Article: Free Higher Resolution Upgrades*

[The Computer Audiophile]

View full article

[Rt66indierock]

When iOS 11 adoption gets to 50% (currently 25%) I could see an update to iTunes to allow CD quality purchases. Anything higher resolution there just isn't enough music or market share to bother with.

[Rattler]

Apple is only allowing 4K/HDR upgrade for STREAMING, not a downloaded file local copy. See...there is always a catch. This how Apple got the Movie companies to agree to this, more than likely.

 

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/09/21/itunes-4k-content-streaming-only/

[The Computer Audiophile]

Even if adoption was 100%, I don't see it happening with lossless or high resolution. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Rattler said:

Apple is only allowing 4K/HDR upgrade for STREAMING, not a downloaded file local copy. See...there is always a catch. This how Apple got the Movie companies to agree to this, more than likely.

 

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/09/21/itunes-4k-content-streaming-only/

 

Ah yes, there's always a catch. Thanks for the link.

[left channel]

> Yes, there was the PonoPromise, that said if a higher resolution version of a purchased album was made available, the consumer would get it at no charge. To the best of my knowledge, this option was never exercised by a single customer (hmm).

Music I bought at 24/96 was upgraded to 24/192 for free. I never bought anything at 16/44.1 from them, I mean what would have been the point?

> Outside of the Tidal MQA example, I don't see any company in high resolution music with any sizable leverage to persuade record labels into a "free" high resolution upgrade.

 

Good point. I doubt Qobuz has the clout. And the MQA deal is unique, focused more on growing market share and getting awareness out there than immediately squeezing every possible coin out of every file sold or streamed, and of course they also make money off hardware.

[AudioDoctor]

It's interesting nonetheless.

[kurb1980]

I'd rather have the expanded color gamut than the 4k with that said I'd rather have dynamic mastering over 192kHz MQA because what's the point of having the added frequency response if levels are squashed.

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

35 minutes ago, kurb1980 said:

I'd rather have the expanded color gamut than the 4k with that said I'd rather have dynamic mastering over 192kHz MQA because what's the point of having the added frequency response if levels are squashed.

 

 

 

Based on several posts with Micheal Ritter of Berkeley Audio Design, MQA isn't better than 24/192. And he tested the stuff for a year. 

[realhifi]

4 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Based on several posts with Micheal Ritter of Berkeley Audio Design, MQA isn't better than 24/192. And he tested the stuff for a year. 

 

IT ISN’T!? 

I’m being robbed then!  I paid for Tidal in 16/44 and now they are giving it to me at the same price in MQA and price and it doesn’t sound BETTER than 24/192!

oh.....wait.........oops heh....sorry......

[mansr]

4 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Based on several posts with Micheal Ritter of Berkeley Audio Design, MQA isn't better than 24/192. And he tested the stuff for a year. 

How could it when it only encodes 96 kHz?

[esldude]

20 minutes ago, mansr said:

How could it when it only encodes 96 kHz?

Because of de-blurring man.  De-blurring. 

 

Are you skeptical of deblurred 96 khz being better than regular old blurred 192 khz PCM?  Okay, don't answer that question.  

[Rt66indierock]

23 minutes ago, mansr said:

How could it when it only encodes 96 kHz?

 

I agree I didn't want to antagonize him any further on the TAS site when I thought I could do it at RMAF 2017 or better yet call him up. He is trying very hard to figure out who I am. I'm going to let when sweat for a while. 

[ecwl]

I think Apple is very strategic. Their own products, e.g. Apple TV, iMac, iPad and MacBooks can all take advantage of the 4K resolution (albeit with some down-resolution). Moreover, they’re trying to push their iPhones ability to shoot 4K. So their 4K strategy makes sense.

 

i doubt even with the new HomePod, or the best Apple speakers out of the iPad Pros, we would be able to hear significant improvements going from lossy to lossless to MQA to high-resolution music so I suspect that’s why Apple has not joined the high-resolution audio push...

[elcorso]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

How could it when it only encodes 96 kHz?

 

Since I remember they encodes 176.4 and their DACs reach 192.   Am I wrong?

 

Roch

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, elcorso said:

Since I remember they encodes 176.4 and their DACs reach 192.   Am I wrong?

Yes.

[Archimago]

A comment about 4K.

 

True, many movies/videos are just not going to benefit from 4K in the same way as most albums were never recorded in 24-bits nor can likely benefit from higher sample rates.

 

However, I do have a 75" 4K HDR TV and sit about 9-10' away. The extra resolution is appreciable with true 4K-worthy material even with mid-40-year-old eyes and when you add HDR to the mix, absolutely evident. (For an example, just look at the difference between standard 1080P and UHD Blu-Ray of Planet Earth II!)

 

I spoke about this resolution piece a couple years back when I got my first 4K screen:

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/03/musings-gone-4k-uhd.html

 

Audio CD --> hi-res audio is way more subtle (at best) IMO than 1080P --> 2160P/4K!

 

I'm no Apple fanboy but good for them for upgrading the resolution. Of course, benefits are only really significant if streaming bitrate is high enough and not just the resolution spec.

 

[Don Hills]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Yes.

 

Play fair, Mans. At least give him a sentence or two of explanation.

[wdw]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

Because of de-blurring man.  De-blurring. 

 

Are you skeptical of deblurred 96 khz being better than regular old blurred 192 khz PCM?  Okay, don't answer that question.  

Sound like some party, some time ago, when a dishevelled guy would hand you a glowing reefer and say.”man, this sh#t is totally deblurring, totally amazing,”

Yikes!

[The Computer Audiophile]

Guys - I think there is a thread or two about MQA, in which you can talk about all of your objections. Let's keep this one on topic. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 hours ago, Archimago said:

A comment about 4K.

 

True, many movies/videos are just not going to benefit from 4K in the same way as most albums were never recorded in 24-bits nor can likely benefit from higher sample rates.

 

However, I do have a 75" 4K HDR TV and sit about 9-10' away. The extra resolution is appreciable with true 4K-worthy material even with mid-40-year-old eyes and when you add HDR to the mix, absolutely evident. (For an example, just look at the difference between standard 1080P and UHD Blu-Ray of Planet Earth II!)

 

I spoke about this resolution piece a couple years back when I got my first 4K screen:

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/03/musings-gone-4k-uhd.html

 

Audio CD --> hi-res audio is way more subtle (at best) IMO than 1080P --> 2160P/4K!

 

I'm no Apple fanboy but good for them for upgrading the resolution. Of course, benefits are only really significant if streaming bitrate is high enough and not just the resolution spec.

 

Your comment about the bitrate is spot on. All the streaming 4k content is incredibly lossy, but nobody really talks about it.

[mrvco]

1. Apple sells hardware.  A 'free' upgrade to 4k/UHD streaming for content that you've already purchased will drive sales of the '4k' AppleTV.
2. Apple knows exactly what you bought and when.  All their video content (streaming and download) includes DRM.  There is no resale market for content bought from iTunes.
3. I'm assuming that any 4k streaming from iTunes will be utilizing the h.265 / HEVC codec, which will help minimize Apple's increased streaming costs relative to HD streaming using h.264 / AVC (with the bonus of no legacy ATV support issues).
4. Hollywood needs more and better ways to sell / rent 4k / UHD content.  Lots of people have 4k / UHD televisions, but very limited ways to access 4k / UHD content.  I expect that whatever negotiation Apple had to do with Hollywood to upgrade existing purchases to 4k / UHD streaming were pretty straightforward and mutually beneficial.
5. Anyone buying a new 4k / UHD panel are probably buying a much larger panel than what they bought for HD, which will benefit from actual UHD content in multiple facets (e.g. resolution, HDR and color palette).  High resolution audio could potentially be more impactful if increasing the 'size' of you overall system (e.g. larger room, larger speakers, stronger amplification) simultaneously.

 

Regardless, I think the Tidal / MQA comparison is apt (and Pono (RIP) for the most part as well).  Certainly all of Tidal's streams are DRM protected and the relationship between Tidal and MQA is mutually beneficial since it is introducing Tidal subscribers to MQA in far larger numbers across a far larger library of content than could be done otherwise.

 

The one critical aspect that MQA hardware does that UHD televisions do as well is notify you visually of the content's resolution.  It doesn't matter if someone can't visually tell the difference between HD and UHD, if the television UI doesn't tell them that it is receiving 4k / UHD content then they aren't going to believe they are getting what they paid for... same goes for MQA.

[esimms86]

Apple's motivation here is neither generosity nor innovation. They are going head to head against the Amazon Fire which has essentially the same set of features.

 

BTW, back in the days of the Ponomusic store I purchased NY Live at the Cellar Door and also NY Live at the Canterbury House, both in red book quality. I later received emails(yes, they sought me out) with links to download both recordings in 24/192.

 

[KDinsmore]

Originally on Pono if a higher resolution became available to your already HR download it was free.

[michael123]

Resolution media for audio means nothing, it is just a media, does not say anything about quality

 

While for video today 4K will most likely means better quality, objectively better.