I'd say if you A-B'd lossless vs. lossy with just about anyone, telling them what to pay attention for (ex. the cymbals), they'd notice, especially at the bitrate iTMS uses. Sure some people can notice the difference no matter what it is they're listening too, even on stuff that actually compresses well, but there are a few things that are just plain obvious once you stop and listen. I'm all for quality. Now they just have to work on the DRM issue. I'd buy album after album from iTunes if they'd do lossless and no DRM. Heck, I could compromise a little, purchase a lossless album, burn it, re-import it DRM-free. Right now it's just the ocational track. I hardly ever use it without giftcard credit.
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.
Higher Quality iTunes Coming?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not the reason
Hey,
The reason Apple is including Apple Lossless in Producer is so that music producers/publishers can provide the highest possible quality to Apple with minimum bandwidth. I'm assuming Apple keeps a master set of all music available on iTunes in Apple Lossless (probably why Apple developed that format in the first place) so that they can very consistently compress all audio into the appropriate delivery format (AAC-128 today).
Apple may choose to offer higher bandwidth options or even different encoders in the future (whether a year from now or 10 years from now, at somepoint a new encoder will be available that is SO compelling that Apple will HAVE to recompress everything). If (read WHEN) they choose to offer a different format, they will just turn on a bank of macs 24/7 to recompress the 5 or 10 million songs they have.
I doubt this change in Apple Producer is any indicator that new formats are imminent.
My 1.5 cents worth. (not worth 2)
Jim
Hey,
The reason Apple is including Apple Lossless in Producer is so that music producers/publishers can provide the highest possible quality to Apple with minimum bandwidth. I'm assuming Apple keeps a master set of all music available on iTunes in Apple Lossless (probably why Apple developed that format in the first place) so that they can very consistently compress all audio into the appropriate delivery format (AAC-128 today).
Apple may choose to offer higher bandwidth options or even different encoders in the future (whether a year from now or 10 years from now, at somepoint a new encoder will be available that is SO compelling that Apple will HAVE to recompress everything). If (read WHEN) they choose to offer a different format, they will just turn on a bank of macs 24/7 to recompress the 5 or 10 million songs they have.
I doubt this change in Apple Producer is any indicator that new formats are imminent.
My 1.5 cents worth. (not worth 2)
Jim
EricNau said:According to Apple (who got it from dolby)...
Link
- AAC compressed audio at 128 Kbps (stereo) has been judged by expert listeners to be indistinguishable from the original uncompressed audio source.
- AAC compressed audio at 96 Kbps generally exceeded the quality of MP3 compressed audio at 128 Kbps. AAC at 128 Kbps provides significantly superior performance than does MP3 at 128 Kbps.
- AAC was the only Internet audio codec evaluated in the range Excellent at 64 Kbps for all of the audio items tested in EBU listening tests.
So in theory, we shouldn't need higher quality songs, right?
There are many factors like the quality of your earphones/headphones. Higher quality earphones/headphones will make artifacts more obvious. Also when you crank up the volume for things like train/coach journeys the artifacts may be heard.
EricNau said:According to Apple (who got it from dolby)...
Link
- AAC compressed audio at 128 Kbps (stereo) has been judged by expert listeners to be indistinguishable from the original uncompressed audio source.
- AAC compressed audio at 96 Kbps generally exceeded the quality of MP3 compressed audio at 128 Kbps. AAC at 128 Kbps provides significantly superior performance than does MP3 at 128 Kbps.
- AAC was the only Internet audio codec evaluated in the range Excellent at 64 Kbps for all of the audio items tested in EBU listening tests.
So in theory, we shouldn't need higher quality songs, right?
I can tell the difference between 128 Kbps AAC and 160 Kbps AAC. Once you get higher, I can't tell the difference, but it WOULD be nice if Apple bumped the quality up to 160 AAC, which wouldn't take up that much more disk space but would give a noticable quality difference to us who care and can tell. I honestly would rather 160 AAC over a lossless version (too big files).
The "128 is indistinguishable from uncompressed CD" is marketing bull crap. It's not quite as good. If I had to make that statement, I'd make it about 160 Kbps AAC.
Basically, AAC is roughly one step above MP3 in my opinion, so:
96 AAC == 128 MP3 (noticeable artifacts, especially in high frequencies)
128 AAC == 160 MP3 (slightly less than CD quality)
160 AAC == 192 MP3 (indistinguishable from CD quality)
If they do offer tunes in lossless, perhaps all iPods will get the ability to automatically convert to 128 when transferring to an iPod.
On another note, not only would lossless reduce song capacity, it would dramatically decrease battery life.
On another note, not only would lossless reduce song capacity, it would dramatically decrease battery life.
AB testing
Jake,
I politely beg to disagree. The reason Apple chose 128 Kbps encoding for AAC is because in double-blind ABX testing, AAC-128 was the rate at which a very high (maybe 96%? can't remember) of all listeners could not distinguish between uncompressed (CD quality) and the compressed version.
At that level, even a trained, highly practiced professional will still often make mistakes.
www.hydrogenaudio.org is a great place to read about compression techniques and comparisons. You will find test results of MANY combinations of different compressors and bitrates there.
You can read about double-blind ABX testing at:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295&hl=abx+testing
Jim
Jake,
I politely beg to disagree. The reason Apple chose 128 Kbps encoding for AAC is because in double-blind ABX testing, AAC-128 was the rate at which a very high (maybe 96%? can't remember) of all listeners could not distinguish between uncompressed (CD quality) and the compressed version.
At that level, even a trained, highly practiced professional will still often make mistakes.
www.hydrogenaudio.org is a great place to read about compression techniques and comparisons. You will find test results of MANY combinations of different compressors and bitrates there.
You can read about double-blind ABX testing at:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295&hl=abx+testing
Jim
lord patton said:
of course, Apple would still advertise the iPod's battery life as how long it lasts when playing 1 128 Kbps AAC song without DRM on infinite repeat without the backlight.
lord patton said:
Not necessarily. On a hard disc based iPod yes it would have to spin faster and cover more data in the same amount of time, but I think the energy needed to process from file format to what you hear is actually less for lossless. Someone will have to back me up on this, though.
MM2270 said:The only downside to it would be that less music will fit on iPods under the new scheme. Apple's "1000 songs in your pocket" claim will have to come with a disclaimer that states it's only true when using the lower quality tracks, etc. Or they'll have to change it to "500 songs in your pocket" or something
That's a good point... I'd definitely buy music from iTMS if it was sold in ALAC format, as long as the price premium wasn't too big; however, I don't want to store it in ALAC on my iPod, and in fact, for now, I don't think I'd want it on my external HD (which houses my main library) either, as it'd fill up rather quickly.
Anyway, those damn greedy labels would do so much better if they scrapped DRM altogether by letting Apple sell ALAC files with some "circumventable" FairPlay version. Since everyone knows that just won't happen (at least, not officially, since lossless files could be easily be freed from DRM without losing quality from transcoding processes) they could at least let Apple implement some DRM'ed transcoding option - I wouldn't mind if iTunes could create a second DRM'ed copy in 128 Kbps .m4p format, either to store it permanently on the main library, or on the fly, to sync with the iPod (and not just the Shuffle, but the nano and full-size iPods as well). That way, I could keep the ALAC files backed-up on DVDs...
Just my 0,02.
IIRC shuffles already have this option.lord patton said:
Lossless seems weird for the RIAA, since if you still have the right to burn to CD you can transcode to any DRM free codec you'd like, even if iTunes would transcode on the fly to a DRMed 128 kbps AAC file for the iPod.
Maybe this is an option designed for smaller bands/labels who want to use iTunes as their main distribution channel...
B
I know that I'd be much more likely to buy track from the iTMS in lossless, or even in 192k AAC.
As a point of comparison, eMusic offers unrestricted VBR MP3s (average 192k), which are very close to CD quality, perhaps even indistinguishable. And they let you download the same track an unlimited number of times, so when they upgraded from 128k to VBR, I was able to upgrade all the tracks I bought from them for free.
Needless to say, I've bought a *lot* from eMusic, but only a few tracks from iTMS.
The iTMS DRM doesn't bother me, since I can burn to CD and then re-extract in MP3 if I so desire. DRM doesn't get truly objectionable until you get into Napster-like schemes where your songs go away if you stop paying your monthly fee, and there's no way to convert the songs into an open format...
As a point of comparison, eMusic offers unrestricted VBR MP3s (average 192k), which are very close to CD quality, perhaps even indistinguishable. And they let you download the same track an unlimited number of times, so when they upgraded from 128k to VBR, I was able to upgrade all the tracks I bought from them for free.
Needless to say, I've bought a *lot* from eMusic, but only a few tracks from iTMS.
The iTMS DRM doesn't bother me, since I can burn to CD and then re-extract in MP3 if I so desire. DRM doesn't get truly objectionable until you get into Napster-like schemes where your songs go away if you stop paying your monthly fee, and there's no way to convert the songs into an open format...
This change, by itself, doesn't seem to signal much of a change. Apple also needs to add DRM to the format.
Perhaps it has something to do with the "Made in iTunes" rumors. Maybe they'll offer iTunes-only remixes by popular DJs. Or maybe Apple will offer streams at higher quality? Subscription-based iTunes?
Perhaps it has something to do with the "Made in iTunes" rumors. Maybe they'll offer iTunes-only remixes by popular DJs. Or maybe Apple will offer streams at higher quality? Subscription-based iTunes?
EricNau said:
I've never had a problem with it, but then I probably dulled my hearing many, many years ago as a DJ on a rock station.
Overall, I don't even have a problem with 128K MP3 stuff. But, then I know people who claim that they can't even handle CDs, and that they need 96K sampling rates to be happy.
I guess I'm glad that the gold flaked off my ears years ago and left the shiny lead behind....
I want to adjust the quality
How about choices for 64kb or 32kb but cut the price down? I am very happy with 128 for my hearing needs. I wish the music videos were higher quality or the same as when they were free. My vision detects quality better than my hearing.
How about choices for 64kb or 32kb but cut the price down? I am very happy with 128 for my hearing needs. I wish the music videos were higher quality or the same as when they were free. My vision detects quality better than my hearing.
I've basically stopped buying music from the iTMS store because of the quality.
I've purchased about 6,000 songs, and I didn't mind at first since low quality was fine for my iPod.
But now that digital music is moving from my iPod to my home stereo, I can tell the difference, and I am bummed to have so much music is such a low quality format. You can't even listen to music purchased from the iTMS through the iPod Hi-Fi. It sounds terrible.
I'd like an option to pay for better digital music. And I would like an option to upgrade my current library to lossless. I don't mind paying, but certainly not full price. Let me upgrade for 10% of the original cost.
If I had an avenue to upgrade my current library--at a reasonable cost--and the option to buy at better quality in the future, I'd start buying from the iTMS again.
I've purchased about 6,000 songs, and I didn't mind at first since low quality was fine for my iPod.
But now that digital music is moving from my iPod to my home stereo, I can tell the difference, and I am bummed to have so much music is such a low quality format. You can't even listen to music purchased from the iTMS through the iPod Hi-Fi. It sounds terrible.
I'd like an option to pay for better digital music. And I would like an option to upgrade my current library to lossless. I don't mind paying, but certainly not full price. Let me upgrade for 10% of the original cost.
If I had an avenue to upgrade my current library--at a reasonable cost--and the option to buy at better quality in the future, I'd start buying from the iTMS again.
The power required to spin the mechanical hard drive dwarfs the power needed to process the file. I don't know how complex ALC is to decode, but I don't think it would matter if it required no processing at all, you'd still lose on the battery life front.ifjake said:
Edit: I suppose Apple could compensate by adding more RAM and caching more...
heyjp said:
Yeah I guess I can give you that, the majority won't be able to just tell. For most consumer audio gear, it might not be as revealing for the majority of people, but I have purchased some songs on iTunes that sound just plain bad. I must admit, I personally still use AAC, not lossless, on the majority of my imported CDs just because it saves space and I'm usually only casually listening anyway, and if it's not jazz or classical. It's not always lousy, but I wouldn't say that there's no difference. If you know what to listen for you don't necessarily need golden ears to tell.
I honestly think that offering lossless, though not important to the masses, will open up a whole new customer base for itunes. The people out there that DO care about sound quality and CAN hear the difference between 128k and lossless tend to buy a lot more music than the average joe. I would count myself in that category. I'm not a huge slut about audio quality when it comes to what's on my ipod (I can deal with 192k), but there have been MANY times that I've gotten the itch to buy new music and refrained from doing so off of the iTMS because of the compression. Many people have said on here that 192k is good enough, and while I would agree with that for general listening purposes, I'd still like to have a copy of the lossless version. I don't want to pay full price for something less than the original. That being said, I'd probably be willing to buy albums at 128k if they were around $5.
EDIT: A big part of why I want lossless is also that I listen to almost all of my music at home off of my hard drive. Sometimes that's throughmy thrift store bookshelf speakers, sometimes that's through my low-end-but-still-a-hair-above-consumer-quality nearfield studio monitors, and sometimes it's through nice AKG headphones. If I ONLY listened to ripped or downloaded music on my ipod, it'd matter less.
EDIT: A big part of why I want lossless is also that I listen to almost all of my music at home off of my hard drive. Sometimes that's throughmy thrift store bookshelf speakers, sometimes that's through my low-end-but-still-a-hair-above-consumer-quality nearfield studio monitors, and sometimes it's through nice AKG headphones. If I ONLY listened to ripped or downloaded music on my ipod, it'd matter less.
If the Code Is Same As CD And Price Is Same As CD, I Will Buy CD
I for one am not going to buy online code that is the same quality as the CD without the CD packaging and physical labeled CD for the same money. I am relly opposed to this online way of buying music for quality reasons and for missing the package that comes with the music. And I want the power to rip from the master CD the way I want it on my iPod.
I for one am not going to buy online code that is the same quality as the CD without the CD packaging and physical labeled CD for the same money. I am relly opposed to this online way of buying music for quality reasons and for missing the package that comes with the music. And I want the power to rip from the master CD the way I want it on my iPod.
But... the previous version of the iTunes Producer (1.3.1) was also ONLY able to import as Apple Lossless.
As far as I know iTunes Producer can't even encode to a lossy format and Apple has been collecting lossless audio for a long time now.
I guess Apple does the final encoding to 128 kbps AAC + DRM.
As far as I know iTunes Producer can't even encode to a lossy format and Apple has been collecting lossless audio for a long time now.
I guess Apple does the final encoding to 128 kbps AAC + DRM.
Well, here's another vote of approval. I suppose I definitely fall well outside of that 96%. I can always identify MP3s at 192 and lower. I always encode VBR around 256 and simply can't tolerate iTMS quality. (I'm one of the, like, four people who jumped all over SACD and love it.) If lossless was offered, I would certainly buy from iTMS, especially stuff that's out-of-print or hard to find. You'd basically be getting an exact copy of something you can't just go out and buy. Even for some who can't tell the difference, I suspect just the psychological benefit of knowing it's a "perfect" reproduction will improve some sales.
I can see how it could cause problems though. With AAC, if you burn to CD and re-compress, you can get around the protection, but you're going through two levels of degradation. If lossless is available and you burn to a CD, you can now rip and compress what is essentially a virgin true CD-quality recording, eschewing the protection and getting a very good mp3 or aac out of it. The labels could certainly balk at that notion.
I can see how it could cause problems though. With AAC, if you burn to CD and re-compress, you can get around the protection, but you're going through two levels of degradation. If lossless is available and you burn to a CD, you can now rip and compress what is essentially a virgin true CD-quality recording, eschewing the protection and getting a very good mp3 or aac out of it. The labels could certainly balk at that notion.
My reason for not buying from the itms even if they move to alc? I can buy 90% of the CDs I want from Amazon new for less than $9.99 plus I get the physical CD, the front packaging thing, and a pretty CD with a design on it. Plus, I just love importing CDs. No real reason why, it just makes me feel like I have to "work for it" and I feel accomplished
