Why doesn't Apple offer HD audio (24/96) or CD quality as an OPTION for purchase??

[Luba]

It makes business sense that Apple Music will only stream (at least initially) at 256 Kbps AAC since it's a balance between quality (it's as good as 320 Kbps MP3) and cell data usage. But never understood why Apple won't offer us the option to purchase music in iTunes at higher quality, at least CD quality (16/44) or even HD audio quality (24/96 etc). They wouldn't have to offer the higher quality option on every song in iTunes. It seems Apple is leaving money on the table.

It takes a bit more work on my part, but I rather buy the CD and rip in iTunes using ALAC. Often the price is even lower than buying an album in iTunes which is of a lower quality. Besides the extra work and I have to wait (no instant gratification of just downloading), I can't just get individual songs with the way I do things. I know I am not the typical iTunes customer, but I would be if they offered at least CD quality music.

 

[WJKramer]

It makes business sense that Apple Music will only stream (at least initially) at 256 Kbps AAC since it's a balance between quality (it's as good as 320 Kbps MP3) and cell data usage. But never understood why Apple won't offer us the option to purchase music in iTunes at higher quality, at least CD quality (16/44) or even HD audio quality (24/96 etc). They wouldn't have to offer the higher quality option on every song in iTunes. It seems Apple is leaving money on the table.

It takes a bit more work on my part, but I rather buy the CD and rip in iTunes using ALAC. Often the price is even lower than buying an album in iTunes which is of a lower quality. Besides the extra work and I have to wait (no instant gratification of just downloading), I can't just get individual songs with the way I do things. I know I am not the typical iTunes customer, but I would be if they offered at least CD quality music.

Preaching to the quire, I do the same thing. I would settle for CD lossless at 16/44 but 24/96 would be nice. Part of the problem is bandwidth I am sure. Too many customers to provide that file size compared to small outfits like HDTracks.com

 

[Shirasaki]

That is why I choose to buy CD/download from Internet rather than just simply purchasing songs from iTunes.

You know, when Eddy Cue says "We can even provide you higher quality of contents than you have", I just don't want to laugh too loud to bother others.

We purchase the premium price to download songs with lower quality than we may be able to buy from CD store or torrent over Internet, for free. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Michael CM1]

I'm pretty sure Apple will stream up to 320k because Spotify and Beats do. Not all songs, but if they have them they'll stream them. I just hope there are multiple options for streaming quality. I can deal with 256 if not 128 while away from WiFi. But if I download them for offline, I want the best quality out there.

I'm not sure why much higher quality tracks haven't become a thing yet. It could be because most people don't go for the high-quality headphones that would make a difference. I downloaded a lossless version of the Apollo 13 soundtrack and tried to tell the difference on every set of speakers I had. Car, home theater, computer, headphones -- none of it sounded different.

Apple could have been waiting for h.265 to incorporate better audio. I don't think you'll see lossless tracks ever, but better compression and better codecs could happen soon. That would be quite a good selling point for a new Apple TV since BD has so many better codecs than Dolby Digital.

 

[Rigby]

This has been discussed in multiple threads already. It's unlikely that it has anything to do with bandwidth limitations, given that Apple also sells movies and TV shows which are much bigger than lossless music files. Very likely there is simply too little demand for them to bother.

 

[Michael CM1]

This has been discussed in multiple threads already. It's unlikely that it has anything to do with bandwidth limitations, given that Apple also sells movies and TV shows which are much bigger than lossless music files. Very likely there is simply too little demand for them to bother.

That's basically it. A lot of work would go into setting up the software and everything to support all of that. Tidal and the little player put out by Neil Young have had about zero interest, so I just don't think people care. I have still been unable to get someone to show me the difference between the compressed AAC format now and the uncompressed CD masters. There are probably literal differences that you could track with some sort of sound scanner, but I'm betting that the compression has gotten so good that you have to get some really prime headphones to tell the difference.

 

[Luba]

That's basically it. A lot of work would go into setting up the software and everything to support all of that. Tidal and the little player put out by Neil Young have had about zero interest, so I just don't think people care. I have still been unable to get someone to show me the difference between the compressed AAC format now and the uncompressed CD masters. There are probably literal differences that you could track with some sort of sound scanner, but I'm betting that the compression has gotten so good that you have to get some really prime headphones to tell the difference.

Sure, the market for HD audio is small. But the software set up is essentially a one-time thing. Perhaps storing lossless is something Apple doesn't want to do. They feel it takes up too much storage on their servers and it wouldn't make them enough money. But if Apple prides themselves as a music aficionado company, then they need to offer HD music. It wouldn't be a huge profit center, but would Apple really lose money by offering HD audio? I'm guessing the music Apple gets from the labels has to be converted to AAC. If Apple offered HD audio, then the music from the labels may or may not have to be converted. If it arrives as a WAV, it would need to be converted.

 

[Shirasaki]

Sure, the market for HD audio is small. But the software set up is essentially a one-time thing. Perhaps storing lossless is something Apple doesn't want to do. They feel it takes up too much storage on their servers and it wouldn't make them enough money. But if Apple prides themselves as a music aficionado company, then they need to offer HD music. It wouldn't be a huge profit center, but would Apple really lose money by offering HD audio? I'm guessing the music Apple gets from the labels has to be converted to AAC. If Apple offered HD audio, then the music from the labels may or may not have to be converted. If it arrives as a WAV, it would need to be converted.

Audio quality lack is another reason for me not to purchase all songs through iTunes store.

 

[z31fanatic]

Apple or anyone else not offering 16/44.1 downloads is the reason I never buy music from any of them. I still buy CDs and rip them to four different formats (WAV, ALAC, Flac, MP3).
I am not one of those self proclaimed golden eared audiophiles and don't believe in the 24/96 or higher but I refuse to pay $10 for a 256kbps MP3 or AAC album. It's unacceptable.

 

[Shirasaki]

Apple or anyone else not offering 16/44.1 downloads is the reason I never buy music from any of them. I still buy CDs and rip them to four different formats (WAV, ALAC, Flac, MP3).
I am not one of those self proclaimed golden eared audiophiles and don't believe in the 24/96 or higher but I refuse to pay $10 for a 256kbps MP3 or AAC album. It's unacceptable.

Add me.