iTunes to start selling hi rez files!

[Leroy Bad]

And that setting is all or nothing. Either all of the lossless files on an iPod are converted to AAC or none of them are.

 

Oh man , whats so stupid about that auto conversion, is that if you have mp3s in variable bitrate rates, like say 257kbps or a 320kbps file, iTunes will still RECOMPRESS it for syncing...someone cleary didn't think that function through. Why on earth would anyone have high res lossless music and want to compress it to 256kbps or recompress already compressed music? You'd think that the auto conversion would still have a lossless option.

[Paul R]

I can't remember the specifics, but off the top of my head...the iPod Touch has a more powerful headphone output, and a different Cirrus audio chip with a flatter frequency response, less ram but faster CPU than the iPhone.

source:Apple iPod Touch 5G review

 

But like iPhones, they can store hires and play it back with an appropriate DAC, I think? I have been playing with the iDSD and have not had any trouble at all moving hires files to an iPhone 5. Even DSD files...

[Leroy Bad]

But like iPhones, they can store hires and play it back with an appropriate DAC, I think? I have been playing with the iDSD and have not had any trouble at all moving hires files to an iPhone 5. Even DSD files...

 

 

Weeellll Yes. I use Onkyo HF Player for the same purpose, but thats cheating since suff over 48khz is downsampled out the headphone jack. And the DACs with lightning connectors and high res support are expensive. It would be better if it were in the hardware. Basically we need a iPod Touch 6 with it's own internal hi res DAC.

[Black]

Apple will release it, call it HD Music or something like that, will make millions and in a few years we will all be calling it HD Music too.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Think you pretty much nailed it. 8 years ago Hi-Rez to me was DVD-A or SACD with DSD. That's what I called it. It's getting watered down more and more.

 

It's going to be like the people who generalize and say--"vinyl sounds best". I mean, I hate and avoid ANYONE who states that. It's so misinforming and not even worth the time to debate. Though, I do tell them, "You know there's very little that analog about that new Thrill Jockey LP you bought?" Even then, there's another million layers.

 

Ehh…if people will pay over $100 for an HDMI Cable, I'm all good, even thought it's a joke. They subsidize my hobby. Same with "HD Music".

[gabeg]

iTunes will start selling hi rez files in 2 months. Hopefully they will put hdtracks out of business once and for all!

 

Holy Cow! This is a horrible thing to hope for.

 

First, if anyone thinks their going to get 24/192 or DSD from itunes any time in the foreseeable future (or ever) they're dreaming. Dsd, in particular, isn't on anyone's radar except for people reading this site and a few others. In other words, fringe.

 

Second, regarding Hd tracks being put out of business. I certainly hope not. If you think itunes is going to offer anything different than hdtrack, pono, etc. you'll be disappointed: it all comes from the "record" companies. Same compression, same eq, etc etc etc. And with DRM.

 

People seem to forget, though not perfect, HDtracks was the first and still the biggest library on hi rez real music. Warts and all.

[HeadStrong]

Apple - I'll take an iPhone 6 with a FPGA DAC please... Feel free to put them in all your devices while you're at it...

[new_media]

Where are people getting the idea that Apple would use DRM on their hi-res files? That would be completely brain dead and Apple knows it.

[Paul R]

It's the typical Apple Bashing coming out, in a minor non-rabid form. Apple is EVIL, don't you know? They can't invent anything and they are always about to be destroyed by whomever the PC darling of the week is... yada yada yada...

 

-Paul

 

 

Where are people getting the idea that Apple would use DRM on their hi-res files? That would be completely brain dead and Apple knows it.

[InfernoSTi]

Rumors, new_media, rumors. Just like that Apple is going 24 bit is a rumor until it is officially announced. In other words, it is all just made up.

[wgscott]

Where are people getting the idea that Apple would use DRM on their hi-res files? That would be completely brain dead and Apple knows it.

 

This thread is about propagating rumors or outright falsehoods. Can't you just play along?

 

First the troll who got himself banned has managed, in absentia, to whip up this thread and a bunch of other rumor-replicating threads throughout audiophooldom.

 

Then, if someone claims AAC or mp3 files are recompressed, just accept it as true. Don't check the facts. Reality simply isn't nearly as much fun.

 

Then we have the "fact" that Apple will watermark the files, but then if we check the comments section on the linked rumor-repeating file, we see that rumor was countered with the suggestion that it will be no more than putting your email address in the metadata, which is what they already do now.

 

There are probably several more.

 

I recently heard all the people who own Bose audio products stayed home from work in NYC on Sept. 11th, 2001.

[wgscott]

Rumors, new_media, rumors. Just like that Apple is going 24 bit is a rumor until it is officially announced. In other words, it is all just made up.

 

Sorry, your level-headed response got posted while I was typing my rant.

 

But come to think of it, isn't that pretty much how everything works in this hobby?

[Hiro]

Article from AudioStream.

 

The article only mentions 24/48 PCM downloads. Are they considered Hi-Res?

 

[InfernoSTi]

Here is the rub…there is no definition of "hi res" that exists (as far as I know). It is a relative thing…is "hi res" the "highest possible" or just "higher" than what is currently offered or "highest based on recorded/mastered resolution" or what?

 

To "us" high resolution usually starts at 24/44 (or DSD64) but for iTunes it starts at 16/44. I would argue that lossless is high resolution compared to today's lossy iTunes downloads.

[ted_b]

Hirez computer audio is generally considered to be any 24 bit sample rate equal to or above 44.1k (i.e greater than redbook). Please, let's not go the way of Rhino back when they were calling their short-lived 16/44 download site "high definition" cuz it was better than their Mp3 option. That's like saying DVD is hidef cuz it's better than VHS. ? DVD (480i) is not hidef; no one in the video world would give you that. Please don't start saying lossless 16/44.1 is hirez cuz it's better than lossy codecs.

[InfernoSTi]

Hirez computer audio is generally considered to be any 24 bit sample rate equal to or above 44.1k (i.e greater than redbook). Please, let's not go the way of Rhino back when they were calling their short-lived 16/44 download site "high definition" cuz it was better than their Mp3 option. That's like saying DVD is hidef cuz it's better than VHS. ? DVD (480i) is not hidef; no one in the video world would give you that. Please don't start saying lossless 16/44.1 is hirez cuz it's better than lossy codecs.

 

That is clearly the "us" definition I gave, above, Ted.

 

Where is that agreed upon by anyone but us? To be fair to others, there are many who feel that 16/44 is more like 1080p. I don't know that it is as clear cut agreement as you might be implying. There is a whole thread on this and we couldn't agree with ourselves what the equivalent video standards corresponded to with audio formats.

 

So while would like to I agree with you, Ted, the lack of standards for what is hi-res is a major issue for those of us who want "it" (whatever "it" is agreed to be).

 

John

[tmkirst]

I say we just call this hi-rez thing (or at least develop a standard naming convention first; either High Resolution, Hi-Res, hirez, etc.. first and then land on the next set of specs {i suggest bit depth}) a non-starter. Lets all logout and see a show; I can recommend PHANTOGRAM | First Avenue locally.

[InfernoSTi]

Not a bad idea at all…last time I was in Minn/St P, I saw a show at First Street (Franz Ferdinand). Nice venue…

 

John

[tmkirst]

hah - Thanks InfernoSTI - had to log back in to respond to the Franz Ferdinand comment at First Ave. Not my favorite group based on streaming selections, but the show was truly a pleasant surprise. They somehow managed to play their music over an industrial-size stack of ElectroVoice PA's at 0 bits/0 sample rate.

[Savage]

I say we just call this hi-rez thing (or at least develop a standard naming convention first; either High Resolution, Hi-Res, hirez, etc.. first and then land on the next set of specs {i suggest bit depth}) a non-starter. Lets all logout and see a show; I can recommend PHANTOGRAM | First Avenue locally.

 

I would call Sarah Barthel hi-res visually

[gabeg]

 

Second, regarding Hd tracks being put out of business. I certainly hope not. If you think itunes is going to offer anything different than hdtrack, pono, etc. you'll be disappointed: it all comes from the "record" companies. Same compression, same eq, etc etc etc. And with DRM.

 

 

I want to apologize for adding to the DRM rumor and apple. I obviously didn't research well. My reason for the post wasn't to be anti-apple (or pro hdtracks), my point was that it's highly likely that the content we get from any of these sites is going to be from the same source/mastering when it comes to the major labels (and even minors). Bashing one retailer for bad sound and you need to bash them all but really it's the labels.

[audiocat]

Apple is in the business of selling fast-food quality music DLs. Everything is recorded loud, it helps mask the quality of crap that main stream has become. Hi res works on decently levelled recordings. IOWs they are not about to cut their golden goose to appease a small community.

 

if they try it will fade out.

[khaos_dj]

I enjoyed reading this thread.

 

Lets hope it is true so that the few songs (now 10% of my purchases from iTunes) I buy from iTunes will be worth now.

[cheezmo]

There is nothing stupid about it at all. The purpose of that function is to be able to fit more songs on your iDevice when it is full. By recompressing everything to a smaller size you can fit more songs. That is all there is to it and the people that are using that function haven't given quality a thought and likely won't notice the difference.

 

Oh man , whats so stupid about that auto conversion, is that if you have mp3s in variable bitrate rates, like say 257kbps or a 320kbps file, iTunes will still RECOMPRESS it for syncing...someone cleary didn't think that function through. Why on earth would anyone have high res lossless music and want to compress it to 256kbps or recompress already compressed music? You'd think that the auto conversion would still have a lossless option.

[Leroy Bad]

There is nothing stupid about it at all. The purpose of that function is to be able to fit more songs on your iDevice when it is full. By recompressing everything to a smaller size you can fit more songs. That is all there is to it and the people that are using that function haven't given quality a thought and likely won't notice the difference.

 

 

I dont blame the uninformed users I blame bad engineering.

[new_media]

There is nothing stupid about it at all. The purpose of that function is to be able to fit more songs on your iDevice when it is full. By recompressing everything to a smaller size you can fit more songs. That is all there is to it and the people that are using that function haven't given quality a thought and likely won't notice the difference.

 

I do wish it was more customizable, though. I would like to have it compress the 24/96 files to a format the iPod can play but leave the 16/44 ALAC and 320 MP3 untouched.