Apple to launch 24 bit lossless downloads
Discussion
TheInternet said:
The compressed nature of many modern releases is nothing to do with the technical limitations of the medium and entirely down to the manner in which the recordings are mastered. What makes you think that going to a 24bit medium would change that?
My post in full does explain that.Through history, the art, the technology of production, the culture of distribution, and the technology of consumption are all interlinked.
If you alter one, the rest changes too.
The further and further compressed masters were not a result of engineers thinking that was 'better' but simply the result of a specific way that the music industry was at the time and the financial rewards in doing so.
A huge emphasis was put on the first single from an album to hit high in the chart. That was done through radio play and getting people to go out and buy a CD single in order to get free publicity through a chart position gained through providing them as a loss leader to make money by selling their album.
An artist was made or disappeared on the basis of how 'loud' their song sounded on the radio and how many people got on the bus to HMV to buy their single in a few days.
Over the last 10 years the industry has changed totally from that in almost every way and the reasons why the trend to compress have taken a back seat. If buyers vote with their pockets and demand is created for 24 bit masters, then of course is clearly is worthwhile mastering music so that 24 bit audio is worthwhile - that would be a much less compressed way.
Jobbo said:
think the reasoning is that music isn't recorded in a compressed or clipped state; that's a result of the mastering from 24 bit to 16 bit. Vinyl masters of the same tracks aren't clipped. If 24 bit is offered, it is maybe optimistic, but not unrealistic, to think that it may be mastered to have a proper dynamic range and not suffer from clipping.
The bit in italics is not the case. The compression and clipping is entirely due to the attempts to make the recording louder and nothing to do with the technical limitations.JustinP1 said:
My post in full does explain that.
Through history, the art, the technology of production, the culture of distribution, and the technology of consumption are all interlinked.
If you alter one, the rest changes too.
The further and further compressed masters were not a result of engineers thinking that was 'better' but simply the result of a specific way that the music industry was at the time and the financial rewards in doing so.
A huge emphasis was put on the first single from an album to hit high in the chart. That was done through radio play and getting people to go out and buy a CD single in order to get free publicity through a chart position gained through providing them as a loss leader to make money by selling their album.
An artist was made or disappeared on the basis of how 'loud' their song sounded on the radio and how many people got on the bus to HMV to buy their single in a few days.
Over the last 10 years the industry has changed totally from that in almost every way and the reasons why the trend to compress have taken a back seat. If buyers vote with their pockets and demand is created for 24 bit masters, then of course is clearly is worthwhile mastering music so that 24 bit audio is worthwhile - that would be a much less compressed way.
I pretty much agree with all that, and wasn't disagreeing before just could foresee that the quest for loudness could easily continue with any new technical standard. If the new format were seen as a premium product for the discerning listener, as vinyl has become, and was produced as such, it might just work.Through history, the art, the technology of production, the culture of distribution, and the technology of consumption are all interlinked.
If you alter one, the rest changes too.
The further and further compressed masters were not a result of engineers thinking that was 'better' but simply the result of a specific way that the music industry was at the time and the financial rewards in doing so.
A huge emphasis was put on the first single from an album to hit high in the chart. That was done through radio play and getting people to go out and buy a CD single in order to get free publicity through a chart position gained through providing them as a loss leader to make money by selling their album.
An artist was made or disappeared on the basis of how 'loud' their song sounded on the radio and how many people got on the bus to HMV to buy their single in a few days.
Over the last 10 years the industry has changed totally from that in almost every way and the reasons why the trend to compress have taken a back seat. If buyers vote with their pockets and demand is created for 24 bit masters, then of course is clearly is worthwhile mastering music so that 24 bit audio is worthwhile - that would be a much less compressed way.
TheInternet said:
JustinP1 said:
My post in full does explain that.
Through history, the art, the technology of production, the culture of distribution, and the technology of consumption are all interlinked.
If you alter one, the rest changes too.
The further and further compressed masters were not a result of engineers thinking that was 'better' but simply the result of a specific way that the music industry was at the time and the financial rewards in doing so.
A huge emphasis was put on the first single from an album to hit high in the chart. That was done through radio play and getting people to go out and buy a CD single in order to get free publicity through a chart position gained through providing them as a loss leader to make money by selling their album.
An artist was made or disappeared on the basis of how 'loud' their song sounded on the radio and how many people got on the bus to HMV to buy their single in a few days.
Over the last 10 years the industry has changed totally from that in almost every way and the reasons why the trend to compress have taken a back seat. If buyers vote with their pockets and demand is created for 24 bit masters, then of course is clearly is worthwhile mastering music so that 24 bit audio is worthwhile - that would be a much less compressed way.
I pretty much agree with all that, and wasn't disagreeing before just could foresee that the quest for loudness could easily continue with any new technical standard. If the new format were seen as a premium product for the discerning listener, as vinyl has become, and was produced as such, it might just work.Through history, the art, the technology of production, the culture of distribution, and the technology of consumption are all interlinked.
If you alter one, the rest changes too.
The further and further compressed masters were not a result of engineers thinking that was 'better' but simply the result of a specific way that the music industry was at the time and the financial rewards in doing so.
A huge emphasis was put on the first single from an album to hit high in the chart. That was done through radio play and getting people to go out and buy a CD single in order to get free publicity through a chart position gained through providing them as a loss leader to make money by selling their album.
An artist was made or disappeared on the basis of how 'loud' their song sounded on the radio and how many people got on the bus to HMV to buy their single in a few days.
Over the last 10 years the industry has changed totally from that in almost every way and the reasons why the trend to compress have taken a back seat. If buyers vote with their pockets and demand is created for 24 bit masters, then of course is clearly is worthwhile mastering music so that 24 bit audio is worthwhile - that would be a much less compressed way.
If you play out the scenario where Apple are promoting the benefits of 24 bit iPods for example, the selling point of those *is* the greater dynamic range, which will be naturally demanded from the source material.
JustinP1 said:
If you play out the scenario where Apple are promoting the benefits of 24 bit iPods for example, the selling point of those *is* the greater dynamic range, which will be naturally demanded from the source material.
I'm all for them spinning it that way, as long you can get these HDR recordings on CD too. 
TheInternet said:
Jobbo said:
think the reasoning is that music isn't recorded in a compressed or clipped state; that's a result of the mastering from 24 bit to 16 bit. Vinyl masters of the same tracks aren't clipped. If 24 bit is offered, it is maybe optimistic, but not unrealistic, to think that it may be mastered to have a proper dynamic range and not suffer from clipping.
The bit in italics is not the case. The compression and clipping is entirely due to the attempts to make the recording louder and nothing to do with the technical limitations.Clearly the 24 bit originals won't be clipped, so it's quite possible to offer 24 bit downloads which are unclipped and utilise the full dynamic range; whether or not it makes any perceptible difference using 24 bits over 16 when mastered properly, 24 bit recordings will surely be marketed as having a greater dynamic range. That's the USP. Compressed (both dynamically and literally) 16 bit downloads for the singles chart, but 24 bit HQ versions at a higher price? Why else would they do it?
Jobbo said:
I didn't say anything about technical limitations - it's done deliberately, as Justin has already said, but it's done as part of the mastering process and conversion from 24 to 16 bit.
To say that it's part of the mastering process (for digital media) is sufficient, the way you put it implied that going from 24 to 16 bit is a factor.Jobbo said:
Clearly the 24 bit originals won't be clipped, so it's quite possible to offer 24 bit downloads which are unclipped and utilise the full dynamic range; whether or not it makes any perceptible difference using 24 bits over 16 when mastered properly, 24 bit recordings will surely be marketed as having a greater dynamic range. That's the USP. Compressed (both dynamically and literally) 16 bit downloads for the singles chart, but 24 bit HQ versions at a higher price? Why else would they do it?
I think we all agree on the concept, however I dislike the white-lie that drives it.TheInternet said:
Jobbo said:
I didn't say anything about technical limitations - it's done deliberately, as Justin has already said, but it's done as part of the mastering process and conversion from 24 to 16 bit.
To say that it's part of the mastering process (for digital media) is sufficient, the way you put it implied that going from 24 to 16 bit is a factor.JABB said:
How many on here can honestly say they can play 24/96?
You mean how many people have the hardware to play it or the technical know-how to play it?Anyone with a semi-modern computer can play 24/96
I can play them direct from the computer, off the (modified) iPod or stream through the network and decode at the amp.
Dibblington said:
You mean how many people have the hardware to play it or the technical know-how to play it?
Anyone with a semi-modern computer can play 24/96
I can play them direct from the computer, off the (modified) iPod or stream through the network and decode at the amp.
Well, both really.Anyone with a semi-modern computer can play 24/96
I can play them direct from the computer, off the (modified) iPod or stream through the network and decode at the amp.
Computer set ups, if new enough can play, but most won't know how / what / why.
It does require a lot of tinkering to store and play them.
JABB said:
Well, both really.
Computer set ups, if new enough can play, but most won't know how / what / why.
It does require a lot of tinkering to store and play them.
It hardly takes any tinkering, 24/192 sound cards have been around for donkey's years, you set the driver up and whatever music player you use just plays the files. The run of the mill bumph like Windows Media Player or iTunes doesn't recognise flac but an audio/ computer enthusiast wouldn't touch WMP or iTunes with a barge pole.Computer set ups, if new enough can play, but most won't know how / what / why.
It does require a lot of tinkering to store and play them.
Storing is no harder than mp3, hard drive space is at a record low price when a 1TB HD can be had for £32. Flac uses ID3 tags to keep track of the information just the same as any music file.
But yeah, most people (the 95%ile WMP/ iTunes population) won't know what the need is for 24/96, but these people aren't interested in the quality of the latest McDonalds radio filler, they want to buy a cheap track, listen to it a couple of times and forget all about it
Anyone with an A/V amp can play 24/96.
Considering the exponential numbers of people now owning those, I would say that was the target.
Such a format doesn't work if only audiophiles buy it. The market is too small. DVD-Audio and SACD showed that.
However, if you can get the 'middle ground' to adopt it, then you have a winner.
Considering the exponential numbers of people now owning those, I would say that was the target.
Such a format doesn't work if only audiophiles buy it. The market is too small. DVD-Audio and SACD showed that.
However, if you can get the 'middle ground' to adopt it, then you have a winner.
With people owning massive hard drives and super-quick internet commections there's not really any reason not to go for flac and 24-bit flac. The market needs to lead it because people will just download the same mp3 format they're used to.
Doesn't help when the ipod doesn't support flac as standard and you have to hack it to get it to play them, invalidating the warranty. But if the hardware is capable of playing the format, why do Apple prevent us from doing so as standard?
If they get the ipod mass market to convert they've won but the ipod culture is about being easy to use, the ipod market is focusses on mass volume sales rather than quality
Doesn't help when the ipod doesn't support flac as standard and you have to hack it to get it to play them, invalidating the warranty. But if the hardware is capable of playing the format, why do Apple prevent us from doing so as standard?
If they get the ipod mass market to convert they've won but the ipod culture is about being easy to use, the ipod market is focusses on mass volume sales rather than quality
Dibblington said:
With people owning massive hard drives and super-quick internet commections there's not really any reason not to go for flac and 24-bit flac. The market needs to lead it because people will just download the same mp3 format they're used to.
Doesn't help when the ipod doesn't support flac as standard and you have to hack it to get it to play them, invalidating the warranty. But if the hardware is capable of playing the format, why do Apple prevent us from doing so as standard?
If they get the ipod mass market to convert they've won but the ipod culture is about being easy to use, the ipod market is focusses on mass volume sales rather than quality
Agreed that if apple allowed the ipod to play FLAC music it would really allow it to take-off. I for one dislike having to transcode all my FLAC into MP3 to get it on my iphone!Doesn't help when the ipod doesn't support flac as standard and you have to hack it to get it to play them, invalidating the warranty. But if the hardware is capable of playing the format, why do Apple prevent us from doing so as standard?
If they get the ipod mass market to convert they've won but the ipod culture is about being easy to use, the ipod market is focusses on mass volume sales rather than quality
Even if the downloads were not 24/96, but were good-old 16/44.1, i'd still use the service. To do this they need to move to FLAC or some format other than MP3 though.
Thing is the ipod is capable of playing flac but the Apple walled garden prevents us from doing it. You have to hack the firmware which invalidates any warranty.
Don't know if it's a licensing issue with the codec or they just assumed nobody would understand or want to play flac and dumbed down the firmware to prevent us from playing flac files.
Don't know if it's a licensing issue with the codec or they just assumed nobody would understand or want to play flac and dumbed down the firmware to prevent us from playing flac files.
Dibblington said:
Thing is the ipod is capable of playing flac but the Apple walled garden prevents us from doing it. You have to hack the firmware which invalidates any warranty.
Don't know if it's a licensing issue with the codec or they just assumed nobody would understand or want to play flac and dumbed down the firmware to prevent us from playing flac files.
FLAC is open source (FLAC = Free Lossless Audio Codec), Apple wouldn't just count it out assuming nobody would understand it, more likely a calculated decision on their part.Don't know if it's a licensing issue with the codec or they just assumed nobody would understand or want to play flac and dumbed down the firmware to prevent us from playing flac files.
Sonic said:
Dibblington said:
Thing is the ipod is capable of playing flac but the Apple walled garden prevents us from doing it. You have to hack the firmware which invalidates any warranty.
Don't know if it's a licensing issue with the codec or they just assumed nobody would understand or want to play flac and dumbed down the firmware to prevent us from playing flac files.
FLAC is open source (FLAC = Free Lossless Audio Codec), Apple wouldn't just count it out assuming nobody would understand it, more likely a calculated decision on their part.Don't know if it's a licensing issue with the codec or they just assumed nobody would understand or want to play flac and dumbed down the firmware to prevent us from playing flac files.
Maybe the step to get customers to convert to FLAC isn't worth the 30% space saving?
Certainly for me, I've never bothered using anything but WAV.
Beyond a meagre handful (by comparison) of audiophiles, who in the real world knows of or understands much over MP3 and possibly WAV?
Even AAC is likely to generate a look of bewilderment on their faces.
So let's not kid ourselves there's any real intrinsic value behind iDevices and iTunes being able to use FLAC files, certainly not at least whilst ALE exists.
Has anyone done any critical listening to both formats?
What differences, if any, could you repeatedly hear?
Even AAC is likely to generate a look of bewilderment on their faces.
So let's not kid ourselves there's any real intrinsic value behind iDevices and iTunes being able to use FLAC files, certainly not at least whilst ALE exists.
Has anyone done any critical listening to both formats?
What differences, if any, could you repeatedly hear?
PJ S said:
Beyond a meagre handful (by comparison) of audiophiles, who in the real world knows of or understands much over MP3 and possibly WAV?
Even AAC is likely to generate a look of bewilderment on their faces.
So let's not kid ourselves there's any real intrinsic value behind iDevices and iTunes being able to use FLAC files, certainly not at least whilst ALE exists.
Has anyone done any critical listening to both formats?
What differences, if any, could you repeatedly hear?
It makes a lot of difference! Just try it, encode a track from CD to flac and mp3 and switch between the 2 on your home stereo, only takes 10 minutes.Even AAC is likely to generate a look of bewilderment on their faces.
So let's not kid ourselves there's any real intrinsic value behind iDevices and iTunes being able to use FLAC files, certainly not at least whilst ALE exists.
Has anyone done any critical listening to both formats?
What differences, if any, could you repeatedly hear?
I'm no audiophile, my car stereo (BMW 3-series standard 'Business CD') is woefully poor at music reproduction with road and wind noise in the car. With the ipod plugged in there is a big difference between flac and mp3, flac fills in some of the missing bass from mp3s.
On the home hi-fi (Onkyo TX-NR808 bi-wired to Mission M72 speakers - midrange stuff, nowhere near audiophile kit) and the ipod through earphones the difference is vast, more richness in the bass, more detail in the high notes, the clarity in voices comes through. The difference between flac and mp3 is clear to anyone, not just those with high-end kit to get the most out of it.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff