Source for this statistic or did you just make it up (rhetorical)? While I don't doubt the gist of what you are trying to say, just making up wildly unrealistic statistics to support your belief is not correct.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
When will iTunes offer lossless? It's 2015!
- Thread starter Gym Hellwig
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Source for this statistic or did you just make it up (rhetorical)? While I don't doubt the gist of what you are trying to say, just making up wildly unrealistic statistics to support your belief is not correct.
Just unrealistic statistics made up.
But the point is I'm in the countryside and only on 4mb speed with unlimited usage. Lossless is still welcome!
(firstly, can we get off the usual ******** obvious "bandwidth not available for some so no one should have it" and "i cannot hear the difference so why bother offering it to others" comments stuff.)
The point is some people want it and some people can hear the difference (even if its a semantic one).
What Apple should do is "adaptive streaming" type offering. So depending on your own preference, you can select the quality you want to download, per device/track:
- "basic": perhaps would be 256k AAC files.
- "standard": perhaps would be CD quality (44.1/16) ALAC.
- "high": perhaps would be near-studio quality (192/24) ALAC.
One single price tear to avoid user confusion (and as an incentive for Apple to get users to pay for and buy music from iTunes Store again, in the first place!). Then each and every USER can decide for themselves.
You don't want it, you don't have to have it. You do want it, you can have it.
----
...then add-in to the new "Music" app (iTunes replacement) a rebranded Beats subscription streaming service ("Apple Stream", lol!) for those that like that way, with some kind of pricing (teared or not).
Done. (you 'av been!)
The point is some people want it and some people can hear the difference (even if its a semantic one).
What Apple should do is "adaptive streaming" type offering. So depending on your own preference, you can select the quality you want to download, per device/track:
- "basic": perhaps would be 256k AAC files.
- "standard": perhaps would be CD quality (44.1/16) ALAC.
- "high": perhaps would be near-studio quality (192/24) ALAC.
One single price tear to avoid user confusion (and as an incentive for Apple to get users to pay for and buy music from iTunes Store again, in the first place!). Then each and every USER can decide for themselves.
You don't want it, you don't have to have it. You do want it, you can have it.
----
...then add-in to the new "Music" app (iTunes replacement) a rebranded Beats subscription streaming service ("Apple Stream", lol!) for those that like that way, with some kind of pricing (teared or not).
Done. (you 'av been!)
Last edited:
The problem with your model lies with the record companies. Most don't allow lossless or HD for downloads. The ones that do charge a premium for lossless and HD downloads. If Apple did convince the holdouts they would also demand a premium price for lossless and HD content.
So there is no way Apple could charge one price for all. The record companies will not (for the foreseeable future) allow this.
"most don't allow lossless" erm, where did you get that statement from? The top of your head from the sounds of it, there are many lossless sites out there now, and all three majors have content on them. At the moment 192/24 is largely big rock and the classics (popular/classic rock, big jazz albums, classical), along with dance music in CD quality "44.1/16" (DJ's need higher quality for playing out on big/quality sound systems), but many smaller artists are beginning to move in this general direction what with Pono player & music Pono's version of their iTunes-esque sync/store app.
It's due to the too heavy pricing and niche market that people won't buy the stuff, as it's marketed at too much of a premium to too small of a marketplace, when users know and like the simplicity of iTunes "system". Though the thrust of my argument was not about pricing; if Apple want to charge a bit more for it then fine, charge a bit more, but just option it, and let users decide.
There is the fiasco failure of "iTunes LP" still haunting them, of course, so they're very wary of "new" music ideas. But a new Music app is rumoured to be in development so here's their chance to begin anew.
The content is extremely limited and the sites are super niche. Also the labels charge a premium for the super limited content that they do allow and you MUST re-buy. To open their entire catalogs (or even a decent percentage) to iTunes for one price is a whole different deal that (unfortunately because I want it to happen too) is not going to happen.
As I said above; then charge a little more for it. But as an incentive to keep users buying from iTunes Store high-quality versions, instead of the mass-piracy; that price should be a reasonably low one accordingly.
re. Adaptive Streaming.
Here are a couple of links about Apple's current usage of their own HLS (HTTP Live Streaming) protocol.
Not exactly as I envisioned it above though, as I'd think the user would want some kind of "override" to choose the option they wanted for themselves, rather than Apple automatically choosing for them depending on the network speed they were currently connected via. Although that protocol is more likely to be used further in a music streaming service, rather than for music owning via download purchases. Apple already use this of course for their live events online streaming on their website (Safari only, IIRC, or maybe Firefox as well), and to ATV.
Also it seems the one below is currently only for lossy h264 codecs, so unless they update or have updated it, then m4a-lossless ALAC ain't likely to happen, at least not using this technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_bitrate_streaming#Apple_HTTP_Adaptive_Streaming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Live_Streaming
I used to think so as well. Then, a couple of years ago, I did a proper double-blind listening test together with a few friends (some of which consider themselves "audiophiles"). None of us could reliably tell the 256 kbps AAC or MP3 files from the uncompressed originals. Since then, I don't bother with lossless music anymore.
Proper mastering is much more important. Unfortunately many modern recordings are mastered miserably, e.g. applying too much dynamic range compression. I applaud Apple for trying to do something about that as part of their "Mastered for iTunes" best practices (although I wish they were more forceful about it).
ok Warning!!! rant/
I didn't do a double blind test. I tested myself and I can hear a clear difference between what I get for older iTunes ripped songs and CDs and, to my ears, there was a significant difference so I ripped one CD using the best settings on a more recent iTunes. Tonight I bought an iTunes song and it sounded flat. Here is what I compared tonight:
Recently ripped CD 'Sleepless in Seattle' with the songs listened to 'As Time Goes By', 'A Kiss To Build A Dream On', and 'Stardust'. File details
Apple Lossless audio file
bit rate 812 kbps
sample size 16 bit
sample rate 44.100 kHz
encoded with iTunes 11.2.2
I compared that to an iTunes song I bought tonight 'Those Were the Days' by Mary Hopkins off the Los Anos 60 album. File details
Purchased AAC audio file
bit rate 256 kbps
sample rate 44.100 kHz
profile Low Complexity
channels Stereo
I'm not an audio expert but the ripped songs from my CD have a much fuller sound. I don't even have a decent woofer attached to my stereo.
/rant
There are several possible explanations for this:
1) Your CD is a different mastering than the iTunes song you bought. This happens very often when a new edition of an album comes out. A more meaningful test would have been to re-encode your lossless file to AAC and compare that.
2) You didn't exactly match output levels. This is extremely important, since even very small differences in playback volume can make one version sound "better"
3) Placebo effect; nope, nobody is immune from that. The only way to be certain is to do a proper double blind test.
4) AAC compression somehow makes songs sound "less full". This flies in the face of the scientific theory behind perceptual audio compression. If anything, one should hear compression artifacts such as pre-echos.
In my opinion, this list is in decreasing order of likelihood.
All that said, what counts in the end is the subjective experience. So if you feel that lossless audio gives you a better experience, there's nothing wrong with that.
All that said, what counts in the end is the subjective experience. So if you feel that lossless audio gives you a better experience, there's nothing wrong with that.
Oh I know that it was a completely unscientific test. I got started down this path over a year ago when I played some of the itunes songs over my stereo. They just didn't sound up to snuff. Most of my songs are ripped from CDs I purchased when I was younger. I played them on my iPod and car stereo and never thought much about it as those were in less than ideal listening environments. However, when I played the songs on my stereo they just didn't sound like I remembered they should on a good system so I played the same songs direct from CD to stereo and the difference was quite apparent (in my mind). I didn't have an assistant so I closed my eyes and switched sources numerous times so I didn't know which was playing except by sound and I'd guess which was which. Pretty much without fail, I woud get it right. Again, completely unscientific but, as you say, it is the subjective experience that counts and I have lots of drive space - far more than a lossless copy of the songs I want would occupy.
Something to consider is that when I first ripped the CDs, the settings defaulted by Apple were pretty restrictive in order to minimize file size. it shouldn't be too much effort to re-rip my CDs and I'd rather be doing that than watching TV.
Edit: All that said, I think your #1 reason probably has the most impact. The difference between the sound of my CD vs the ripped version is less than the difference between the ripped version and the purchased song but I can't make a direct comparison as I've never purchased a song that I already have on CD... Or I'm just bat crazy!!!
Last edited:
It's ironic, the OP pointedly says it's 2015, and people come here and argue that there is no audible difference between lossless and the lossy formats. Wrong! There is a big difference between the formats in terms of sound quality, if you have the capable replay equipment.
Notwithstanding, streaming services such as Spotify, having been taking hold since about 2008/09 and that has to correlate with the steady falls in iTunes purchased downloads of music. 'All-you-can-eat' services in media is the way forward, like it or not, and the media companies have woken up to the fact that they can have another round of income by releasing their back catalogues in a new delivery medium.
Streaming services like Deezer, Tidal and Qobuz are trying to steal a march on each other, and most likely on Spotify, by offering higher quality streams, starting at the basic lossless 16/44.1 CD quality. Their lossless libraries are expanding rapidly as they do deals with the record labels, they have identified there is a market for quality streams and that CD's are dying as the lossless medium of choice.
Apple finally woke up to this and purchased Beats. They have already been quoted as saying they want to be THE COMPLETE MUSIC service that everyone wants. Effectively to wrestle back the market leader tag that they have steadily been losing to streaming services.
I am fully expecting them to amalgamate iTunes with Match and Beats into one new Music app. This will allow users with current libraries of purchased music (downloads or CD rips) to store their music locally and in the Cloud, as you can currently do, blend in the streaming service that Beats currently provides.
Now the key here, and in order to trump their competitors, all of that will need to be available at lossless (16/44.1) quality minimum, that includes both streamed music from their catalogue and one's own library in the Cloud. This is an integrated approach that the other competitors cannot match, most offer streaming only at various subscription bands, one (from those mentioned) offers the choice to purchase 16- and 24-bit downloads, but none AFAIK will store your music in the Cloud as well.
Here, Apple genuinely can offer one complete integrated service for music, it's just a matter of pulling all the pieces together, which I suspect is exactly what they are doing right now. They will trump this out as the biggest thing to happen to music since iPod and iTunes, and arguably they will have a strong case for it.
Bandwidth will be an issue for some areas, but 1st world countries are rapidly embracing fibre so that is not an issue, as people have rightly stated, HD video streaming is already a fairly reliable service coming into our homes or via wi-fi networks. HD music is certainly less onerous in terms of file size and bandwidth required.
And for those still stuck with poor broadband, or happy to listen to 256 or 128 streams, I am sure that Apple will offer a 'lossy' package as well, presumably at a lower monthly / annual subscription charge.
The main thing for all these providers, including Apple, will be to get you on a monthly subscription in the first place. Apple have the might to do it, Spotify could well be history soon.
Notwithstanding, streaming services such as Spotify, having been taking hold since about 2008/09 and that has to correlate with the steady falls in iTunes purchased downloads of music. 'All-you-can-eat' services in media is the way forward, like it or not, and the media companies have woken up to the fact that they can have another round of income by releasing their back catalogues in a new delivery medium.
Streaming services like Deezer, Tidal and Qobuz are trying to steal a march on each other, and most likely on Spotify, by offering higher quality streams, starting at the basic lossless 16/44.1 CD quality. Their lossless libraries are expanding rapidly as they do deals with the record labels, they have identified there is a market for quality streams and that CD's are dying as the lossless medium of choice.
Apple finally woke up to this and purchased Beats. They have already been quoted as saying they want to be THE COMPLETE MUSIC service that everyone wants. Effectively to wrestle back the market leader tag that they have steadily been losing to streaming services.
I am fully expecting them to amalgamate iTunes with Match and Beats into one new Music app. This will allow users with current libraries of purchased music (downloads or CD rips) to store their music locally and in the Cloud, as you can currently do, blend in the streaming service that Beats currently provides.
Now the key here, and in order to trump their competitors, all of that will need to be available at lossless (16/44.1) quality minimum, that includes both streamed music from their catalogue and one's own library in the Cloud. This is an integrated approach that the other competitors cannot match, most offer streaming only at various subscription bands, one (from those mentioned) offers the choice to purchase 16- and 24-bit downloads, but none AFAIK will store your music in the Cloud as well.
Here, Apple genuinely can offer one complete integrated service for music, it's just a matter of pulling all the pieces together, which I suspect is exactly what they are doing right now. They will trump this out as the biggest thing to happen to music since iPod and iTunes, and arguably they will have a strong case for it.
Bandwidth will be an issue for some areas, but 1st world countries are rapidly embracing fibre so that is not an issue, as people have rightly stated, HD video streaming is already a fairly reliable service coming into our homes or via wi-fi networks. HD music is certainly less onerous in terms of file size and bandwidth required.
And for those still stuck with poor broadband, or happy to listen to 256 or 128 streams, I am sure that Apple will offer a 'lossy' package as well, presumably at a lower monthly / annual subscription charge.
The main thing for all these providers, including Apple, will be to get you on a monthly subscription in the first place. Apple have the might to do it, Spotify could well be history soon.
One very major thing to add IMO to my previous post, and that is the control app.
Sonos are without doubt the leaders at this time, they have managed to bring together a whole gamut of streaming services, mix it in with your local library of music (iTunes or any other network shared folder) and with their control app, you mix sources to your hearts content. Playlists or current playing queues can be curated from different sources in any order you like.
This is huge in terms of 'pulling' all 'your' music together. Only complete newbies will not have a library of purchased music from the past, whether downloaded or ripped CD's.
The Apple Beats amalgamation has the opportunity to offer this same control under one app, of course it will probably be tailored to iTunes libraries and purchased downloads, but importantly, the one application will tie in web streaming with local and Cloud libraries, no-one else can do that, not even Sonos I believe.
Furthermore, you need Sonos hardware to use their app, it will be very interesting if Apple push out their new Music service to hardware other than their own devices (by license of course), a kind of 'connect' API, similar to how Spotify have tried to corral their Spotify Connect to various hardware manufacturers.
Sonos are without doubt the leaders at this time, they have managed to bring together a whole gamut of streaming services, mix it in with your local library of music (iTunes or any other network shared folder) and with their control app, you mix sources to your hearts content. Playlists or current playing queues can be curated from different sources in any order you like.
This is huge in terms of 'pulling' all 'your' music together. Only complete newbies will not have a library of purchased music from the past, whether downloaded or ripped CD's.
The Apple Beats amalgamation has the opportunity to offer this same control under one app, of course it will probably be tailored to iTunes libraries and purchased downloads, but importantly, the one application will tie in web streaming with local and Cloud libraries, no-one else can do that, not even Sonos I believe.
Furthermore, you need Sonos hardware to use their app, it will be very interesting if Apple push out their new Music service to hardware other than their own devices (by license of course), a kind of 'connect' API, similar to how Spotify have tried to corral their Spotify Connect to various hardware manufacturers.
After a minor experiment, I don't think lossless is worth much if a mix is done well. This is just one experiment, but I couldn't tell a difference.
I have the Apollo 13 soundtrack on a CD. I had the iTunes Plus (256k) files on my iPhone that I listen to quite often. I then made a lossless copy of the soundtrack and put it on my iPhone. I compared them using my Beats Studio (those $299 retail over-the-ear things) headphones and my car's audio system with new Kicker speakers everywhere.
I couldn't tell a difference.
If there were a difference, I would love to shout from the rafters about the need for better quality. But I listened for any sort of difference in some very silent parts of the classical-style tracks and the louder parts as well with a bazillion instruments. I couldn't hear any difference.
I know some people hear better than others and so maybe some people can hear the stuff chopped off during compression. I couldn't, and I have pretty good ears from my days in school bands back a decade or so ago.
I would personally love to see Apple up the sound quality in terms of codecs. When using a high-quality sound system, I can hear massive differences between Dolby Digital and DTS in movies, especially action ones. I don't know the physics of why that is, but I know it's an easy-to-tell difference. So with Apple selling everything under the sun in its movie store, the next Apple TV needs to support DTS and Apple needs to start adding those tracks in. I would also love to see a push for those codecs working in non-home theater systems, especially car systems, but I think unless Apple makes its own car that will never happen.
I have the Apollo 13 soundtrack on a CD. I had the iTunes Plus (256k) files on my iPhone that I listen to quite often. I then made a lossless copy of the soundtrack and put it on my iPhone. I compared them using my Beats Studio (those $299 retail over-the-ear things) headphones and my car's audio system with new Kicker speakers everywhere.
I couldn't tell a difference.
If there were a difference, I would love to shout from the rafters about the need for better quality. But I listened for any sort of difference in some very silent parts of the classical-style tracks and the louder parts as well with a bazillion instruments. I couldn't hear any difference.
I know some people hear better than others and so maybe some people can hear the stuff chopped off during compression. I couldn't, and I have pretty good ears from my days in school bands back a decade or so ago.
I would personally love to see Apple up the sound quality in terms of codecs. When using a high-quality sound system, I can hear massive differences between Dolby Digital and DTS in movies, especially action ones. I don't know the physics of why that is, but I know it's an easy-to-tell difference. So with Apple selling everything under the sun in its movie store, the next Apple TV needs to support DTS and Apple needs to start adding those tracks in. I would also love to see a push for those codecs working in non-home theater systems, especially car systems, but I think unless Apple makes its own car that will never happen.
It is actually level mismatch. Dolby encoders default settings is 4dB lower than DTS uses. If you simply turn up the DD source 4dB then the levels will match and they will sound (almost) the same.
Again, this is not a question of whether you personally can hear any difference or not, but rather one of Apple offering "better quality" as an option in the year 2015.
They should be striving to be the best in the music field, otherwise nothing to differentiate themselves from others in the crowded marketplace (oh, and piracy, of course!).
They should be striving to be the best in the music field, otherwise nothing to differentiate themselves from others in the crowded marketplace (oh, and piracy, of course!).
Are you saying it's just a volume difference? I'm pretty sure DTS sounds a lot cleaner than even Dolby Digital. It could be mastering, and I can't really replicate any of this right now because I don't have a BD or DVD player any more.
Yes, our ears/brains are externally sensitive devices. Far more than our eyes/brains. Even the most gifted golden eared sound engineers must carefully match sound levels to within 1dB so as to not be fooled. All other things being equal our brains naturally perceive a slightly louder sound as better (a higher quality).
DTS is generally 4dB louder than DD. 3dB is equal to a doubling in acoustic power. So you must stipulate it would be hard to compare 2 things objectively with one being over 2x more powerful. Even though it is over 2x more powerful our ears process in a logarithmic scale. So even though 3dB is 2x the energy we barely notice a difference (1dB is considered the limit of perception).
Also as volume level changes our ears natural frequency response changes. This is why low frequencies (bass) is much less audible at a low volume.
I've been waiting for this for a long time
I've been waiting for this for a long time! The difference is night and day on a decent hifi system (I have a bowers and Wilkins + Arcam setup worth well over £1k / 2k$)
I haven't bought anything from itunes in a long time since they don't offer quality.
Band width, storage capacities etc are irrelevant. I have unlimited and enough speed to get the tracks, then plenty of storage space for my 14k songs library. So does 99% of other people in any developed country.
About time they offered this up! They have no reason not to unless they are holding off for a big launch in a low point of their roadmap...
I've been waiting for this for a long time! The difference is night and day on a decent hifi system (I have a bowers and Wilkins + Arcam setup worth well over £1k / 2k$)
I haven't bought anything from itunes in a long time since they don't offer quality.
Band width, storage capacities etc are irrelevant. I have unlimited and enough speed to get the tracks, then plenty of storage space for my 14k songs library. So does 99% of other people in any developed country.
About time they offered this up! They have no reason not to unless they are holding off for a big launch in a low point of their roadmap...
I want lossless, as well. It is the main reason I rarely buy anything from iTunes. If I want compressed music, I can get it with one of the streaming services. When I buy something for my library, I want it in an archival format and compressed AAC/mp3s don't qualify. When you convert a compressed file to go to a new standard, for example, you lose more data. When you start with a lossless format and convert to a new lossless standard, you can do a bit for bit conversion. As a matter of fact, I started my lossless library in WMA Lossless, converted it to FLAC, and then converted again to ALAC. No loss in SQ. If I had started with WMA, moved to Ogg, and then to AAC, I would have lost quality through each conversion.
Personally, for streaming only, I am not as concerned with lossless (Tidal is available if that was a concern), however, I want better than lossy for my own library. I realize the record companies have avoided selling the lossless versions in the past, but if they want to boost download sells vs streaming, they have to do more than give us the same sub-par quality.
As for the argument about bandwidth, Apple doesn't seem to be a company that is concerned with the lowest common denominator. They are mainly known for selling premium products and lossy files are not premium products.
Personally, for streaming only, I am not as concerned with lossless (Tidal is available if that was a concern), however, I want better than lossy for my own library. I realize the record companies have avoided selling the lossless versions in the past, but if they want to boost download sells vs streaming, they have to do more than give us the same sub-par quality.
As for the argument about bandwidth, Apple doesn't seem to be a company that is concerned with the lowest common denominator. They are mainly known for selling premium products and lossy files are not premium products.
Last edited:
Heres a question for everyone. If I have some songs downloaded from iTunes and I converted them to lossless, am I gaining any quality since they were originally compressed from the iTunes store? I don't mind keeping them lossless and using all that space because I have good headphones that they will sound good in, but I don't want them to waste space if its all for nothing.
I'm sure Apple is working on this currently, they leave no opportunity to make more money lie still for long.
Gotcha. After making them Lossless this is what I thought. Just wanted to make sure. Thanks for the reply!!! Currently changing them back
Gotcha. After making them Lossless this is what I thought. Just wanted to make sure. Thanks for the reply!!! Currently changing them back
Stop the presses. If you have converted music to ALAC then if you then go encoded them back to 256kbps ACC you will lower the quality. Basically when you converted from 256kbps files to ALAC the encoder filled in the missing data with null data. However when you go to encoded them back to 256kbps the encoder doesn't just remove the null data but treats all data the same. It will therefore discard some of the original content while leaving some of null data in the 256kbps encode. This will result in a lower quality than the original. If converted to ALAC then you should leave them that way.