Higher Quality iTunes Coming?

[bilbo--baggins]

oh yah. I've had my share of CDs I've had to replace. They get those little pinholes in the aluminum....

There is information on the link below about 'CD Rot'. I've certainly had a few CD's affected by this. I keep backups of all of my rare CD's (in full CD quality). For convenience I keep the rest of my library backed up onto DVD in whatever quality it happens to be in my library. Then, if I get a hard drive crash I can restore it much more quickly than going through loads of CD's.

http://www.arrowfile.com/viewindex.asp?article_id=cdrot

 

[bilbo--baggins]

As I said before the bigger issue with Lossless iPods is the RAM not the space.

I think this might be an issue that has been resolved in newer models (of the proper iPod). My third generation iPod seemed to get problems where the music would momentarily stop a few seconds into each song. My latest iPod (with colour screen) works fine. Are you referring to the cheaper models, like the Shuffle, which aren't lossless compatible?

 

[Timepass]

hmm I wonder if apple is thinking about doing this because maybe one of the other online stores are planning on doing something like it. A lot of industry insider talk is going on so apple would know about it.

WMA and AAC are close enough in quility to compare, they are bother better then mp3 in in size to quiality ratio.

Could be one of the other stores plan on selling higher quallity WMA DRM files so the sound will be better. Apple responds is to do the same.

 

[Diatribe]

I think this might be an issue that has been resolved in newer models (of the proper iPod). My third generation iPod seemed to get problems where the music would momentarily stop a few seconds into each song. My latest iPod (with colour screen) works fine. Are you referring to the cheaper models, like the Shuffle, which aren't lossless compatible?

Nope. I was referring to the battery life problem if the song can't entirely be cached or at least 2-3 songs for it to be sufficient and comparable to todays battery life.

 

[pink-pony115]

Whatever Apple deciedes : I will always buy the cheapest version of the song.

 

[Gasu E.]

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.

It's interesting that, gradually, Apple has been repositioning iPod/iTunes from a portable music player to a hub of digitial home entertainment. A high-quality download option would be a necessary step in that transition. Essentially, this would eliminate any reason to purchase and store of CDs for nearly all users.

 

[/dev/toaster]

Personally, I have never had an issue with sound quality on iTunes. What I do have an issue with is video quality. It looks great on an iPod. But, when you put a video in full screen on my 17" MBP, it looks like crap.

Its generally not worth it to purchase videos from iTunes. You can general purchase the same videos cheaper on DVD. (South Park is a good example of this)

iTunes needs to either lower their prices drasticly on videos or give the option of higher quality. Hell, give me the option to download the video, and mail me the DVD after that for $5 more. I would do it, and I am sure many others would.

 

[hayesk]

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

If it's DRM, then it's not much of a reason. If you burn lossless to a CD, and reencode as lossless - you won't lose any quality.

The only real reason is if you want the CD package.

 

[celebrian23]

If it's DRM, then it's not much of a reason. If you burn lossless to a CD, and reencode as lossless - you won't lose any quality.

The only real reason is if you want the CD package.

And that's why I don't buy there, I want the CD package Partially anyways.

 

[hayesk]

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.

Maybe if listening on an iPod with stock headphones it's indistinguishable. But I can tell the difference on my home stereo. 128AAC is very good, but it's not indistinguishable from CD on good equipment.

 

[Wender]

Maybe if listening on an iPod with stock headphones it's indistinguishable. But I can tell the difference on my home stereo. 128AAC is very good, but it's not indistinguishable from CD on good equipment.

Agreed. Also applies with any other headphones than the stock ones. It's dead easy to hear the difference, the only genre where it's hard to tell is with audiobooks, and maybe early 80s synth pop

Read this:

http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html

Same applies for 128 and 256kbps AAC, have a similar blinded pro test in print but not on the net.

...now remember - you really have to LISTEN, just kidding...

I welcome the lossless offer if it's happening. Just wondering if it will do anything to the non-seamless playback of tracks that are supposed to flow into one another, like live shows and Dark Side Of The Moon and about 1000 other titles that are CRAP listening to on the iPod because there are gaps between the tracks.

 

[Wender]

CD's are NOT compressed audio. They are uncompressed 44.1/16, which is the best audio you can buy other than dvd audio (which didn't really catch on).

CDs are compressed compared to how the music was recorded in the first place. Obviously no album is recorded at 44.1/16. I think that's what he meant to say.

However, we all use the term "uncompressed" for audio that is not inferior to CD quality anyway, and that's why "lossless" makes sense. PCM tracks on DVDs are 48/16 and theoretically not as compressed as CD audio but now I'm starting to get ridiculous...

As for the "can't hear the difference" debate: My number one wish for iTunes/iPod: Make it possible to play tracks without gaps between songs. Talking about hearing the difference... That's the REAL problem with MP3/AAC in my opinion.

 

[theBB]

Here is a paper for those who are interested:

http://www.tnt.uni-hannover.de/project/mpeg/audio/public/w2006.pdf

It is written by people working for BBC, NHK and MIT. It explains how (triple stimulus double-blind test) they decide which codec performs better and how something is deemed "imperceptible from CD quality." 10 different test pieces of audio; 31 listeners, all with some professional audio background; 80 tests per person... Sounds quite seriuos. From Dec 1997, a bit old, but if the codecs are the same, who cares. They even take into account the effect of listener's position relative to the speakers.

As it is a technical article, it is a bit hard to follow, but in the end AAC 128 performs very well. Almost nobody for any test piece grades "AAC Main 128" to be less than 4 (perceptible, but not annoying) out of 5. Mean scores are 4.5 or better for each test piece. That means half or more people could not distinguish the original and the coded version. You might as well toss a coin. Sometimes and for some people AAC coded version sounds better than the original.

 

[JFreak]

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.

Yes, and this is the meat and potatoes of this discussion. Apple has proven that people will gladly pay buck-a-song for near cd quality, as the cd quality is already a little too low and the 128kbps aac is not much worse. Steve thinks that people would pay more for better (than cd) quality, and if record lables so much want to get more money, then Steve is pushing them to give better quality in return.

So, I think that hhe lossless codec would most likely be used to deliver 24bit@96kHz which is used for mastering most albums nowadays. That would be like an electronic delivery of DVD-audio, which would effectively eliminate the cd mastering process that shrinks the audio quality to fit the +25-year-old standard called "red book".

That's what Apple is planning.

 

[Wender]

Listening tests and near-something quality aside: There are two very valid reasons to go lossless:

1) The psychological aspect of having the real thing, it's all there, no bits removed, nothing compressed. Can't hear the difference? Doesn't really matter to me (but I believe I can). I want it all because I want it all

2) Try purchasing "The Wall" by Pink Floyd or any other album that has track changes where there's actually music. Any live album. Try making that a CD that really plays like it should! You will have gaps or "microgaps" between each track. Scandalous! Lossless rectifies this problem, which is my main reason NOT to buy from iTMS. That and the sound quality