Apple in talks to improve sound quality of music downloads

[Grahame]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/22/24.bit.music/

Apple is among a group of digital music retailers in discussions with record labels to improve the sound quality of their digital offerings, according to a new report. Citing executives involved in the talks, CNN reports that the change would involve the labels supplying retailers with 24-bit audio files, as opposed to the 16-bit files that are currently distributed. “We’ve gone back now at Universal, and we’re changing our pipes to 24 bit. And Apple has been great,” said Interscope co-founder and chairman Jimmy Iovine. “We’re working with them and other digital services—download services—to change to 24 bit. And some of their electronic devices are going to be changed as well. So we have a long road ahead of us.” According to the report, the higher-quality files might be sold at a premium price, and could require upgrades to future iPods and iPhones to ensure compatibility. “Paul McCartney can master The Beatles albums all he wants,” said Iovine, who also works with Dr. Dre on Beats Audio “(but) when you play them through a Dell computer, it sounds like you’re playing them through a portable television.”

24 Bit Brickwalled Bieber Fever, anyone?

Improve Quality, or just increase price? or force you to buy both, to compare the mastering?

[blessingx]

Damn it, my employer supplied me with a Dell.

[Voltron]

[aardvark baguette]

And some of their electronic devices are going to be changed as well

/raises eyebrow slightly

[Pars]

Doesn't take much translation: buy more (new) downloads, and oh yeah, you'll need some new hardware too

As far as they're concerned... win-win

Edited February 23, 2011 by Pars

[CarlSeibert]

All over town we're seeing concern about quality. Artists offering high res or lossless on their sites. Now this.

Everybody talks about how horrible young people are because they listen to MP3s. But I don't remember much outcry when we (well, some of us) were young and most people listened to cassettes, duped on those dreadful high-speed machines. Maybe today's young people are less deaf. I'm choosing to be optimistic about this.

Hell, in the last year or so, I've even heard - or thought I have anyway - some backing away from the loudness nonsense. Maybe.

[Yikes]

In the few tests that I've done the Sampling Rate makes a much bigger difference than the Bit Depth, so upping the Bit Depth without also using a higher Sampling Rate is of questionable value. Primarily marketing BS.

[Torpedo]

Why the fuck would I want 24 bit lossy files if they can't even supply me Redbook lossless ones?

[Tyll Hertsens]

the higher-quality files might be sold at a premium price, ....

Might be? I thought Apple was already selling their lossy files at a premium.

Fuckers.

[postjack]

Why the fuck would I want 24 bit lossy files if they can't even supply me Redbook lossless ones?

I don't think it's possible to have 24 bit mp3 files? wouldn't it have to be ALAC?

[Torpedo]

I made some transcoding experiments with dBPoweramp some time ago. If my memory isn't failing on me (which is quite likely lately) somehow the thing manages to fit 24bits from a lossless file into mp3. Don't ask me how, nor if the result had indeed any extra info resulting from the 24 bits source. The file was bigger than the one made previously processing to down into 16 bits. I can't recall if I tried making V0 and 320 or only 320 files.

In any case I see no point at all in using a "higher information" source for the 24 bits, if you're fitting them into a lossy format which is discarding information to begin with.

I could consider purchasing Hi-res lossless files from Apple if price is more or less sensible in the HDTracks range, but not at a silly high price. Not that I see much benefit to those 24 bits if they don't come with some extra sampling rate. Sound-wise 24/48 doesn't make much of a difference (and depending on the systems for worse) compared to 16/44.

[grawk]

Given that there won't be any real difference between a 16 bit recording and a 24 bit recording by the mastering has been done on it, there's no reason why you couldn't use mp3 or aac to compress the files. The same old mp3/aac artifacts will be there, but starting from 16 or 24 bit shouldn't matter.

[Dusty Chalk]

24 Bit Brickwalled Bieber Fever, anyone?

Improve Quality, or just increase price? or force you to buy both, to compare the mastering?

Nailed it in one.

I think that if anyone can pave the way for higher resolution format, it'll be Apple. So I can't personally wait. But I agree that many (especially the top sellers) won't know what to do with it, and it won't be worth the increased resolution. But I bet the Porcupine Tree, Opeth, and King Crimson downloads will sound awesome.

[Grahame]

Gizmodo chime in: http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+bit-audio-will-be-bad-for-users

[Driftwood]

Is it just me or does that gizmodo article not actually give any reasons why 24-bit is actually a bad thing? I mean, I understand the argument that it is not needed, but why is it actually a bad thing? Because portable players can't handle 24-bit at the moment, and because the file sizes are bigger? I'm pretty sure apple is going to make sure ipods support 24-bit recordings if they are going to offer them for sale...

[CarlSeibert]

Gizmodo chime in: http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+bit-audio-will-be-bad-for-users

> "Even CDs are 16-bit, and the sonic quality of a CD is an accepted definition of consumer-worthy HD quality."

Fucking geniuses.

Or maybe I shouldn't be making fun of the hearing impaired.

Or maybe it's just that they've appointed themselves rightful arbiters of what we're "worthy" of.

[Currawong]

We can trust Gizmodo. They don't hold a grudge or anything after Apple's reaction to that incident with the iPhone 4 prototype.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Currawong

[Pars]

If that is typical of the quality of the forum at gizmodo, it makes head-fi look inviting Bunch of whiny bitches...

[jvlgato]

Bunch a suckas, all of us!

'To the hi-fi industry, audiophile has always been another word for sucker'

[HeadphoneAddict]

I'd rather they sell things in 16/44.1 ALAC without compression than worry about 24 bit.

[postjack]

I'd rather they sell things in 16/44.1 ALAC without compression than worry about 24 bit.

seriously. simple redbook at a reasonable price ($9.99, though I don't think that would happen) would get a lot of my business. I'm starting to buy a lot of my tunes direct from artists websites that way.

[mypasswordis]

Actually using these files for portable use doesn't make sense from a memory storage point of view since portable devices are all flash-based now and 128GB (which is the smallest you'd want with hi-rez files) would still be quite cost prohibitive. It also doesn't make sense from a sound quality point of view, because even if you're playing the best mastered album at 24 bits you're still playing it through an ipod.

[bhjazz]

And those people with the white earbuds...they're going to hear the difference?

Ha! Marketing wins again. Chalk up another one for Apple's insanity.

[blessingx]

I haven't seen recent stats, but awhile ago the number of iTunes users (even when iTunes was strictly tunes) far exceeded iPod owners. Assuming all Airport Expresses aren't sold to "audiophiles" or portable router users, there's likely a lot of people, who buy music expecting to listen to the files in other situations than walking down the street with an iPod/iPhone.

Doesn't negate most of the 24 arguments (can't image the masses care for real CD quality anymore, let alone better), but perhaps even the AAC users are at least thinking of better listening environments.

And... I know this is going to make some cringe... Apple does have a history, in desktop publishing (fonts, graphic support, etc.), early music creation applications, some displays, that smartphone, the recent GarageBand demo, etc. of rising exceptions for the market as a whole. They could be looking at the numbers, say 'hey there's cash there', and dramatically increase the audiophile population... even why most have no use, or ears, for it. Who really needs a calibrated cinema display after all? 1%?

Loosely reminds me of the caption of this video I saw in the Twitterverse today: "They are coming–hordes of kids raised on a diet of Final Cut Pro and Canon 7Ds. Prepare to be eclipsed." http://ow.ly/1s85iU

Edited March 7, 2011 by blessingx

[CarlSeibert]

What I said before. It seems to me that more young people "get" quality today. It's a world that's deteriorating. In that light, concern for quality could be seen as youthful rebellion. So, you're right. Maybe a market. And we get the benefit.

Kind of off-topic, but that is a pretty cool video. Clever youthful ideas are a dime a dozen, but a clever youthful idea done with - dare I say it - concern for quality and craft can carry some water. I hope that kid grows to greatness.

The "prepare to be eclipsed" notion has been around the track a few times. Adam and Eve probably said that when some smart ass kid peeled an apple. Older folks today seem to be taking it awful seriously. Somehow when today's kids shoot a video with their telephone or wear their pants strangely, it's more profound or more evil than when kids in past generations noodled around learning about self-expression. Then again, maybe it's been like that a thousand times, too.