problem with iPods soon. But then again, it's the streaming subscription model that will out do everything currently in. It just doesn't really make sense to have the same data in three different places- the server, the local computer, and the portable player. This is taking up three times as much disk space as needed when everything could just be in one place on the server. It could just be streamed like television is to the point of access to the user whether is be the home computer, a personal notebook computer, or a portable player. Global wi-fi is becoming more and more of a reality every day. I think this is what will be push the streaming subscription service. And by then streaming bandwidths will be wide enough to stream high-resolution formats such as that on the SACD format.

This, I believe, is really the next real revolution in digital music.

 

[oskar]

You do make a lot of very good points. But the hard drive sizes of iPods are drastically increasing in capacity. Lossless format won't be a problem with iPods soon. But then again, it's the streaming subscription model that will out do everything currently in. It just doesn't really make sense to have the same data in three different places- the server, the local computer, and the portable player. This is taking up three times as much disk space as needed when everything could just be in one place on the server. It could just be streamed like television is to the point of access to the user whether is be the home computer, a personal notebook computer, or a portable player. Global wi-fi is becoming more and more of a reality every day. I think this is what will be push the streaming subscription service. And by then streaming bandwidths will be wide enough to stream high-resolution formats such as that on the SACD format.

This, I believe, is really the next real revolution in digital music.

I agree with you and hope to see those technologies implemented in our everyday lives in the near future. But I would think of all that as additional ways to listen to music, not as a replacement to our current technology.

 

[MontyZ]

It's overdue for higher bit rates, 128 is crap. I would buy a LOT more music from iTunes if they had better quality sound. As it is, I only get the odd single hit and prefer to buy CDs and rip them myself. Plus, there's not all the copy-protection hassle that you get with iTunes files.

The RIAA has got to be the stupidest organization in existence. They have a huge popuplation of people wanting digital music, and all they do is drag their feet and sue college kids. If it were up to them, we'd all still be playing 8-track tapes. Who needs them!

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Screenshots of anomalies.

I agree. Purchased songs don't reveal what they were encoded with on the "get info/summary" tab. At least mine don't.

MOST don't. Of the 381 files (some are audiobooks, so I can't call them all 'songs',) I've purchased from iTMS, only THREE report their encoder. Two are from the music label Radikal, and both are encoded using FAAC at higher than 128 kbps, and the third was a free download, 'Out of Reach' by Cities of Foam by Dorado Records. It has an encoder listed as 'iTunes v4.7.1, QuickTime 6.5.2' (Hrm, there's no way to read that entire field in iTunes or QuickTime...')

Here, I've made screenshots of those purchased songs (along with one 'normal' purchased song for comparison) with this info listed.


(Clicking on each opens a full-size copy.)

 

[Jmitch]

I agree with you and hope to see those technologies implemented in our everyday lives in the near future. But I would think of all that as additional ways to listen to music, not as a replacement to our current technology.

So your saying you think we will always be carrying around our entire libraries of music with us wherever we go? What I'm saying is that this isn't going to happen. Eventually, when everything is streamed and subscription modeled, there will be no need to have to carry around the data wherever you go. It will simply be streamed wirelessly to wherever you are with your player. This may not seem feasible now but I assure it is coming and it is coming fast. Just look at the growth of wi-fi hotspots around. They are beginning to be in cafes, restaurants and other places of public hang out. Technology will soon allow for the wide transmission of the internet to the point where global connectivity will be reached. Once this happens zero data will be actually carried around on the person. It will all be streamed from central server databases. Everything will be accessed at the tip of a finger.

When they say information age - this is the truth they're pointing to. Information at any time any place any where - a true global network. It's coming and it's happening faster than you think. Our brains are being connected everywhere through these personal computers. Soon the entire world will act as one giant brain with each nerve ending communicating and acting off eachother. It will be one consciousness - a union of the world. It's already happening and we will be the one consciousness that pervades everything in this universe...

 

[oskar]

So your saying you think we will always be carrying around our entire libraries of music with us wherever we go? What I'm saying is that this isn't going to happen. Eventually, when everything is streamed and subscription modeled, there will be no need to have to carry around the data wherever you go. It will simply be streamed wirelessly to wherever you are with your player. This may not seem feasible now but I assure it is coming and it is coming fast. Just look at the growth of wi-fi hotspots around. They are beginning to be in cafes, restaurants and other places of public hang out. Technology will soon allow for the wide transmission of the internet to the point where global connectivity will be reached. Once this happens zero data will be actually carried around on the person. It will all be streamed from central server databases. Everything will be accessed at the tip of a finger.

When they say information age - this is the truth they're pointing to. Information at any time any place any where - a true global network. It's coming and it's happening faster than you think. Our brains are being connected everywhere through these personal computers. Soon the entire world will act as one giant brain with each nerve ending communicating and acting off eachother. It will be one consciousness - a union of the world. It's already happening and we will be the one consciousness that pervades everything in this universe...

I really don't know what to comment on that. Everybody's opinion should be respected so I prefer not to say any more at the moment. If you really want to know what I think let me know.