Apple Reportedly Looking to Offer 24-Bit Music Files in iTunes Store
Posted by: totemphile on 22 February 2011
"CNN reports that Apple is in talks with record labels to increase the quality of music sold through the iTunes Store, boosting the music from a 16-bit format to a 24-bit format.
Professional music producers generally capture studio recordings in a 24-bit, high-fidelity audio format. Before the originals, or "masters" in industry parlance, are pressed onto CDs or distributed to digital sellers like Apple's iTunes, they're downgraded to 16-bit files.
From there, the audio can be compressed further in order to minimize the time the music will take to download or to allow it to be streamed on-the-fly over the internet.
The report suggests that the high-quality files could eventually appear as premium-priced options next to existing formats. Users may also have to invest in new hardware to support the 24-bit files.
Many models of Mac computers can play 24-bit sound, and the iTunes program is capable of handling such files. But most portable electronics, and many computers, don't support 24-bit audio.
To make the jump to higher-quality music attractive for Apple, the Cupertino, California, company would have to retool future versions of iPods and iPhones so they can play higher-quality files.
Apple's iTunes Store initially offered 16-bit tracks at 128 kbps with digital rights management (DRM) technology included. But over time, the company was able to introduce "iTunes Plus" tracks encoded at 256 kbps and lacking any DRM restrictions, eventually shifting the store's entire catalog over to iTunes Plus tracks. A further shift to offering true, uncompressed 24-bit tracks would have the potential to reinvigorate music sales by catering to audiophiles unhappy with the current quality of music downloads."
Source: macrumors.com
Posted on: 22 February 2011 by realhifi
YES!!!!!!!!!!!
This would be HUGE for the Audiophile community and music lovers in general. If this happens then Apple will have shown once again their capacity to listen to their customers and to actually respond in a meaningful way. If this is true then it is big BRAVO to Apple! Let's hope that they also increase the resolution of their "standard" downloads to AIFF, cd quality, at the same time they are working on the HD direction.
Man, Airplay and now this. Apple is ready to take a leap even further into the entertainment industry. What can't they do?
This would be HUGE for the Audiophile community and music lovers in general. If this happens then Apple will have shown once again their capacity to listen to their customers and to actually respond in a meaningful way. If this is true then it is big BRAVO to Apple! Let's hope that they also increase the resolution of their "standard" downloads to AIFF, cd quality, at the same time they are working on the HD direction.
Man, Airplay and now this. Apple is ready to take a leap even further into the entertainment industry. What can't they do?
Posted on: 22 February 2011 by okli
Originally Posted by realhifi:
What can't they do?
hold on open standards and avoid their proprietary messPosted on: 22 February 2011 by BigH47
Trouble is when they asked their customers if they wanted 24bit high quality D/Ls they got answers like EH? What ? ???? Do what! WTF is that?
Posted on: 22 February 2011 by RustyZip
This is bl##dy good news!!!
At last - computer audio / streaming may actually really catch on with the masses.
Can only mean good news for us folk.....
Posted on: 22 February 2011 by pcstockton
They are getting a little ahead of themselves.... How about full redbook first. What are they going to offer 24 bit MP3s?
Posted on: 22 February 2011 by realhifi
Originally Posted by pcstockton:
They are getting a little ahead of themselves.... How about full redbook first. What are they going to offer 24 bit MP3s?
Agreed. It could just be what get's it all started though. If enough people keep emaling them with a request for full redbook it could just happen. The point about their new cloud being finally ready does seem to make sense that they can now offer larger file sizes. Let's keep our fingers crossed not just for us audio heads but the music buying public in general to finally get this computer music thing off and running in a positive direction.Posted on: 22 February 2011 by realhifi
Originally Posted by okli:
Originally Posted by realhifi:
What can't they do?
hold on open standards and avoid their proprietary mess
Posted on: 22 February 2011 by DavidDever
Since there exists no formal licensing for the use of Apple Lossless-encoded files outside of the Apple ecosystem–I wonder what format they'll consider?
Posted on: 22 February 2011 by T38.45
this sounds really nice... - this runs on ipad/ipod gen 5 with 1tb flash :-)
Posted on: 22 February 2011 by King Size
Originally Posted by BigH47:
Trouble is when they asked their customers if they wanted 24bit high quality D/Ls they got answers like EH? What ? ???? Do what! WTF is that?
I think this sums things up nicely.Posted on: 22 February 2011 by realhifi
Originally Posted by DavidDever:
Since there exists no formal licensing for the use of Apple Lossless-encoded files outside of the Apple ecosystem–I wonder what format they'll consider?
Would this preclude AIFF? If it was AIFF I personally would have no problem listening to that. What with Pure Music able to play Flac and certainly AIFF in conjunction with iTunes I wouldn't care what format it was as long as it was cd quality or better. It seems odd that they don't have at least that option yet and off they'd go into high resolution but they have a fairly good track record lately and I'm assuming they have done the research to back them up. They would market it just like they market everything they do and it could also make their iPod, iTouch sales jump if they needed to make a "new" music player that would play this higher quality music format. If anybody can light a fire under people to want something it's Apple. It could be the next "must have" for the Apple lovers and could conceivably be the switch that turns people on to want better music playback. If anybody can show the way it's them. It would be ironic if they were the ones to finally bring the high end to the masses after all the grief they have taken over the years from the audiophile community and press about the dreaded iPod and how it has killed good quality music playback.
Posted on: 22 February 2011 by realhifi
Originally Posted by King Size:
Originally Posted by BigH47:
Trouble is when they asked their customers if they wanted 24bit high quality D/Ls they got answers like EH? What ? ???? Do what! WTF is that?
I think this sums things up nicely.If they want hi res then I believe they'll not only do it but they'll convince everyone else that they want it too.
Posted on: 22 February 2011 by likesmusic
But perhaps they are working on new compression algorithms.
Who knows how much you could compress a music file if you were prepared to spend hours of cpu time on a powerful machine .. not a problem if you have access to the computing power and access to the sales to justify using it .. as apple do.
Who knows how much you could compress a music file if you were prepared to spend hours of cpu time on a powerful machine .. not a problem if you have access to the computing power and access to the sales to justify using it .. as apple do.
Posted on: 22 February 2011 by King Size
I just don't think it is on their or the majority of consumers radar and that the next major step Apple takes is more likely to be a cloud or subscription based direction.
Posted on: 22 February 2011 by pcstockton
Originally Posted by DavidDever:
Since there exists no formal licensing for the use of Apple Lossless-encoded files outside of the Apple ecosystem–I wonder what format they'll consider?
Maybe we will FINALLY see FLAC support? Nah, no way.Posted on: 22 February 2011 by Occean
This would be awesome!
Posted on: 22 February 2011 by realhifi
Originally Posted by King Size:
I just don't think it is on their or the majority of consumers radar and that the next major step Apple takes is more likely to be a cloud or subscription based direction.
That seems to be too much "me too" for Apple. The branding that Apple is now in the midst of is not one of pay less for more but one of pay well for quality. I can see them offering the higher quality music for their new higher quality iWhatevers and notebooks with possibly a subscription format for lower quality streaming which may finally be seen for what it is...low quality. The cloud based server they have just set up could support both I'm betting. For them to simply be another subscription service ala Pandora doesn't sit with the whole Apple culture. I think they are looking hard at high quality and being THE place for artists to sell their music. I can't imagine they don't want to be the dominant force in music distribution for the computer age and in order to do that and be that they need to make a move. This just might be part of it.Posted on: 22 February 2011 by likesmusic
If they're setting up to stream HD (kinda) quality video, then maybe hi-res audio is no big deal in terms of capacity. It amuses me that according the article on cnn, one of the movers behind hi-res apple stuff is Dr Dre, who says:
"Most of you aren't hearing it the way it's supposed to sound," Dr. Dre said in a Beats Audio promotional video. "And you should -- hear it the way I do."
Yeah, like resampled vinyl! All those hi-res dogs in the wax!
"Most of you aren't hearing it the way it's supposed to sound," Dr. Dre said in a Beats Audio promotional video. "And you should -- hear it the way I do."
Yeah, like resampled vinyl! All those hi-res dogs in the wax!
Posted on: 22 February 2011 by Richard Lord
I am wondering just how it will pay Apple to do this. Remember the vast majority (meaning around 99%) of downloading is done to relatively humble MP3 standards. So two things immediately spring to mind, 1/ how much and 2/ how big?
There must be a large price hike - so how many will pay for it, apart from us audiophiles?
The files will have to be compressed, otherwise it would take ages to download with the typical British broadband connection. I suspect Apple will use their own proprietary compression encoder, which will only increase their arm lock on the music download industry.
There must be a large price hike - so how many will pay for it, apart from us audiophiles?
The files will have to be compressed, otherwise it would take ages to download with the typical British broadband connection. I suspect Apple will use their own proprietary compression encoder, which will only increase their arm lock on the music download industry.
Posted on: 22 February 2011 by realhifi
Originally Posted by Richard Lord:
I am wondering just how it will pay Apple to do this. Remember the vast majority (meaning around 99%) of downloading is done to relatively humble MP3 standards. So two things immediately spring to mind, 1/ how much and 2/ how big?
There must be a large price hike - so how many will pay for it, apart from us audiophiles?
The files will have to be compressed, otherwise it would take ages to download with the typical British broadband connection. I suspect Apple will use their own proprietary compression encoder, which will only increase their arm lock on the music download industry.
Vinyl is priced at around $25 per album at music stores right now. HDtracks on the web sells 24/96 for $17.95 or so. I'm betting that Apple can do a bit better than those prices and sell a bunch. If you have this huge conglomerate come out and start letting people actually hear what is on so many of their favorite recordings I think it just might work. This company is so untouchable right now and so influential that they me be the only voice in the industry that could have a chance at pulling this off and having it be a game changer. This is important in so many ways to all industries related to the music industry not to mentionThere must be a large price hike - so how many will pay for it, apart from us audiophiles?
The files will have to be compressed, otherwise it would take ages to download with the typical British broadband connection. I suspect Apple will use their own proprietary compression encoder, which will only increase their arm lock on the music download industry.
in a cultural sense. We need to stem the tide of music being offered at lesser and lesser quality and if it takes a mega company like Apple to do it then so be it. Maybe then all download sites will follow suit and we can finally buy great music at at least cd quality from any of the music vendors out there. Imagine if all the classical music companies started to offer 24/96 downloads of their vast catalogues.
Oops...sorry about that, got carried away daydreaming!
Posted on: 23 February 2011 by Rosewind
Great news that one of the major players may offer 24 bit downloads. I suppose that Apple's preferred file format may be converted to FLAC if one desires? If that is so, then even I may start buying 24 bit (and 16 bit downloads) from iTunes. Now I don't.
If they do it, it will force the rest of the music industry to do the same on a big scale. I can't understand why the industry haven't done so already. I wish I had the influence, money and skill to open a download site where you would have the option of (1) downloading the music (+ getting the cover + booklet sent to you) or (2) receiveing the music on a memory stick with booklets and cover + back.Job done.
Best wishes,
Peter
If they do it, it will force the rest of the music industry to do the same on a big scale. I can't understand why the industry haven't done so already. I wish I had the influence, money and skill to open a download site where you would have the option of (1) downloading the music (+ getting the cover + booklet sent to you) or (2) receiveing the music on a memory stick with booklets and cover + back.Job done.
Best wishes,
Peter
Posted on: 23 February 2011 by Tog
Calm down calm down ... This will all take time
Tog
Tog
Posted on: 23 February 2011 by Rosewind
Originally Posted by Tog:
Calm down calm down ... This will all take time
Tog
... where are my "Mother's Little Helper" yellow pills ... so I may return to the drab file-format reality of present-day iTunes ... . No offence intended.Tog
Best wishes,
Peter
Posted on: 23 February 2011 by King Size
Originally Posted by realhifi:
That seems to be too much "me too" for Apple.... The branding that Apple is now in the midst of is not one of pay less for more but one of pay well for quality. I can see them offering the higher quality music for their new higher quality iWhatevers and notebooks with possibly a subscription format for lower quality streaming which may finally be seen for what it is...low quality. The cloud based server they have just set up could support both I'm betting. For them to simply be another subscription service ala Pandora doesn't sit with the whole Apple culture. I think they are looking hard at high quality and being THE place for artists to sell their music. I can't imagine they don't want to be the dominant force in music distribution for the computer age and in order to do that and be that they need to make a move. This just might be part of it.
My take on things is that history has not been kind to new formats that offer superior sound quality. Convenience seems to be the primary consideration in terms of what format succeeds. I would suggest that to the majority of consumers out there a music file is a music file - i'm pretty sure i've even seen the question asked - "what is the difference between an iTunes download and a CD? - on his forum.
Either way Apple will only make a move if they believe they can make money from it. Their recent "mandatory in-app subscription" move with, a 30% share of the subscription going to Apple is indicative of that. But then maybe that is their attempt to hamper subscription-based services, as a number of players have already indicated that a subscription based model isn't viable under those terms.
Gut feel though is that there simply isn't enough consumer demand/critical mass to make hi-res downloads commercially viable at this stage.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Posted on: 23 February 2011 by King Size
As an addendum to the above, this was the first article I can across on our local newpaper site after leaving this forum
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/busi...mp;objectid=10706575
The above url may not stay around long so a quick google search for "Apple launches digital media subscription service" should work. The first two sentences set the scene:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/busi...mp;objectid=10706575
The above url may not stay around long so a quick google search for "Apple launches digital media subscription service" should work. The first two sentences set the scene:
"Apple, in a move long-awaited by publishers seeking new sources of revenue, unveiled a subscription service for digital newspapers and magazines purchased through its online App Store.
Music and video subscriptions will also be available through the App Store, Apple said, and will be subject to the same terms and conditions as newspaper and magazine subscriptions."
But as mentioned previously it is the 30% cut of revenue that is the kicker....
But as mentioned previously it is the 30% cut of revenue that is the kicker....