High Definition iTunes Music Downloads May Be on the Horizon

[Cory Cooper]

Could be interesting:

High Definition iTunes Music Downloads May Be on the Horizon

C

[hemster]

Thanks for sharing.

Will the 24-bit downloads be in yet a new format? I can't see the need as ALAC already handles 24-bit.

[novisnick]

What of previous purchases if any from ITunes?
New purchase, upgrade at a discount?

[Topend]

I'm keen. I will be selective on what I upgrade.

Dave.

[Cory Cooper]

Not sure about your questions fellas...it's just a rumor at this point. But...

hemster - Maybe they will finally add FLAC support? Or, maybe they will use ALAC as you stated.

novisnick - I would guess that there would be a discounted upgrade/conversion price, like they did when they switched from 128 kbps Protected AAC to 256 kbps DRM-free AAC. Maybe an enhancement to iTunes Plus as well?

Topend - Yeah, I would have to analyze my purchases to choose which to upgrade. But, I know I would eventually upgrade them all.

It does look interesting and promising, but we'll have to wait and see.

C

[phatfos1]

Wow I would be very intrigued by this. My iCloud library available in 24bit? I'd pay several hundred dollars a year for the right to stream those files.

[KeithL]

It would only seem fair if they were to offer current owners a huge discount to "upgrade" the stuff they already own. (What I would do, if I were them, would be to offer current owners a one-time "grandfather deal" - like "upgrade everything you own to good quality for fifty cents an album - this week only" or even "fifty bucks to upgrade everything you currently own".)

I do find it funny, though, how they spin it like "we've been working on this" - when the reality is that that there's nothing to "work on"... it was just a business decision, which they did a "180" on when they realized that they were losing business to folks who realized that their customers actually could hear the difference.

As far as I know the current iPods do not play FLAC files... so, on one hand, it would make sense to offer FLAC files since they are the de-facto world standard but, on the other hand, it's more in character for Apple to avoid being universally compatible and find some way to NOT to make it too easy for iTunes customers to use their music with other players. It would seem out of character for them to offer an iPod compatible format of 24/96 files, and then ALSO offer FLAC files for non-Apple customers (Apple is not known for expending effort to comply with "other people's" standards.)

It will also be interesting to see if they go with NON-DRM files for 24/96 or not. (The logic there is interesting. Even though they have especially annoying DRM for their lower tier of AAC files, the higher-bit-rate ones without DRM are still lossy - and so aren't totally subject to the "but then people will be able to make perfect copies" paranoia that fuels DRM. They may decide that it "isn't safe" to sell actual good quality 24/96 files without DRM. This is specifically relevant not only because DRM is a hassle, but because FLAC doesn't support DRM, and so would then be excluded as an option.)
 

Apr 11, 2014 9:41:22 GMT -5 Cory Cooper said:

Not sure about your questions fellas...it's just a rumor at this point. But...

hemster - Maybe they will finally add FLAC support? Or, maybe they will use ALAC as you stated.

novisnick - I would guess that there would be a discounted upgrade/conversion price, like they did when they switched from 128 kbps Protected AAC to 256 kbps DRM-free AAC. Maybe an enhancement to iTunes Plus as well?

Topend - Yeah, I would have to analyze my purchases to choose which to upgrade. But, I know I would eventually upgrade them all.

It does look interesting and promising, but we'll have to wait and see.

C

[Deleted]

I read an article that sales are down, and to try to address this Apple will be revamping the iTunes Store completely. Could be a good time to offer high quality music as you said, although they would most likely stick with their own lossless format vs. FLAC I'm afraid. 

On a similar note, for iTunes Match subscribers ($20 per year roughly), you can already upgrade existing lower quality mp3 files to 256 Kbps AAC files for no extra charge. To do this, first ensure the files to be upgraded have been matched to iTunes. (Now the scary part). Next, delete the file(s) from your physical library but do not remove from the cloud service. Finally, download the file from iTunes and the file will be replaced with the AAC version from the iTunes Store. Not sure if you were aware if this, and although not lossless, it can sure help to upgrade lower quality mp3's you may have in your library.

Hope his helps.

[TempTag]

I would be willing to pay more, a lot more, for a better quality iTunes Match service.. ..I suspect many others would as well. Plus, the service can be designed to auto switch to standard quality when on lower bandwidth connections. Anything Apple does in this space will drive others to follow - big win for consumers if they do ANYTHING.

[lsdeep]

Apr 10, 2014 23:22:14 GMT -5 novisnick said:

What of previous purchases if any from ITunes?
New purchase, upgrade at a discount?

dude, its apple! buy again (ok, that was harsh... just pay the 99c upgrade fee  )

[lsdeep]

Apr 11, 2014 9:41:22 GMT -5 Cory Cooper said:

Not sure about your questions fellas...it's just a rumor at this point. But...

hemster - Maybe they will finally add FLAC support? Or, maybe they will use ALAC as you stated.

novisnick - I would guess that there would be a discounted upgrade/conversion price, like they did when they switched from 128 kbps Protected AAC to 256 kbps DRM-free AAC. Maybe an enhancement to iTunes Plus as well?

Topend - Yeah, I would have to analyze my purchases to choose which to upgrade. But, I know I would eventually upgrade them all.

It does look interesting and promising, but we'll have to wait and see.

C

my guess would be the alac road. first open source it, than deliver the content  . that's how i would do it - apple can thank god (or the almighty cpu) that i am not in the IT marketing biz ROFLMAO.

cheers, L

[lsdeep]

Apr 12, 2014 19:21:04 GMT -5 TempTag said:

I would be willing to pay more, a lot more, for a better quality iTunes Match service.. ..I suspect many others would as well. Plus, the service can be designed to auto switch to standard quality when on lower bandwidth connections. Anything Apple does in this space will drive others to follow - big win for consumers if they do ANYTHING.

i would say everything apple does is follow others in that department, at that point of time 

[TempTag]

No doubt Apple has done plenty of following over the years in tech - but Apple have shown real innovation in packaging multiple ideas to deliver services that people find easy to use AND are willing to pay for - the proof is in their sales numbers.
See this: Mobile App Sales
Apple would not be the first high-res music service but they would be the first big high-res music service and other big companies/services will have to follow to stay competitive.  Overall a win for consumers.

[lsdeep]

Apr 12, 2014 20:38:07 GMT -5 TempTag said:

No doubt Apple has done plenty of following over the years in tech - but Apple have shown real innovation in packaging multiple ideas to deliver services that people find easy to use AND are willing to pay for - the proof is in their sales numbers.
See this: Mobile App Sales
Apple would not be the first high-res music service but they would be the first big high-res music service and other big companies/services will have to follow to stay competitive.  Overall a win for consumers.

i did not try to say apple is generally behind 
i see kind of a lack of innovation lately. one sits and enjoys days past, with little new 'amazing' stuff to show. the competition does not sleep, that's why apple is losing market shares.
from my point of view they spending to much attention on the lifestyle image this days, not enough on innovative new products. all that for an highly inflated price (as far as the desktop/ laptop/tablet market goes). . (don't get me wrong, i love my iphone!) maybe jobs is/was irreplaceable for apple?

as for the hd music content. i see that as a little proactive measure with pono creeping up on them, bandcamp offering lossless for a long time (so do others). i am sure amazon and google are on the verge to offer similar services.

cheers, L 

[Deleted]

This, from Dr Aix's newsletter.....


Apple and iTunes Moving to HiRes Audio?

Dr. AIX

According to Robert Hutton, an online blogger, Apple is planning a major upgrade to iTunes that will put all other high-resolution audio download sites out of business. Here's a quote from his blog (you can read the whole piece at Led Zeppelin and the Future of Hi-Res Audio Downloads):

"In two months or so - beginning of June - the first three Led Zeppelin remasters will be available. They are essentially available on iTunes in low-res form already.

For several years, Apple has been insisting that labels provide files for iTunes in 24-bit format - preferably 96k or 192k sampling rate. So they have undeniably the biggest catalog of hi-res audio in the world.

And the Led Zeppelin remasters in high resolution will be the kick off event - to coincide with Led Zep in hi-res, Apple will flip the switch and launch their hi-res store via iTunes - and apparently, it will be priced a buck above the typical current file prices.

That's right - Apple will launch hi-res iTunes in two months."

The rumors say that the cost of a "so-called" high-resolution audio download from iTunes will cost you around a dollar more than the current prices...somewhat near or just over $2.00 per track.

Robert's correct that Apple has been urging the record labels to deliver their masters as 96 kHz/24-bit uncompressed PCM files. 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". An 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?

It's possible that Apple will jump on the "high-resolution audio" bandwagon. The Pono initiative and other less visible efforts are slowly turning the tide...but it'll all be a myth. Apple's devices don't support high-resolution sample rate and longer words. So what's the point? They'll crank up their marketing machine and try to make everyone believe that the old standard definition stuff is now the new high-resolution stuff. When nobody can tell the difference...we'll all settle back into the sound quality of the 1960s and 1970s.

This is exactly the same strategy the UMG is using for the "High Fidelity Pure Audio" Blu-ray titles that they've been pushing. Same old standard definition in a new container. Boring.

Apple's iTunes thinks they're going High Res, but they can't without the producers, artists and labels giving them HD audio...and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

[Chuck Elliot]

If Pono grabs any reasonable amount of market share, I think you can be sure Apple will follow. They will probably introduce new players too!

My wish is that Apple would release an iTunes Pro product with things like database integrity checking, better WASPI support and other features.

[Cory Cooper]

Dr. AIX has a good point that "An old recording is still going to be an old recording and bound by the fidelity of the third generation EQ'd master."

So, would anyone be interested in 44.1 kHz/16-bit ALAC non-DRM files, since that's simply a straight, bit-perfect, lossless rip of a CD? Maybe they could bump the price say $0.25 a track for that? They could then offer 96 kHz/24-bit remasters for audiophiles as iTunes Pro as Chuck mentioned?

I have been reading your thoughts and thinking about this a lot since my original post. I would definitely upgrade my entire library to 44.1 kHz/16-bit ALAC non-DRM files without hesitation. Anything more than that (96/24 or so) would have to be specific new releases and/or older releases completely remastered from the original master tapes for me to purchase.

Lots to think about here I guess.

C

[ÈlTwo]

I read the AIX letter as saying the Apple songs are only being re-edited into 96/24, not produced for high res.


As Dr. Waldrep said:

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?

[dubs1]

I think Waldrep - and ElTwo and Cory Cooper's - points will be lost on the masses. I've been in the Mac cult for years. It's as much about marketing and hype as any Bose product is (their older full range speakers excluded).

Here's the gold mine as I see it. Apple will get to claim "hi-res" music, resell everyone an iPod (ALAC) and "special" ear buds (sic) with which to listen. The bastards at the record labels will also get to resell or, at least, upsell their product. No one will have full range speakers (in any configuration) with which to listen to this "remastered" stuff. But it will "sound" incrementally better to the average "listener".

I can see the Apple PR machine right now: "everyone an audiophile".

Sorry to be so pessimistic. I knew the Apple iPod/mp3 world was a joke when I read that Jobs had some serious audio gear in his home (McIntosh stuff, if memory serves). He had to have known he was selling a watered down product if he ever played an mp3 file through that system and dared to compare it to even his poorest vinyl.