[wingman1659]

This is exactly why I don't understand why apple wants 24bit downloads in their store. I would undoubtedly prefer a 48kHz download option. Heck I'd even take 44.1kHz loss-less. Pushing 24bit downloads really doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Permagrin]

This is exactly why I don't understand why apple wants 24bit downloads in their store. I would undoubtedly prefer a 48kHz download option. Heck I'd even take 44.1kHz loss-less. Pushing 24bit downloads really doesn't make sense to me.

I know the iPod supports 24 bit depth but do most soundcards? If it gets truncated down the line it's going to sound worse than 16 bit. Isn't that right?

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

I know the iPod supports 24 bit depth but do most soundcards? If it gets truncated down the line it's going to sound worse than 16 bit. Isn't that right?

I've got a nearly decade old soundcard in my PC that I only use for my so-so speakers and it does 24bit/48khz.  Even the onboard soundcard on my netbook does 24/48.

 

[Griffinhart]

If it gets truncated from 24 to 16-bit, then yeah, I'd imagine it'd sound like crap. If it gets downsampled though, then there won't be as huge a (noticeable) quality loss.

-- Griffinhart

 

[Sylverant]

Quote:

This is exactly why I don't understand why apple wants 24bit downloads in their store. I would undoubtedly prefer a 48kHz download option. Heck I'd even take 44.1kHz loss-less. Pushing 24bit downloads really doesn't make sense to me.

Its either all or nothing with apple huh? They can't just convert the entire store to CD quality ALAC; they have to offer the premium experience at high cost alongside a small catalogue? Really now. They shouldn't take advantage of people like that.
 
I checked some of the info in Gregorio's post and checked it on google and most music really is recorded/mixed at 48 bits, then downsampled to 24 bit for proccessing and then 16 for the CD release. If the dithering process doesn't get messed up and is from the same mix there shouldn't be an audible difference. Just give us 16bit ALAC apple. Have they even seen how hard we try to love them despite our fangs? They don't even know how many people's day they'd make if ALAC became the iTunes standard.
 
Edit: assuming the RIAA wouldn't make them drm lossless, anyway. Get the feeling that might happen.

 

[Griffinhart]

>ALAC
>standard
 
/facepalm

FLAC. I honestly don't understand why most big-name DAPs (e.g., Apple iDevices, MS Zunes) don't have native support for FLAC. I mean, that "F" in the name? It stands for "Free".
 
(I mean, it'd make sense if, say, ALAC supported DRM, and Apple used ALAC for that... but it currently doesn't, and they don't.)
 
-- Griffinhart

 

[nanaholic]

 
Quote:

I honestly don't understand why most big-name DAPs (e.g., Apple iDevices, MS Zunes) don't have native support for FLAC. I mean, that "F" in the name? It stands for "Free".
 

 
You just answered your own question by raising what the F stands for.
"Free" means no lock-in, which means consumers are also "free" to move between software/hardware, and that is NOT good business for the individual mega corps as their aim is to set up little barriers that makes it inconvenient to switch to other platforms so the consumers would just "stick to what they know" for "the seamless experience".  Sony used to be really good at this game but now Apple is undoubtedly king in this area. 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

You just answered your own question by raising what the F stands for.
"Free" means no lock-in, which means consumers are also "free" to move between software/hardware, and that is NOT good business for the individual mega corps as their aim is to set up little barriers that makes it inconvenient to switch to other platforms so the consumers would just "stick to what they know" for "the seamless experience".  Sony used to be really good at this game but now Apple is undoubtedly king in this area. 

Except that they all already support mp3 which doesn't have any of that either...

 

[Griffinhart]

Incidentally, using MP3 would also mean having to pay licensing/patent fees because MP3 isn't a free codec standard. And yet, people still use that, and can use it to move between software/hardware.
 
Also, your (nanaholic) argument is predicated on the idea that if you have something in a non-free format (e.g., ALAC), you are locked into that format - which is obviously untrue, as it's entirely possible to move between formats (as I would know from first-hand experience, having gone from CD -> .m4a when I used an iPod -> .flac once I stopped using an iPod and started using a J3), and with relative ease.
 
-- Griffinhart

 

[nanaholic]

Quote:

Except that they all already support mp3 which doesn't have any of that either...

 
I thought we were talking about FLACs?
Also talking about mp3 is revisionist history.  The popularity of mp3 preceded the portable mp3 player - the mp3 (and mp2) format enabled the making of mp3 players so it had to be accepted for the new portable devices to be born, or the company would have to put in the R&D to develop another format, which some companies *did* try to make their own lock in formats eg wmv atrac+ and failed.  By the time Apple made iPods all the geeks and teenagers had chosen mp3 as the de facto format of sharing over the internet, mp3 had already gain too much traction for people to change, so the makers had to cave to what consumers wanted to sell their products.  FLAC is not nearly in the same situation..  
 
Quote:

Incidentally, using MP3 would also mean having to pay licensing/patent fees because MP3 isn't a free codec standard. And yet, people still use that, and can use it to move between software/hardware.
 
Also, your (nanaholic) argument is predicated on the idea that if you have something in a non-free format (e.g., ALAC), you are locked into that format - which is obviously untrue, as it's entirely possible to move between formats (as I would know from first-hand experience, having gone from CD -> .m4a when I used an iPod -> .flac once I stopped using an iPod and started using a J3), and with relative ease.
 
-- Griffinhart

I'm not talking about "hard" lock-ins where it is nearly impossible to change such as say, Sony's Memory Stick format which dictates you must get Sony made products, but "soft" lock-ins where the company intentionally makes it difficult for the average person to change (such as transcoding) - which are just as effective of a method to prevent customers from moving between different products.  Audiophiles are different because being a type of geek it is in our nature to want to tweak things to get better results, so the task of changing is not daunting thus this type of "soft" locks don't work on us.  Also if you have the CD of course moving to flac isn't a difficult task - but try telling someone with little interests in learning how to transcode apple lossless or get their DRMed iTunes songs on another brand of mp3 player they wouldn't bother.  This is the type of lock-ins I'm talking about.  
 

 

[Sylverant]

Quote:

Incidentally, using MP3 would also mean having to pay licensing/patent fees because MP3 isn't a free codec standard. And yet, people still use that, and can use it to move between software/hardware.
 
Also, your (nanaholic) argument is predicated on the idea that if you have something in a non-free format (e.g., ALAC), you are locked into that format - which is obviously untrue, as it's entirely possible to move between formats (as I would know from first-hand experience, having gone from CD -> .m4a when I used an iPod -> .flac once I stopped using an iPod and started using a J3), and with relative ease.
 
-- Griffinhart

I was only speaking about what I'd hope from apple at the most. I've been through nearly every format now as have all of us. Higher Ape levels are generally too much for good comps. I now put everything on my 2 terabyte drive in WAV+CUE from EAC while FLAC goes on my winmobile phone that I'm using portably. But FLAC is fine by itself. Its great. So I agree with you and am not that hopeful that they would give us any better than ALAC at their store. But if ALAC isn't capable of drm then I'm not even going to bother hoping that will happen now.
 
Also, I don't understand why big name DAP's don't have native folder support. I can't tell you how much music of mine comes from Archive.org in the archaic shorten format. I couldn't imagine tagging it all to fit in a library, converting all my live Greatful Dead and estradasphere stuff to FLAC was as much as I'm willing to do. The big companies really shouldn't expect all our music to legally come from just CD's.

 

[Griffinhart]

Well, ALAC currently doesn't implement DRM, but since it uses an MP4 container, it's very likely that, if Apple wanted to, they could apply DRM to ALAC.
 
(Not that they should, because most DRM schemata are terrible.)
 
-- Griffinhart

 

[grawk]

When apple went with ALAC, FLAC was just one of many lossless choices.  ALAC uses the same wrapper as AAC, works everywhere FLAC does, and doesn't have the poison that is the GPL.   I've not seen a good argument for FLAC over ALAC other than people preferring GPL.

 

[emmodad]

 
Quote:

This is exactly why I don't understand why apple wants 24bit downloads in their store. [ snip ]

sigh, internet memes...... as much as i would be pleased by hi-res downloads within the apple ecosystem...... can anyone point to an actual verifiable source confirming that *apple* itself has presented info regarding intention to do 24-bit downloads?
 
so far, all of the wild internet bloviating on this claim seems to trace back to one common source:  a CNN article which was speculation - not presentation of verified fact - based on a PR statement by record label exec Jimmy Iovine (very clearly a positioning statement for his own biz).  google on iovine apple 24 bit pipes and you will find it, relevant excerpt:  "We've gone back now at Universal, and we're changing our pipes to 24 bit. And Apple has been great," Iovine said. "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."
 
 
Quote:

Its either all or nothing with apple huh? They can't just convert the entire store to CD quality ALAC; they have to offer the premium experience at high cost alongside a small catalogue?  [ snip ]

 
Quote:

>ALAC
>standard
 
/facepalm

FLAC. I honestly don't understand why most big-name DAPs (e.g., Apple iDevices, MS Zunes) don't have native support for FLAC. I mean, that "F" in the name? It stands for "Free".
 
(I mean, it'd make sense if, say, ALAC supported DRM, and Apple used ALAC for that... but it currently doesn't, and they don't.)
 
-- Griffinhart

you might find this (re Apple, ALAC, FLAC, open source, licensing...) interesting in understanding why Apple provide no native FLAC support
 
 
chuck
 

 

[grawk]

FLAC is free as in communism.  ALAC is free as in beer.