24/96 coming to iTunes? The end of darkness?
Nov 1, 2012 at 10:13 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 13

attilahun

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Posts
294
Likes
29
Location
San Francisco
Encouraging news leaking out that apple is soliciting higher res audio from labels and engineers:

http://www.cultofmac.com/198964/apple-accepting-high-resolution-music-for-itunes-says-sound-engineer-report/
 
Nov 1, 2012 at 6:25 PM Post #4 of 13
If they started offering lossless music, even at redbook standard, I'd start buying music from them... but I absolutely refuse to pay for lossy music.  I don't see any value in it.
 
Hi-res is, at this point, not even worth discussing.  Let them get cd-quality right first.
 
Nov 1, 2012 at 7:42 PM Post #5 of 13
Quote:
If they started offering lossless music, even at redbook standard, I'd start buying music from them... but I absolutely refuse to pay for lossy music.  I don't see any value in it.
 
Hi-res is, at this point, not even worth discussing.  Let them get cd-quality right first.

Agree, and let's not forget that slapping a 24/96 label on doesn't make it so. If the source is 16/44.1 you gain nothing (only loose if you pay more).
 
Nov 1, 2012 at 8:15 PM Post #6 of 13
All good points on red book quality.
It does seem odd that apple wouldn't go there first.
The article link suggests that apple is sourcing true 24/96 content, but that does seem like a leapfrog over a more practical red book step first.
 
Nov 2, 2012 at 12:28 AM Post #7 of 13
Quote:
If they started offering lossless music, even at redbook standard, I'd start buying music from them... but I absolutely refuse to pay for lossy music.  I don't see any value in it.
 
Hi-res is, at this point, not even worth discussing.  Let them get cd-quality right first.

I nearly always buy CDs but I've bought some music from both Amazon and iTunes.  Even on a revealing system, I think the music sounds pretty darn good.  
 
Nov 2, 2012 at 7:10 AM Post #8 of 13
Like you, I think iTunes sounds pretty good, in fact  indistinguishable from from 24/96 when comparison has been possible with legitimate 24/96 material from HDtracks. Nevertheless, I still download 24/96, perhaps, being a sucker for HDtracks marketing. At any rate, what I can distinguish are CD's played from my CD player to  loss-less files of the same material played from my iTunes library. I have no doubt the CD's sound better; yet, I have no idea why.
 
Nov 2, 2012 at 7:53 AM Post #9 of 13
Quote:
If they started offering lossless music, even at redbook standard, I'd start buying music from them... but I absolutely refuse to pay for lossy music.  I don't see any value in it.
 
Hi-res is, at this point, not even worth discussing.  Let them get cd-quality right first.

Except that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway. Do this: use foobar200 and download the ABX component and then prove to yourself that your hearing ain't as golden as you think.
 
Nov 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM Post #10 of 13
Quote:
All good points on red book quality.
It does seem odd that apple wouldn't go there first.
The article link suggests that apple is sourcing true 24/96 content, but that does seem like a leapfrog over a more practical red book step first.

 
 
My guess is that Apple figures the average consumer is happy enough with their lossy purchases, but that offering the "magical" 24/96 files will draw in the "audiophiles" who normally would shun iTunes.
 
Nov 2, 2012 at 9:51 AM Post #11 of 13
Quote:
Except that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway. Do this: use foobar200 and download the ABX component and then prove to yourself that your hearing ain't as golden as you think.

Some people can, but it's certainly not easy. It requires really really close inspection.
 
People just think that a compressed file has a less full sound, but really at that level of compression the only difference is going to be some extremely minimal artifacting and distortion.
 
I'd like to do some ABX testing between 24/96 and MP3/AAC(I'm pretty damn sure I wouldn't be able to tell between 24/96 and 16/44 lossless) but I don't have any 24/96 files. I'll try and see if any albums I like are on HDtracks later...
 
Nov 2, 2012 at 4:32 PM Post #12 of 13
Some people can, but it's certainly not easy. It requires really really close inspection.

People just think that a compressed file has a less full sound, but really at that level of compression the only difference is going to be some extremely minimal artifacting and distortion.

I'd like to do some ABX testing between 24/96 and MP3/AAC(I'm pretty damn sure I wouldn't be able to tell between 24/96 and 16/44 lossless) but I don't have any 24/96 files. I'll try and see if any albums I like are on HDtracks later...


That would be a great feature at head-fi meets: we could have headphone tests of hi and low res music and share the results at the end.
 
Nov 2, 2012 at 8:38 PM Post #13 of 13
Quote:
Except that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway. Do this: use foobar200 and download the ABX component and then prove to yourself that your hearing ain't as golden as you think.

Oh, I totally can't... but that's irrelevant.  I'm willing to pay for the sense of superiority and not willing to pay if there's even a doubt that what I'm getting is inferior.  I suspect a lot of people act that way, whether they realize it or admit it.

It's also the principle.  I refuse to see equal value in a CD track and a compressed track, no matter whether or not I can hear a difference.  I'm content to know that there IS one, and I'm not going to let them win.
 
:)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top