itunes to offer 24bit lossless downloads - Page 2

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

please discuss ;-)

well the dacs in idevices already support 24 bit and higher bitrate, so it really would only require a change of firmware. its actually less work for them when you think of the content that will start to be going direct from the studio master to itunes; all of it is already recorded and stored in 24 bit. i do hope they dont charge any more than itunes plus recordings. then people will only whine about it supposedly not being bitperfect

Quote:

Originally Posted by Br777 

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

 

please discuss ;-)

"CD is an accepted definition of consumer-worthy HD quality"

that's about all I need to quote with that article.

But seriously, I was just wondering the other day why on earth - with computer companies desperate to get us to buy new things we can't possibly need, that they haven't pushed more towards higher QUALITY recordings.  

Apple's latest laptops are already uselessly fast for anything put playing 3d video games and editing HD video.  Leaving most adults out of the loop, unless you really think your lame home movies are going to look better in HD (hint - they're not.)

But years ago we had already gotten to the point where you could put 10 MILLION SONGS or 100 CONTINUOUS YEARS OF MUSIC ON THIS THUMBSIZED DEVICE!  Whoo whoo.  I know this is going to blow some minds, but there are many people who like to listen to a SINGLE ALBUM, over and over again, over the course of days.  Like, a single symphony, or rock album.  We need like 8 songs.  Maybe 3 albums would be 24 songs.  That's plenty.  Now make them SOUND BETTER.  Why on earth is the CD - something invented ages ago now - still considered the benchmark for audio quality? 

There's no downside to this: and, the market will determine its success.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bixby 

Don't get your  hopes up.  My money is on a very small offering perhaps starting with the 44khz 24bit Beatles catalog and not much else.  I would be shocked to see anything above 48k right now.

 

EDIT:

 

No, current ipods do not support 24 bit files

"iTunes Plus tracks encoded at 256 kbps and lacking any DRM restrictions, eventually shifting the store's entire catalog over to iTunes Plus tracks."

I may be too cynical, but ALL they are talking about is offering 24bit/256 kbps instead of 16bit/256 kbps.  If by some remote chance and divine intervention Apple sells DRM-less 24bit lossless files, I will kiss Steve Jobs' feet and immediately buy every Apple product to show my gratitude.  Heck, I'll do it for 16bit lossless files. 
 

thanks for pulling us down to earth 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon L 

 

I may be too cynical, but ALL they are talking about is offering 24bit/256 kbps instead of 16bit/256 kbps.  If by some remote chance and divine intervention Apple sells DRM-less 24bit lossless files, I will kiss Steve Jobs' feet and immediately buy every Apple product to show my gratitude.  Heck, I'll do it for 16bit lossless files. 
 

Are you sure of this?  I posted elsewhere I was worried this would be the case, which would be stupid beyond belief...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon L 

"iTunes Plus tracks encoded at 256 kbps and lacking any DRM restrictions, eventually shifting the store's entire catalog over to iTunes Plus tracks."

 

I may be too cynical, but ALL they are talking about is offering 24bit/256 kbps instead of 16bit/256 kbps.  If by some remote chance and divine intervention Apple sells DRM-less 24bit lossless files, I will kiss Steve Jobs' feet and immediately buy every Apple product to show my gratitude.  Heck, I'll do it for 16bit lossless files. 
 

Do you have a source?  This is the same rumor I am hearing all over, that they will be 24/256 but I can't find anything from the horses mouth.

FWIW, I think that the rumor is true, and the most likely scenario.

The cynic in me says this is all much ado about nothing, and simply a way to get people to pay an extra dollar or 50 cents per track.  I actually think this is (yet another) step in the completely wrong direction and will simply lead to even more misinformation and poorly educated people than already exist (surprising that is even possible given the state of the world)  But I suppose that is another story altogether and part of my still unfinished "Digital Audio Manifesto."   So I'll stop before I drag this thread completely off topic

Also considering 24/96 songs are like 100mb per track, I don't see this going mainstream anytime in the immediate future due to current bandwidth and hdd constraints.