Apple to offer 24-bit audio files on iTunes?

[Ajani]

So it appears (based on the linked articles from CNN and What HiFi?) that Apple may be gearing up to launch high resolution downloads on iTunes...

I've always expected that eventually all downloads/streams will be high res, but this news is way ahead of schedule IMO... Hopefully it is accurate though:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/22/24.bit.music/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://whathifi.com/News/US-NEWS-Apple-in-talks-to-offer-24-bit-audio-files-on-iTunes/

[atomicAdam]

That is cool - I guess. I've never used iTunes. Never saw a reason to download less than CD quality audio.

[noddin0ff]

I've used iTunes to play back high-res files so I'm aware that there is support in place already. Still, I'm surprised that this might roll out. Perhaps its a move to provide something to get people to buy into DRM music? I mean, why pay for redbook or less resolution when so much can be pirated for free as soon as it is released? (rhetorical argument).

[Woochifer]

I've used iTunes to play back high-res files so I'm aware that there is support in place already. Still, I'm surprised that this might roll out. Perhaps its a move to provide something to get people to buy into DRM music? I mean, why pay for redbook or less resolution when so much can be pirated for free as soon as it is released? (rhetorical argument).

Doubt that DRM has anything to do with this, given that the music files sold thru the iTunes Music Store are already DRM-free. But, the downloaded files are watermarked with your iTunes info, so if these files get uploaded onto P2P sites, they'll get traced back to your account.

[bobsticks]

I've used iTunes to play back high-res files so I'm aware that there is support in place already. Still, I'm surprised that this might roll out...

Maybe this has something to do with it:

Support from musicians

Some notable music acts have broken from labels to handle their own distribution and have found a sound business in selling primo music files, usually to their most diehard fans.

Renowned rock band Radiohead began selling digital versions of its new album on its website Friday. For $9, fans can download MP3 files in a higher bit-rate than what iTunes would offer, and for $14, they can get the uncompressed audio. A Radiohead representative didn't respond to a question about preliminary sales.

Nine Inch Nails front man Trent Reznor released figures in 2008 for a record he produced by rapper Saul Williams. Back then, about 87% chose either the highest quality MP3 or the uncompressed format, the data shows. Reznor's bands now usually offer high-fidelity versions of their own songs.

For musicians who pore over every aural detail, the digital age can be frustrating.

"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."



That's some compelling information from some industry heavyweights.

[noddin0ff]

Both good points. Watermarking makes a lot of sense. Do you know if there are plans to make a pan-industry watermarking standard? If Apple can only track within the iTunes world and Apple accounts, that might not be very effective. But, if the distributers united to police it all, well then they could have some leverage.

I also like that they are listening to the (perhaps limited) demand to bump up the quality. I don't think I'll really notice going from 16 to 24 that much, but it's nice to know that there's some value added anyway.

I know there's often a lot of Apple bashing, and even a devote like myself doesn't like to enter their digital music sale world. However, I think Apple does come up with some fair models for sales and I'd strongly consider buying hi-res from them.

[atomicAdam]

I don't think I'll really notice going from 16 to 24 that much, but it's nice to know that there's some value added anyway.



Good point, 24bit compressed as **** music will sound just as bad, either format. Where I think 24bit stands out - at least from my experience, is mid range detail, high end resolution, , staging and environment, and over all more natural presentation of the music. Though, as some have pointed out, 24bit isn't the silver bullet. Good recording, mic placement, engineering, and production are.

[Feanor]

So it appears (based on the linked articles from CNN and What HiFi?) that Apple may be gearing up to launch high resolution downloads on iTunes...

I've always expected that eventually all downloads/streams will be high res, but this news is way ahead of schedule IMO... Hopefully it is accurate though:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/22/24.bit.music/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://whathifi.com/News/US-NEWS-Apple-in-talks-to-offer-24-bit-audio-files-on-iTunes/
The sampling rate isn't mentioned in these articles. Bit count mainly affects dynamic range; sampling frequency is important for everything else, viz. resolution, transparency, air. Given the compression used with many popular records, one would wonder whether higher bit rate isn't, in effect, useless.

Also, the articles don't discuss compression format. Presumably these aren't WAV files, are they Apple Lossless, (ALAC), or what? If they are actually "lossy" files, then the 24 bit thing is merely a marketing scam.

[pixelthis]

Good news is good news, no matter the reason.
Might finally give "tunes" a try.:1:

[Woochifer]

Both good points. Watermarking makes a lot of sense. Do you know if there are plans to make a pan-industry watermarking standard? If Apple can only track within the iTunes world and Apple accounts, that might not be very effective. But, if the distributers united to police it all, well then they could have some leverage.

I don't know what standard, if any, that Apple is using. All I know is that the files are marked and traceable. And Apple makes provisions for five authorized devices to share and/or redownload all of your iTunes media.

I haven't heard of anybody policing the P2P sites looking for iTunes files. Supposedly, you can strip out the account data anyway by simply converting the files. But, I suspect that a lot of people just upload it as is, and that's where they can get caught.


I also like that they are listening to the (perhaps limited) demand to bump up the quality. I don't think I'll really notice going from 16 to 24 that much, but it's nice to know that there's some value added anyway.

I know there's often a lot of Apple bashing, and even a devote like myself doesn't like to enter their digital music sale world. However, I think Apple does come up with some fair models for sales and I'd strongly consider buying hi-res from them.

I think this might be tied to their North Carolina server farm that goes online in the spring. The server farm boosts Apple's bandwidth and capacity, and has also been linked to a rumored new iTunes cloud music service. (hint hint, Apple has a major product announcement event next Wednesday March 2 -- the iPad 2 will take center stage, but the new cloud services would fit right in)

For those who want to access their files locally, Apple would offer up larger, higher res files. For those who prefer to access their music collection remotely, stream from the iTunes server. This would be a boon to someone using a lower capacity iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad. For those devices, the storage is shared with apps, which leaves less space for music files.

For computers, storage is cheap, so it makes sense to go higher res for any locally accessed music files. Apple already did this two years ago when they removed the DRM from iTunes music files. At the same time, they bumped up the resolution to 256k AAC (which is already close to transparent to a CD source). This file conversion was done in the background, so Apple does have a history with raising the resolution with their iTunes files.

With this kind of two-pronged local/remote approach, now you can load up a selection of favorites in high res, but still access everything else remotely. That's where I see the pieces possibly fitting together.

[Ajani]

I don't know what standard, if any, that Apple is using. All I know is that the files are marked and traceable. And Apple makes provisions for five authorized devices to share and/or redownload all of your iTunes media.

I haven't heard of anybody policing the P2P sites looking for iTunes files. Supposedly, you can strip out the account data anyway by simply converting the files. But, I suspect that a lot of people just upload it as is, and that's where they can get caught.



I think this might be tied to their North Carolina server farm that goes online in the spring. The server farm boosts Apple's bandwidth and capacity, and has also been linked to a rumored new iTunes cloud music service. (hint hint, Apple has a major product announcement event next Wednesday March 2 -- the iPad 2 will take center stage, but the new cloud services would fit right in)

For those who want to access their files locally, Apple would offer up larger, higher res files. For those who prefer to access their music collection remotely, stream from the iTunes server. This would be a boon to someone using a lower capacity iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad. For those devices, the storage is shared with apps, which leaves less space for music files.

For computers, storage is cheap, so it makes sense to go higher res for any locally accessed music files. Apple already did this two years ago when they removed the DRM from iTunes music files. At the same time, they bumped up the resolution to 256k AAC (which is already close to transparent to a CD source). This file conversion was done in the background, so Apple does have a history with raising the resolution with their iTunes files.

With this kind of two-pronged local/remote approach, now you can load up a selection of favorites in high res, but still access everything else remotely. That's where I see the pieces possibly fitting together.

That's exactly what I'm hoping for as well... a 2 tiered system from Apple... Others might even go for a 3 tiered system - so for a minimal monthly fee like $4 - you get personalized radio and for $10 a month you get full unlimited streaming (I believe that is what Sony is offering now with Qriocity) + High Resolution purchases available for audiophiles/collectors...

This would really mean that consumers have just about all the choice they could want for how to consume music...