Higher Quality iTunes Coming?

[A is jump]

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.

First of all that is serious BS. There is a Huge difference between the 128kb rap, CD quality, and Vinyl. and you can thank Rap for being a huge proponent of Vinyl too, otherwise you might find it harder and harder to find Vinyl at all. Hip hop, and Electronic music account for a huge portion of Vinyl production these days. There are Analog purists in every genre, so lets not be too close minded.

 

[Ace25]

Five computer limit

So, on a slightly different iTunes song subject...what happens when you use up your 5 computer limit? If you buy a whole library of songs on iTunes, it will not last your lifetime (because you will most likely have more than 5 computers). What do you all think?? Should this be changed?

 

[thejadedmonkey]

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

OH man, if the DMCA came back to bite the RIAA and MPAA in the *** I would go out and spend $$$$$ on movies I'd never watch, just to bite them in the *** some more!

 

[ezekielrage_99]

wow this is big... I just hope we have new ipods soon a well.

We are bound to get new iPods soon, it's been over 8 months since the last big update.

I want..... actually I need a new iPod so I'm hanging off until the next iPod release.

 

[A is jump]

So, on a slightly different iTunes song subject...what happens when you use up your 5 computer limit? If you buy a whole library of songs on iTunes, it will not last your lifetime (because you will most likely have more than 5 computers). What do you all think?? Should this be changed?

You can Remove computers from that list. it is 5 computers at one time.
so if you sell your computer, its no big deal because it is removed, and even if the file remains it will ask for your password to play it.
pretty cool really

Just go to the "advanced" window in itunes, and click on "deauthorize computer" if will give you the option of removing your computer from your list.

 

[Faraday]

What about the DRM ?

Seems unlikely to me, unless Apple Lossless supports DRM. The whole point of iTunes was that it had a level of DRM that kept the content providers happy, but wasn't intrusive enough to upsent the consumers.

Selling Apple Lossless would be effectively selling CD quality digital files, albeit large ones, without any form of copy prevention involved. Don't see it happening.

Of course I might be wrong about Apple lossless not supporting DRM...

 

[A is jump]

Seems unlikely to me, unless Apple Lossless supports DRM. The whole point of iTunes was that it had a level of DRM that kept the content providers happy, but wasn't intrusive enough to upsent the consumers.

Selling Apple Lossless would be effectively selling CD quality digital files, albeit large ones, without any form of copy prevention involved. Don't see it happening.

Of course I might be wrong about Apple lossless not supporting DRM...

ACC can be a non protected format, or a protected format, I imagine making ALC protected is a piece of cake for apple.

 

[Caitlyn]

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the current iTunes music format. If you have a good set of headphones, the tunes sound great. Plus better format probably means bigger file and therefore less songs per iPod. Unless of course, Apple releases this along side an iPod upgrade.

 

[jeriqo]

What is CD quality? Other online music stores sell CD quality songs for $.99.

CD quality is PCM 44.1Khz, 16bits.
A lossless codec delivers the same audio as the original.

Apple could even offer 96Khz / 24bits audio if the labels provided it.

 

[dejo]

Other online music stores sell CD quality songs for $.99.

Really? Which ones?

 

[Ace25]

You can Remove computers from that list. it is 5 computers at one time.
so if you sell your computer, its no big deal because it is removed, and even if the file remains it will ask for your password to play it.
pretty cool really

Just go to the "advanced" window in itunes, and click on "deauthorize computer" if will give you the option of removing your computer from your list.

Thank you!!

 

[balamw]

Really? Which ones?

They all claim to, but they use a definition of CD quality that means something like 85% of people can't tell the difference between a CD or what we sell and it typically means anything from 128 kbps - 192 kbps regardless of codec.

CD quality unfortunately does not mean that the tracks sold are at the same sampling rate and bit depth as a CD and compressed with only a lossless codec.

FWIW AudioLunchbox has considered selling FLACs http://audiolunchbox.com/community/discussion?d=15

B

 

[aussie_geek]

negative vote from me


Fair enough - the music will sound better but what about file sizes... Apple lossless encodes files that are much larger yeah?

that means a lower number of songs on our iPods - we will be forced into buying new ones to fit enough songs on them.

maybe we will be able to re-encode them to aac when purchased to fit on an iPod but could you really be bothered doing that...

unless it is an automated process (re-encoding to aac etc) this would be a bad idea


aussie_geek

 

[Diomedes]

Apple has been quietly experimenting with different codecs and bit rates, including the Nero AAC codec (unfortantely, some of these have been encoded at 63 K), FLAC, and a couple of others. It's usually been done with smaller, independent labels. Although I don't know what they were expecting to get out of this, since you would only know if you had the bit rate column in itunes, or looked at a songs's properties.

I've bought thousands of tracks since iTMS first opened, and by and large, the quality is fine. The MPEG codecs do have some sophisticated physics behind them. Of course, the old axiom "Garbage In, Garbage Out" is truer with iTMS tracks. i bought a CD that had been mastered poorly, and bought the same CD from iTMS — same low-volume problem.

I would like an option, as smaller online reatilers offer, of 192 or 320. While it may not be possible for the entire collection, offering the most popular songs at differnt rates would be a welcome change.

More important than that, however, is iTMS search engine. Some serious work needs to go into that anemic search!

 

[EricNau]

Really? Which ones?

Well, as I said in another post, Music Match (by Yahoo), claims they offer "crystal-clear CD-quality sound," but as balamw pointed out, it may not actually be the same quality of a CD.

If Apple were to take dolby's quote to heart, they could also claim they had "CD quality" music.


EDIT: Here is a good source to see what quality online music stores offer (although it is outdated).

 

[Fawzi]

This means I can stop downloading illegaly stuff that I bought on the ITMS because I get better quality on P2P .

And since I already bought the rights for the music I bought on the ITMS does this mean that I have to pay them again to get them in ALC...

I agree that I should pay for the work it represents to distribute and convert the music, but how many times do I have to pay the same artists and producers, for songs that I already own the rights to?...

 

[dejo]

ACC can be a non protected format, or a protected format...

I think you mean AAC.

 

[puuukeey]

AMAZING NEWS. I have been unhappy with my current MP3 apple encoding due to its poor quality. it has nothing to do with the frequency response.. its in the loss of phase accuracy. its fine for simple music such as folk but when you enter mashuga into it at the same settings, it sounds like ASS.

 

[novagamer]

Well, as I said in another post, Music Match (by Yahoo), claims they offer "crystal-clear CD-quality sound," but as balamw pointed out, it may not actually be the same quality of a CD.

If Apple were to take dolby's quote to heart, they could also claim they had "CD quality" music.


EDIT: Here is a good source to see what quality online music stores offer (although it is outdated).

I've tried almost everything that's out there, and have a very good ear and very good headphones (currently using Sennheiser HD650s, though my main setup is a pair of HD600s). Napster was by far the worst, followed by Yahoo, AllofMP3 (which is of questionable legality- and BS's you by the way, I encoded the same song in .wav and a multitude of mp3 formats, and they were almost IDENTICAL- the song actually sounded better in itunes), and a tie between MusicMatch (which was pretty good, but didn't have a great selection) and iTunes.

Nothing comes close to the rips that you can get from P2P, unless you purchase music in lossless codecs (which I do for certian bands, namely Metallica who releases live shows in FLAC).

For the average joe, this isn't much of a big deal, but for anyone serious about audio, being able to buy a lossless song for a dollar is a huge deal, and will make a lot of people like me start to purchase itunes songs by the virtual truckload.

 

[Mac Fly (film)]

I was just speculating on when Apple might consider upping the quality on iTSM tracks the other day on another forum. It's really about that time. I can understand their use of 128 bit encoding to start it all off. If they made tracks lossless or encoded at too high a bitrate, the larger file sizes may have turned away many customers. No-one wants to sit and wait for a long time for tracks to download. but broadband is becoming so common now, it shouldn't pose as much of an issue. Now that they have a large installed base of clients who are buying from it, it makes perfect sense to start giving us higher quality encodings.

I agree and have sent this feedback to apple.com about three times!! They must be listening after all.

 

[yg17]

Purchased ALCs->CD->High bitrate MP3 without DRM and without having to encode from an already lossy source


I might be tempted to buy from the iTMS more often if they introduce this

 

[edoates]

WRT quality of iTMS encoding, and AAC and ALC in general, Stereophile did a review of the iPod a couple of years ago. AAC came off rather well at 384, and ALC was considered perfect as was native AIFF (no encoding). This spoke well to the iPod decoding: bit jitter was pretty minimal, etc. And Stereophile is usually the enemy of consumer gear and they get pretty winky in their descriptions (warm and present; crisp sound stage; bla bla bla: they should rate wine).

For iPod headphone use (I use the AT platinum ones), 192 is OK, and that's what I encode my own stuff in; 128 makes the deep lows "tubby" in that it seems to reduce low frequency dynamics, but it does a pretty good job of not "chorusing" the highs like MP3 does. But even with ordinary earphones, you can hear it, but it is still quite listen-able.

But when I play even 192's back through my main system, whether directly from my iPod dock "line out" or via AirTunes (which converts the iTunes track to ALC for transmission), and then into my Meridian 861 processor (still one of the best available), the difference between the original CD and ANY of the AAC encodings is apparent: the lows are more squished, the highs not quite as sparkly, sound stage lacks depth (a result of phase changes during encoding); ALC and AIFF are identical as far as I can perceive, to the original CD.

So, to me, adding an ALC option to ITMS would be useful, and for many would be an alternative to purchasing the hard CD.

 

[brepublican]

I still won't buy from iTMS since the reason I won't doesn't have much to do with sound quality

With compatability issues, its possible Apple Lossless might even be worse than AAC...

 

[DeSnousa]

I really couldn't care, most CD's I buy get ripped in AAC 128 and the CD thrown into the closet. So in the end iTunes is really the same for most consumers, with the added advantage of being cheaper. Quality wise, I can tell a difference, but its not enough to make me not enjoy the music. In the end it does wonders to my hardrive, my collection is just over 20 gig.

What I would love to see is Apple work on improving the encoding of AAC 128, but overall I'm happy with the Music Store as so are the majority consumers, but there always the importance of research

 

[A is jump]

I think you mean AAC.

Ahh yes...thank you.