Hi-Res iTunes about to launch?

[twelvebears]

Firstly, hello again one and all. I've been away far too long. :o I hope everyone is healthy, wealthy and happy. Or at least happy!

Secondly, is anyone else really quite interested at the prospect of iTunes going hi-res?

http://www.macrumors.com/2014/04/10/high-definition-itunes-music-downloads/

For once, it really looks like far more that just hot-air as Apple attempt to regain some kind of USP over Spotify etc.

I rather pride myself on NEVER having given the iTunes Store a brass-farthing over the years. I just refuse to pay as much money for less music when I can by any CD, have full quality AND have a hard back-up.

Anyway, I do however LOVE high-res and would be happy to pay for something that CD cannot give. HD Tracks is OK but the choice (for me) is rather limited, so the thought of Apple opening their high-res vaults is actually quite exciting.

What are your collective thoughts?

[MikeMusic]

Makes commercial if cynical sense.

Get as much MP3 product out there as you can then upgrade for a premium price

Might need a campaign quoting such places as here

[twelvebears]

Or an attempt to pry open the wallets of folks like me who are just not interested in lossy MP3.

Whatever the reason, if the prices are sensible and the selection impressive, I will be interested.

Just depends if it actually happens now.

[r100]

i hope they would also remove the limitations on their transports like the Airport Express... far overdue IMHO... i would maybe start using itunes again if they went HR and had a better subscription plan than Spotify

[twelvebears]

i hope they would also remove the limitations on their transports like the Airport Express... far overdue IMHO... i would maybe start using itunes again if they went HR and had a better subscription plan than Spotify

Absolutely. Though it appears that is exactly what may be about to happen. With Sony and Samsung having mobile devices which do play 24 bit content, it's hard to imagine Apple not wanting to bite back, especially given their recent spat with Samsung.

As you say, if the Airport Express went hi-res, it would open up some interesting possibilities given that Squeezebox has been demised.

[zygote23]

I'll never have itunes near me nor an apple product. I've been happy for years with what I have and can't see me desperately needing to have new HI REZ (sic) versions.

[r100]

??

[dionisio]

For several years, Apple have 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.

Really not sure about that...

[SteveTheShadow]

I have over 6000 iTunes songs in 256K AAC format.
There is no difference whatsoever between the sound of the downloads and the stuff I have on CD.
None.

[f1eng]

Whether I buy a recording depends on whether I like the music rather than whether it is MP3, AAC, CD, LP or "hi-rez" (my mate tells me CD is already higher res than the stereo people play it on...)
If I like the music the recording really has to have problems for me to be really put off, I have a Nina Simone recording with loads of tape overload which is very audible but I still listen to it because I love the songs.
If I find the music uninteresting there is no quality level good enough to make me keep listening to it.

I am pretty sure I won't buy a 24/96 version of something I already own in 16/44.

[WAD62]

I have over 6000 iTunes songs in 256K AAC format.


No...you're 'renting' over 6000 iTunes songs, you don't own them...small point but a point none the less ;)

[Markiii]

I have over 6000 iTunes songs in 256K AAC format.
There is no difference whatsoever between the sound of the downloads and the stuff I have on CD.
None.

frankly there has to be, whether it matters and you can hear it is a whole different discussion

[r100]

So what ? It's about the music .. or isn't it ??

[WAD62]

So what ? It's about the music .. or isn't it ??

In which case buy the bloody CD from the band, so they can afford to continue...what it's not about is funding a large failing proprietary company who give bugger all to new artists...and produce sub standard, over priced, restricted hardware and software. ;)

It is about the music, and it is about the quality of that music, and it is about the creators of that music being appropriately rewarded for their efforts

[Gordon Steadman]

large failing proprietary company who produce sub standard, over priced, restricted hardware and software.


:lol:

[WAD62]

:lol:
OK...fair call, but I'll stick with the rest... ;)

[r100]

In which case buy the bloody CD from the band, so they can afford to continue...what it's not about is funding a large failing proprietary company who give bugger all to new artists...and produce sub standard, over priced, restricted hardware and software. ;)

It is about the music, and it is about the quality of that music, and it is about the creators of that music being appropriately rewarded for their efforts

I don't think that bands get more revenue from CD's than they would from a combination of online channels, simply because the exposure to potential customers is much greater that way.. so it would appear to me that the CD is probably not the best income channel for an artist unless they produce it and distribute it themselves... but then again the would only reach a fraction of customers that way compared to an online distribution or a distribution managed by a record co..

Btw. having bought a physical CD doesn't make you the owner of its contents i think .. it only gives you the right to listen to its contents in certain condition.

Btw2 i reckon the quality of streamed music is on par with that of music stored on a CD if you have the right setup. A CD played through a crappy transport will sound, well.. crappy.

just my 2cts

[Clive197]

Btw. having bought a physical CD doesn't make you the owner of its contents i think .. it only gives you the right to listen to its contents in certain condition.


To the best of my knowledge, if you buy physical media i.e. cd, record or tape, you do own the music for your own use. You may copy it to a different media but once again for your own use only. Should you wish to play that music in a public place in a disco for example you would then need a license.

[WAD62]

I don't think that bands get more revenue from CD's than they would from a combination of online channels, simply because the exposure to potential customers is much greater that way.. so it would appear to me that the CD is probably not the best income channel for an artist unless they produce it and distribute it themselves... but then again the would only reach a fraction of customers that way compared to an online distribution or a distribution managed by a record co..

Btw. having bought a physical CD doesn't make you the owner of its contents i think .. it only gives you the right to listen to its contents in certain condition.

Btw2 i reckon the quality of streamed music is on par with that of music stored on a CD if you have the right setup. A CD played through a crappy transport will sound, well.. crappy.

just my 2cts

You might find this article interesting...mind you I suppose the main thing is that we're both paying for our music! :)

http://www.investinganswers.com/personal-finance/rich-famous/who-really-profits-your-itunes-downloads-3818

...one caveat, it is from 2011, so things may have changed a little...

One your other points I think Clive's already answered the first one, additionally I think it would also be legal for me to give one of my CDs or Records to someone else as a gift, or even my entire collection should I snuff it...not in the short term I hope ;)

I'll buy my CDs at gigs preferably, secondly from bands/label sites, and lastly from Amazon, and if there's only FLAC available I'll download it from the band/label's site. Often there is little or no difference in the cost of a CD in comparison to the Mp3 download equivalent!

I haven't played a CD for 5 years, I rip them straight to FLAC, for streaming in 4 systems via SBTouches round the house, all controlled via my android phone on a £2 app (which also conveniently plays FLAC from a 128GB sd card). In my main system the SBTouch feeds an MDAC (L2 upgrade), with which it is all too easy to hear the difference between lossless FLAC and Mp3s (even @ 320k).

It's nice to be able to refer to the CD sleeves/notes/artwork, and conveniently I also have a physical backup of my 'Data'...which is nice! ;)

[Techno Commander]

Will the better bit rate also apply to music you convert yourself into Apple format?

[r100]

thank's for the info.. yes, I think it is important to pay something so that the artists can keep making what we like most. Buying the music directly from the artist is the best of all of course.

It is an interesting time for music. I have never discovered so much new stuff with the help of services like spotify and others.

some more reading

http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/

and this one

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/20/spotify-radiohead-musicians-union-rights

best

[r100]

Will the better bit rate also apply to music you convert yourself into Apple format?

not sure i understand what you mean ? instinctively i would say no..

[Techno Commander]

Having recently got an I pad, I found that using I Tunes, I can convert my MP3s to the fruit flavoured format. I presume it is the standard 16bit AAC and was wondering if the option for 24 bit would appear if the new hi def goes ahead.

[f1eng]

Well Apple stopped supplying MP3s in favour of MP4 many years ago. It has been the non-Apple suppliers who have stuck to the older format.
As far as most non hi-fi nutters like us 320 kbs MP4 -is- high resolution...
No mobile device or car system is capable of doing justice to 16 bit performance so feeding it with 24 bit files is a bit pointless.

[Stratmangler]

Having recently got an I pad, I found that using I Tunes, I can convert my MP3s to the fruit flavoured format. I presume it is the standard 16bit AAC and was wondering if the option for 24 bit would appear if the new hi def goes ahead.

If you did convert your MP3 files to 24 bit whatever they still wouldn't be as good a quality as converting down from the studio masters.
If MP3 is yer starting point then it's not too good a place to start.
I wouldn't bother converting the MP3s over to be honest. Yer iPad is happy playing the MP3 stuff as it is.

[RMutt]

Is the itunes Match option? Did apple not make it possible to swap all your library over to higher resolution, even if they did not originally come via itunes? If they made an option to swap everything over to something even higher then I might be interested. If this is a swap at the apple end then presumably they would originate from something higher than MP3. Or have I misunderstood?

[starbucksboss]

I have over 6000 iTunes songs in 256K AAC format.
There is no difference whatsoever between the sound of the downloads and the stuff I have on CD.
None.

I am a recent convert...I now agree...or am getting to the stage where now my computer audio is...cannot believe Im going say this ...BETTER.

[destroysall]

I rather pride myself on NEVER having given the iTunes Store a brass-farthing over the years. I just refuse to pay as much money for less music when I can by any CD, have full quality AND have a hard back-up.

Anyway, I do however LOVE high-res and would be happy to pay for something that CD cannot give. HD Tracks is OK but the choice (for me) is rather limited, so the thought of Apple opening their high-res vaults is actually quite exciting.

What are your collective thoughts?Steve; being an iTunes Store user myself (only for certain Vocaloid purchases), the idea of AAC+ audio doesn't make me wince. The lossy codec has improved far more over the years than it has recently. However, like you, I personally prefer hard copies myself. Cloud Storage backup still hasn't placed me in a comfort zone. However I do purchase many albums from Bandcamp that are only available via digital download; ALAC or any other lossless codec is much preferred and if the option is available, I would always opt for it. If Apple were to make the music available in their iTunes Store in a lossless codec, I wouldn't mind and would rather much have that offered than have no options at all. While most of us here believe in the hard disc format, there are others who don't. I feel that for those who enjoy lossless music and don't want to invest into a physical collection would be thrilled to have iTunes be another seller like HDTracks.

Cheers,
Chris