I remember reading recently comments from Bono where he was saying that he has been working on a new music format for apple, and I also remember reading some other artist mentioning something similar. It would not surprise me if apple eventually adds another tier ($20 per month) for those who want to have a higher bitrate
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
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.
THIS RIGHT HERE.
9 out of 10 self-proclaimed audiophiles couldn't tell a lossless FLAC or 192 MP3 apart.
Stop listening to how it sounds & start listening to the music.
That's the only way you'll be able to enjoy it.
Actually I just realized, you don't even need to subscribe to any Apple services to take advantage of zero data storage for your music. Not even additional iCloud storage is needed. That is of course, assuming you get all your music from iTunes, then all your content is already available to download and stream right from your device. The only expense you'd need to deal with are data charges with your ISP or wireless carrier. Apologies if you already knew this.
I think the biggest obstacle to Apple offering lossless is pricing. Apple standardized the $9.99 album with iTunes, and currently the record companies see lossless as a way to get people to re-purchase catalog titles at inflated prices. I think Apple would be willing to offer lossless options if they could do so without changing their iTunes price points, but why would the record companies agree to that of they can charge $17.99 or more for the same files?
Add to this the fact that most listeners don't know the difference between codecs and don't have the ears and/or equipment to detect the differences, Apple would be doing themselves no favors by offering price tiers on albums.
I vastly prefer 16/44.1 FLAC/ALAC files for archival purposes, but that hasn't stopped me from buying a few titles from iTunes from time to time. I'll never make iTunes my main music provider though until they do offer a lossless option.
Add to this the fact that most listeners don't know the difference between codecs and don't have the ears and/or equipment to detect the differences, Apple would be doing themselves no favors by offering price tiers on albums.
I vastly prefer 16/44.1 FLAC/ALAC files for archival purposes, but that hasn't stopped me from buying a few titles from iTunes from time to time. I'll never make iTunes my main music provider though until they do offer a lossless option.
Who charges $17.99 for lossless files? The big studios are selling CDs (which are of course lossless) for about the same price as iTunes sells AAC albums. There are of course some small boutique stores selling lossless files to audiophiles, but I doubt that it's the studios who set their prices ...
Or the imagination?
Archiving is one of the few rational reasons for lossless files, since it allows you to transcode into other formats as needed without quality losses.
Given that most online stores for lossless music do sell albums around the $17.99 price point, I feel that the record companies are making that the MSRP. CDs are 16/44.1 lossless but I'm talking about sites selling lossless files. I'd argue the biggest consumer segment of lossless files isn't interested in 16/44, and instead want 24/96 or 24/192 and above.
I think you'd see a lot of complaining if Apple only offered 16/44 lossless and not higher resolutions (whether those higher resolutions provide any benefit in playback is a different story).
I think lossless is great for home playback as well. When I'm at home, with my NAS and assorted other hard drives, space is no issue, and I want my music as uncompressed as possible. When I'm out and only have my phone, space is at a premium and lossy files make much more sense.
Either way, by having the bulk of my collection in lossless, I can have the best of both worlds.
I think the number of people who'd care about this is tiny.
In my mind, it has been proven beyond any doubt that high sampling rates and 24 bit depth are meaningless for playback. E.g. this AES study has literally conducted hundreds of listening tests introducing a 16/44 "bottleneck" into playback, and no one was able to detect the difference:
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=2
And there are a lot of crooks out there selling up-sampled CD rips to naive audiophiles for outrageous prices ...
I agree with you about playback, and in fact intimated as much in my last post. But my comment wasn't about whether or not 16/44 is the best for playback, my post was about consumer demand. And as far as I can tell, among the consumers who care about lossless, most want 24/96 or 24/192. 16/44 may be all they need, but it's not necessarily all they want, and if Apple only offers 16/44, the people who feel 256 AAC is sufficient won't care, and the people who do care will think it's not enough.
Personally, I'd love the mastered for iTunes albums in 16/44 ALAC at the same price as the lossy version. That would be enough to make iTunes my main music provider. Buying CDs and ripping them isn't always a great option as sometimes the CDs are mastered differently, with less dynamic range and more brickwalling.
Last edited:
I couldn't agree more about the dynamic range compression. That is a far bigger problem than lossy codecs. Unfortunately in my experience the Mastered for iTunes releases aren't much (if any) better in that regard. The MfI guidelines really only cover the most extreme forms of dynamic range compression that cause clipping, but "remastered" MfI catalog releases still tend to be too "loud".
I agree that MFi releases aren't necessarily better just because they're MFi, but at least Apple is trying to apply some standards, and many of the MFi releases do sound better than the CD or other web versions, although there are still some that sound like crap no matter what medium they're on. Right now, you can only get MFi files in lossy, so I'd love for at least the option to get them lossless, and then I can determine whether any given release is useful to me.
I imagine, and truly hope, that Apple are concentrating their resources on efforts other than providing lossless music either on the iTunes Store, or through Apple Music.
By so many definitions, interest in lossless can only be niche. Most people do not care about the quality of their music, so long as it sounds good to them, and I doubt even Apple could convince people to take an interest. And further, any perceived gain in quality might only be heard through particularly expensive audio equipment, which most are unwilling to purchase.
Add to this the case that, largely, lossless audio is most useful when stored for archival purposes. At the same time, we are seeing that people are not wedded to psychical ownership of CDs, nor are concerned with possessing local copies of their music, so long as it all just works. To most people, that means being able to listen to music conveniently – on many devices, on demand, etc.
The idea that the average music-loving person should take interest in lossless audio is silly, born of marketing, and a lesson in how gullible humans are. It is already bad enough that Apple are having to push Beats audio equipment in its current lineup. I do not want at all to see Apple pushing lossless audio to the masses, at an increased price. It would be a terrible capitalisation upon audiophilic myth and superiority complexes over any evidence.
By so many definitions, interest in lossless can only be niche. Most people do not care about the quality of their music, so long as it sounds good to them, and I doubt even Apple could convince people to take an interest. And further, any perceived gain in quality might only be heard through particularly expensive audio equipment, which most are unwilling to purchase.
Add to this the case that, largely, lossless audio is most useful when stored for archival purposes. At the same time, we are seeing that people are not wedded to psychical ownership of CDs, nor are concerned with possessing local copies of their music, so long as it all just works. To most people, that means being able to listen to music conveniently – on many devices, on demand, etc.
The idea that the average music-loving person should take interest in lossless audio is silly, born of marketing, and a lesson in how gullible humans are. It is already bad enough that Apple are having to push Beats audio equipment in its current lineup. I do not want at all to see Apple pushing lossless audio to the masses, at an increased price. It would be a terrible capitalisation upon audiophilic myth and superiority complexes over any evidence.
Last edited:
That's why I hope they offer 16/44 at the same price as lossy, I agree that offering 24 bit recordings at an inflated price is just fleecing people.
As for "concentrating their resources", there's very little they'd have to change to offer lossless music. They already get all files submitted to iTunes in lossless formats, which they then turn into lossy files for sale. It's mostly a matter of flipping the switch to allow lossless files for sale in the store.
Also, I think if anyone could educate people on the benefits of (16/44) lossless, it would be Apple. They typically push for higher quality, look at retina displays for example. And given that they include very good DACs in iPhones, I think that they might actually be able to convince people that there is a use for lossless music.
I think the very fact that the trend is toward lossy and streaming should be reason to push for archival quality recordings.
As for "concentrating their resources", there's very little they'd have to change to offer lossless music. They already get all files submitted to iTunes in lossless formats, which they then turn into lossy files for sale. It's mostly a matter of flipping the switch to allow lossless files for sale in the store.
Also, I think if anyone could educate people on the benefits of (16/44) lossless, it would be Apple. They typically push for higher quality, look at retina displays for example. And given that they include very good DACs in iPhones, I think that they might actually be able to convince people that there is a use for lossless music.
I think the very fact that the trend is toward lossy and streaming should be reason to push for archival quality recordings.
Well certainly, if Apple went ahead and offered it at the same price, I don't see how anyone could complain. I just struggle to see Apple's incentive. Perhaps if they thought it would spark consumer interest in audio?
I was mainly thinking in terms of the negotiations that would have to be settled. There are a few storefronts who unfortunately, I imagine, have set a precedent in charging a higher pice for lossless music. I think an obvious incentive here for the music industry would be increased profits, and a two-tier pricing structure, akin to SD/HD video on the iTunes Store.
Apple do of course push for higher quality, and even when the consumer isn't entirely aware of the details, they do notice that quality - that's true. I think it would be difficult to get people to notice the benefits of lossless music, if indeed there are any to be had. Seeing a Retina display for the first time is amazing. Experiencing the build quality of practically any Apple product doesn't cease to be amazing. Hearing lossless audio will often underwhelm. Unless, of course, Apple are about to release a decent Beats product, to be unveiled at a keynote, which people can buy into.
I agree entirely with you that archiving music has never been more important given the current situation. I suppose I just think that convenience will always be king with your average consumer, and that the tide has already turned.
As I said earlier in the thread, I think that the only reason we haven't seen lossless available in the iTunes store yet is because Apple wants to keep the $9.99 price point and the record companies don't want to "devalue" lossless yet. Even Tidal charges $10 more per month to get lossless streaming. Right now there's a perception that lossless is a greater value than lossy, probably because most people don't realize that a CD that's often cheaper than the digital files is all the lossless they'll ever need.
And as for Apple buying Beats, I think they certainly do intend to release some more good quality headphones in addition to the streaming service. In fact, the latest set of Beats headphones (Solo 2 I think?) got surprisingly good reviews, with the caveat that they're still a bit bass heavy. But then a lot of good headphones from other manufacturers are bass heavy as well and no one holds it against them.
I think it's a question of when, not if, Apple offers lossless in iTunes. And I suspect there will be an upgrade program similar to what we saw with iTunes Plus.
I doubt we'll see lossless streaming on Apple Music anytime soon though.
Yeah missing the point comes to mind...
Lossless users have a central server Mac with plenty of storage plugged into it, for home listening. For on the go listening like car, public transport where fidelity isn't an issue due to background noise, lossy versioning is built into iTunes when importing from Mac to iDevices.
Talk about silly talking about your bloody laptop use with SSDs, when that's not what we're on about.
Lossless users have a central server Mac with plenty of storage plugged into it, for home listening. For on the go listening like car, public transport where fidelity isn't an issue due to background noise, lossy versioning is built into iTunes when importing from Mac to iDevices.
Talk about silly talking about your bloody laptop use with SSDs, when that's not what we're on about.
I'd never willingly buy an mp3. It would definitely have to be a minimum of 1980's CD quality.
I've felt this way since the inception of the iPod.
This didn't stop Apple making a lot of money, but Apple's profits have never diminished my reasoning.
Sense doesn't always make a profit and that's fine by me. There's no such thing as a "free market" anyway.
If your strongest position on Apple is that they make a lot of money, then jog on.
I've felt this way since the inception of the iPod.
This didn't stop Apple making a lot of money, but Apple's profits have never diminished my reasoning.
Sense doesn't always make a profit and that's fine by me. There's no such thing as a "free market" anyway.
If your strongest position on Apple is that they make a lot of money, then jog on.
Meaning we have to buy CDs again, despite the fact that we're paying for streaming music. That also doesn't give us the ability to discover new music in the highest quality. It's a step backwards.
Personally, 90% of my critical listening happens on high quality headphones while I'm at work.
Whatever though, I've given up on trying to make lossless fit into my lifestyle. I wanted it, and I'd still pay extra for it, but nobody seems to want to make it happen the right way. Tidal was close, until Jay-Z bought it and turned it into the hip-hop-pop-streaming-service. Their diverse music curation is gone and their library is missing way too much. Apple Music fits into my lifestyle the best, outside of lossless. Oh well.
This is one uniform..
Everything will be different to different people... For me, i can't tell the difference. and i certainly won't pay extra for something i cannot even hear that's missing.. weather my hearing is perfect, or not (and its not either)
That's just me...
Everything will be different to different people... For me, i can't tell the difference. and i certainly won't pay extra for something i cannot even hear that's missing.. weather my hearing is perfect, or not (and its not either)
That's just me...
Yes, but bare in mind lossless can be converted in future to newer formats for other uses, lossy ones cannot without even more loss of quality. It's so simple anyway to make lossless from CD, dunno why not try...
1) Buy a reasonably big external HDD (you can get 6-8TB's these for £150-300), plug into Mac.
2) Open iTunes and get it to move library to this external drive.
3) In iTunes prefs, select lossless encoding with error correction on.
4) [optional] in iTunes prefs, for each iDevice's options, select "convert higher bit rate songs to...[256/192/128 kbps]".
...et voila, you've gone lossless. Easy-peazy.
Just shame one cannot buy affordable priced lossless online. Everyone wants silly money for lossless music online, hence mass piracy – the industry shooting itself in the foot with their idiocy again.
(and why the internet is full of CD to FLAC encodes, that people convert to ALAC using XLD in seconds, then throw into iTunes and edit metadata. Dumb industry, dumb major labels —Sony/Universal/Warners— missing the point, yet again. And dumb Apple for releasing streaming AMusic service that screws-up users library metadata whilst offering absolutely no improvement in sound quality. Doh and doh!).
Last edited:
It might be probable, that the disagreements on hearing the difference become irrelevant at this point. It seems to come down to whether there is a market to justify a move to high quality music.
Extrapolating from the existence of this thread, and others online, there might be. So whether our personal opinion is one or the other, what will matter is Apple's judgement on the feasibility of such business.
Personally, I would go back to buying from iTunes if they offered lossless audio. However, I would never try to convince anybody to do that.
Extrapolating from the existence of this thread, and others online, there might be. So whether our personal opinion is one or the other, what will matter is Apple's judgement on the feasibility of such business.
Personally, I would go back to buying from iTunes if they offered lossless audio. However, I would never try to convince anybody to do that.
The massive success of the Pono Player should convince Apple that that is what people really want.
Pono Player???? Exactly, hardly anyone has ever heard of it, or cares in the slightest. If lossless is actually detectable or not, the truth is that the majority of music consumers is sold to people that would buy any crap as long as it is trendy.
Would William (insert dots where needed/wanted), Kanye West etc. sound any better in lossless format? No, they wouldn't.
Pono Player???? Exactly, hardly anyone has ever heard of it, or cares in the slightest. If lossless is actually detectable or not, the truth is that the majority of music consumers is sold to people that would buy any crap as long as it is trendy.
Would William (insert dots where needed/wanted), Kanye West etc. sound any better in lossless format? No, they wouldn't.
Every published scientific test that I've seen has produced the same results, 256k AAC and lossless are indiscernible even to professionals and even when high end gear is used.
This being the case, how is Apple going to market lossless or higher bitrate music for a higher price to its customers?
Sure audiophiles will love it, they'll pay more and they'll convince themselves that they can hear a difference but what about everyone else?
And what about media coverage? We all know Apple receives a swath of media coverage for anything they do. We'll see story after story unearthing what we already know, you can't hear the difference and Apple will be slammed for upselling snake oil.
This being the case, how is Apple going to market lossless or higher bitrate music for a higher price to its customers?
Sure audiophiles will love it, they'll pay more and they'll convince themselves that they can hear a difference but what about everyone else?
And what about media coverage? We all know Apple receives a swath of media coverage for anything they do. We'll see story after story unearthing what we already know, you can't hear the difference and Apple will be slammed for upselling snake oil.