I saw this as well. I do hope that they will not limit the downloads to Apple specific formats. Somehow I suspect that they will not be using FLAC or WAV.

Surely as long as it's lossless such as ALAC or AIF then its simple to convert them to what ever formats you prefer for your local playback?

Simon

Hi Simon, I agree its a fairly simple thing to do, its just that if it was available from the source I would not have to do the conversion. I agree that this would mean that the provider would have to make various formats available and I am not saying that they should cover them all - just the more common. So I personally think that FLAC, WAV, AIFF and ALAC would suffice.  

Apple has its preferred formats . . . and I do not expect that to change.  I don't mind doing a little conversion on the computer, but I know some would prefer to avoid that entirely when it comes to audio playback stuffl.

Conversion is simple. I hope you can take them off the site without needing to pull them via an iDevice, but that wouldn't be the end of the world either. Providence notwithstanding, HiRes is good. More HiRes is better.

A high-res container doesn't make it high-res music.

.... And I've been in meetings with the folks from the labels where they explained that more and more of their new artists are getting on board with the new specs. They also tell me that the older transfers are being revisited and remastered at higher sampling rates and using longer words.

However, nothing in the 96 kHz/24-bit files actually adds anything to the over compressed and vintage tracks that are touted as "Mastered for iTunes". And old recording is still going to be an old recording and bound by the fidelity of the third generation EQ'd master.

I heard today that the project that was produced in the studio for one of the major labels and which was sent back to the mastering room twice is getting reworked by another mixer and will be remastered again. Why? Because the singer wants the project to be louder still. The final track will undoubtedly be output at 96 kHz/24-bits to match the new requirements of iTunes. It might even be available as a "high-resolution" download in ALAC format for those looking for better fidelity. Doesn't anyone at the major labels or Apple understand that the fidelity has already been engineered out of the files long before iTunes makes them available?

...

I've read a number of articles on other sites also pointing out the need for high quality original media to form the basis of any HD offerings. In simplistic terms if the "detail" (data) is not there at the beginning it will not magically appear just by upping the bit rate. I remember one of my lecturers saying, whilst talking about D to A and A to D conversion processes "in most situations rubbish in = rubbish out". Some of the authors of the articles were proposing that it should be normal to publish the bit-rate/format of the original master that the file being distributed is taken from. 

As stated in Aleg's post above , the work done by the artists themselves and the production staff in the recording studio is key. They are after all the people who determine the content of the master.   

This is a given. I hope Apple isn't pushing a higher res format on sound quality regardless. This would get them into even lower esteem.

will iTunes be updated to auto switch playback bit rate?

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But I don't know.

If they do not offer CD standard, but only higher resolution, then I'll stick with buying CDs!

The chief difference between recordings is in the quality of the original master, and even more importantly the quality of the original performance in that master.

ATB from George

George, I totally agree.

the other thing I notice is the cost of downloads. The majority of the time, though not always, the CD inc next day postage is cheaper than the download... Where lossy or lossless.

So my routine now is stream the CD from Qobuz. using lossless 44.1kHz 16 bit FLAC, then if I like the album I buy the CD for usually less and often a lot less than the download price.

The only lossless downloads I typically buy are certain EP/Singles which are only available as downloads, but this is not that often.

Simon

Yeah, but what would you do if you could get the recording in 24 bit 172khz lossless format, recorded from the original master?

Chance 9 out of 10 the so called 'original master' was a 4-th generation copy (which lost most of the original quality) that was EQ-ed for LP-production (therefore limited in high frequencies and folded into mono on the low frequencies) where the original recording was made with analog technology whose dynamic range and frequency range can be captured adequately using 44.1/16 and, if you've completely run out of luck, was remastered with increased loudness and brickwalling limiters to make it 'go well' with the modern listener.

in 999 out of 1000 you don't know what you are buying with downloads as no information on the provenance is given.

A sad situation

cheers

aleg