Doctor Q said:
Yeah I want my old 328 BMW replaced with a new 330 and also I want all my DVDs replaced with the HD versions...
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
Yeah I want my old 328 BMW replaced with a new 330 and also I want all my DVDs replaced with the HD versions...
Yeah celebrian, but for the single track, I'd go with iTunes. Totally see your point though.
I have been reluctant to buy from the iTMS because whether or not I can tell the difference, I know it's there. I don't have a hi-fi system or wonderful headphones, so I know I wouldn't be able to tell a 192k from a disc, but I would know it's different, and if I ever do get a hi-fi system, I'm screwed, because I am almost positive that I'd be able to tell the lossy compression up to 192 or so.
I haven't heard it mentioned either, but I collect live music, all of which is only traded in flac/shn... ONLY. Simply because you don't know what someone has done to mp3s and it's quite possible that they have been re-encoded and the quality compromised. This is great news for me since I have over 2000 hours of music archived in Apple Lossless. If the industry swings this way, this would justify all my re-encoding to this format.
One final thing... Apple Lossless will be about 3-4 times the size of an AAC file. How long until bandwidth and HD space increases by that much? A few years. Plus blu-ray and HD DVD are coming to give you more archival storage. The size is worth it! Forget 192k etc. Go with 128k lossy, or lossless. Keep it simple. I like how it's done at livephish.com, you can buy flac or mp3, slight price difference.
Jephrey
I have been reluctant to buy from the iTMS because whether or not I can tell the difference, I know it's there. I don't have a hi-fi system or wonderful headphones, so I know I wouldn't be able to tell a 192k from a disc, but I would know it's different, and if I ever do get a hi-fi system, I'm screwed, because I am almost positive that I'd be able to tell the lossy compression up to 192 or so.
I haven't heard it mentioned either, but I collect live music, all of which is only traded in flac/shn... ONLY. Simply because you don't know what someone has done to mp3s and it's quite possible that they have been re-encoded and the quality compromised. This is great news for me since I have over 2000 hours of music archived in Apple Lossless. If the industry swings this way, this would justify all my re-encoding to this format.
One final thing... Apple Lossless will be about 3-4 times the size of an AAC file. How long until bandwidth and HD space increases by that much? A few years. Plus blu-ray and HD DVD are coming to give you more archival storage. The size is worth it! Forget 192k etc. Go with 128k lossy, or lossless. Keep it simple. I like how it's done at livephish.com, you can buy flac or mp3, slight price difference.
Jephrey
I'd be fine with paying extra for lossless versions, as my iTunes purchases are limited for now to singles I can't get elsewhere except for vinyl (the Coup, Ghostface, a few others in recent months) and the occasional album track that I want to hear right now.
I want Gnarls Barkley's Crazy - but the rest of the album is drek. So I can buy a copy that won't sound great through my stereo for $1 or buy the album for $12-15 new (and I want to hear it now, so getting it off Amazon and waiting a few days isn't an option). If I could pay, say, $3 for a true CD-quality version? I'm there.
I want Gnarls Barkley's Crazy - but the rest of the album is drek. So I can buy a copy that won't sound great through my stereo for $1 or buy the album for $12-15 new (and I want to hear it now, so getting it off Amazon and waiting a few days isn't an option). If I could pay, say, $3 for a true CD-quality version? I'm there.
I buy singles off of itunes as welljephrey said:
But typically I don't want just a single. And for some reason, I'm not a fan of itunes videos. 
larger capacity ipods + higher quality music is xcllent
Since they upgade ipods regularly a larger capacity one will keep the 1000 songs in your pocket current and unnecesary to remarket.
I too have been dying for higher quality from itms. To me there is a difference in sound between 128 and 192 or 256. I downloaded and listened to a few tracks and just felt better off buying used cd's and ripping at higher quality. If apple were to put something out at 256 I might be willing to give itms a try again.
Would I pay xtra? I dont think so. If I get a CD it becomes my backup hard copy and I'm not getting that when I download (unless I burn it of course).
Besides this will probably be a selling point from apple to recording industry: "look people are gonna want the higher quality and they'll pay again for the same track."
Since they upgade ipods regularly a larger capacity one will keep the 1000 songs in your pocket current and unnecesary to remarket.
I too have been dying for higher quality from itms. To me there is a difference in sound between 128 and 192 or 256. I downloaded and listened to a few tracks and just felt better off buying used cd's and ripping at higher quality. If apple were to put something out at 256 I might be willing to give itms a try again.
Would I pay xtra? I dont think so. If I get a CD it becomes my backup hard copy and I'm not getting that when I download (unless I burn it of course).
Besides this will probably be a selling point from apple to recording industry: "look people are gonna want the higher quality and they'll pay again for the same track."
m-dogg said:
Possible but I assume with a higher price the extra money coming in would go to apple and not the lables inorder to cover the extra bandwidth cost. Either way, I'll stick with the AAC. I don't have a problem with it and I don't want my music to take up more HD space. Good to have choices though.
Great news
Amazon has been good, but will not keep my CD sales if Apple starts selling lossless music.
Amazon has been good, but will not keep my CD sales if Apple starts selling lossless music.
Personally, I prefer ALE (Apple Loseless Encode) over ALC (Apple Loseless Codec) or ALAC (Apple Loseless Audio Codec), but maybe that's just me.
All my music is in ALc format. And if they finally use iTMS in ALC, I'll buy from it again like I used to. I deleted my entire library and ripped it again in ALC a few months back.
Sounds Sweet
Would buy from the iTunes store if the music was encoded in Apple lossless. This "can" contains ineffable audio qualities that are like vitamins to the ear. I struggle to get the same gratification from lossy codecs which leave me feeling impoverished, not refreshed.
Would buy from the iTunes store if the music was encoded in Apple lossless. This "can" contains ineffable audio qualities that are like vitamins to the ear. I struggle to get the same gratification from lossy codecs which leave me feeling impoverished, not refreshed.
It'd be nice if iTMS were encoded with LAME, rather than iTunes' horrid encoding system... But lord knows that there is 0% chance of that happening.
Lossless encoding + 99 cents price tag = me buying from the iTunes Music Store.
Simple as that. Take note Steve.
Simple as that. Take note Steve.
Currently, I only buy the occasional track from iTunes. If I want the entire album, I'll buy the CD and transfer it to my iPod using Apple Lossless. I'd certainly buy whole albums if Apple upgraded iTunes encoding to Lossless. However, as has been suggested, I suspect this latest news is more likely to be about the labels producing higher-quality source files for iTunes rather than about better quality downloads for customers.
Analog Kid said:
Well, currently you can't encode music purchased from iTMS. Although, you can burn to CD then import it...
It's True
Howdy All:
It's true. The new/current version of iTunes Producer, available for download right now, is version 1.4 which includes, among other things, encoding in ALC for upload to the store wiht a note that this will increase upload times per title.
I know this because I was just at a meeting at a record label that uploads to iTMS every day and this morning the auto-software update on their G5's came on with the iTunes Producer 1.4 update.
Cordially,
BG
Howdy All:
It's true. The new/current version of iTunes Producer, available for download right now, is version 1.4 which includes, among other things, encoding in ALC for upload to the store wiht a note that this will increase upload times per title.
I know this because I was just at a meeting at a record label that uploads to iTMS every day and this morning the auto-software update on their G5's came on with the iTunes Producer 1.4 update.
Cordially,
BG
I remember when my 5 gig iPod had more space on it than my computer's hard drive did!Diatribe said:
Oh, and I think that as long as apple can keep the same price point (which, with bandwith and HDD space becoming cheeper by the day they should have no problem doing) it'll be great for everyone. And, maybe- just maybe, I'll start using the iTMS.
let's just say "i hope so" this would be awesome, and since all the new macs have optical audio output, you could really take advantage of lossless quality music. and maybe grandfatering people, like giving them the option to upgrade would be involved somehow... probably at a small fee. seems reasonable.
Perceptions
EricNau said:According to Apple (who got it from dolby)...
- AAC compressed audio at 128 Kbps (stereo) has been judged by expert listeners to be “indistinguishable” from the original uncompressed audio source.
Link
So in theory, we shouldn't need higher quality songs, right?
When NTSC, the US analogue system for colour transmission was being investigated, the "quality" of the colour was degraded to the point where 90% of consumers saw no difference from the RGB source and it was this encoding that we still have to this day in "over-the-air" analogue transmissions. The fact that reds and yellows were so far off the true colour, and even blue often appeared purple, appeared to be of no consequence. Thus, the above quoted audio tests, while used to help determine "acceptable" compression ratios, are not indicative of quality.
The reason I use a Koetsu cartridge, Graham tone-arm and Basis turntable is that I prefer the gentler and more accurate sound of LPs than the shrill grating "highs" we get from ordinary CDs and players... yes, there are some players that make this less violent (I have one)... and it is only now that DVD audio can give some of the realism back to audio that the LP has been always able to do. So Apple could deliver the goods in audio quality if they wanted to.
The consumer is clearly not a gauge of excellence, only price sensititvity it seems, and that is why Apple went on the path they did (not good)--- that amazed me since that is NOT typical of Apple, though perhaps, I wonder, if Apple is really not as concerned about excellence as it claims to be. There is a massive difference in quality when one compares analogue recorded or live source materials to the 128 kb crap that iTunes offers--- unless one only listens to rap and similar type of "music" (can you say LIMITED range???) because there is still the same degradation in quality at the volume levels, venues and equipment that this stuff is played on. I guess no one notices. Hence, I assume, the type of music Apple so often uses in its ads.
Still, there is no reason for Apple not to offer the best digital sound available since they CAN do it easily, and perhaps, if there were superb liner notes, jewel-box covers and ancillary material available, it would be worth paying a higher price for the convenience of NOT having to go to a brick and mortar store. It would prove that Apple can offer the best, even if I have to be somewhat cynical about this and assume that to do so is simply another way for Apple, like so many companies, to be the embodiment of an expert at ripping off the customer when it can.
Well!!! They HAVE done it before!!!
Diatribe said:Yeah I want my old 328 BMW replaced with a new 330 and also I want all my DVDs replaced with the HD versions...
well according to the mpaa, we don't own the dvd, we possess a license for the content... since i bought that license for the highest quality available, the content should get updated too.. so upon a return of my dvd, i should get a blu-ray disc. hey even windows users get updates right? i'd just like the dmca to bite someone else in the arse for once
Diatribe said:Yeah I want my old 328 BMW replaced with a new 330 and also I want all my DVDs replaced with the HD versions...
Sign me up for that please
And can you throw in a new Mac and iPod while you are at it
I think its a welcome change. I hope the price does not go up too.
in terms of sound difference... I usually encode my cds at 320kpbs and usually its fine... but often if it is a cd with some real big low end I find that aac kinda colors the low end in a really farty way.
so many things I have to encode with lossless to be happy.
in terms of sound difference... I usually encode my cds at 320kpbs and usually its fine... but often if it is a cd with some real big low end I find that aac kinda colors the low end in a really farty way.
so many things I have to encode with lossless to be happy.
Does anyone know this (or can you even compare the two)? I'm totally lost when it comes to music.EricNau said:
MusicMatch offers "crystal-clear CD-quality sound" for $.99 a song. Anybody know what bit rate their music is?
