If Apple were to turn iTunes CD Quality and Hi-Res...how long would it take?

Perhaps the future will be 95% of albums ever recorded being available in Hi-Res or at least CD quality (16Bit). So you log-in from any device in any location and access your directory to stream.

But just pondering if iTunes suddenly decided to up the bitrate of their song files, how long would it take and how would they do it?

 

Not much, I suppose. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that Apple has already a lossless archive of everything issued on the store. But frankly I wouldn't hold my breath for the eventuality of a lossless iTunes Store.

 

I wish all download sites offered lossless quality rather then lossy. I personally would purchase more of them that's for sure. I refuse to pay the same for an MP3 that I do for a cd.

 

This is fascinating. From 5 years ago...
"iPods are the most ubiquitous music-playing devices on the planet, but are they the best sounding? Not exactly. iPods tapped into the boom of the MP3, and with iTunes and its own AAC encoding system, Apple quickly grabbed control of the lossy audio world and never let go. That position is what makes a recent statement from the chairman of the A&M record label so intriguing--he claims that Apple is interested in offering hi-fi 24-bit audio files on the iTunes music store."
The Real Differences Between 16-Bit and 24-Bit Audio - Tested.com

 

The idea that they'd go from lossy AAC files to lossless 24 bit is nonsense. It simply doesn't make sense.

They're also probably reluctant to offer lossless 16/44.1 because there's not much room to charge more for them, than what they're charging for lossy already.

 

When The Beatles offer 24-bit, 96 or 192kHz flac files for download purchase, Apple will suddenly re-brand themselves as the "Home of High-Reolution Audio" and market new devices (iPods, phones, whatever) that can accurately play the files.

Or not

 

Apple Music will go to CD-quality streaming at some point.

 

I'm sure that comment is simply what led to Mastered For iTunes.

 

It would be good if they can then match your iTunes Library for a subscription service. You could dial up an old album you ripped several years ago at 128kbps and it would sound like the compact disc.

 

Or you could just type that album into the search box and add it to your library?

I love the idea of 'matching,' but I've had very mixed results all around on this, going back several years and services. So far Apple is the only streaming service that lets you build a nearly unlimited personal library to browse and shuffle (Spotify caps at 10,000 tracks, and Tidal has a similar cap), so I'm kind of tied to it, because that's how I like to use/browse a service. (Rdio really did this the best, RIP Rdio)

 

I'm a big fan of Qobuz
For quality and simplicity.
Qobuz - Unlimited music and downloading in 24-Bit Hi-Res.

 

Would Apple have to renegotiate licenses with the various labels to offer lossless downloads and / or streaming? If so, that could take a bit to work through all the legal stuff.

 

Apple has required lossless masters for many years.

 

I would like it for them to go lossless, even if it's locked down, drm'd and ALAC only. There are too many things that are exclusive to iTunes that I can not buy anywhere else. Some of which is already completely gone from the iTunes Store too so I can't even buy it from there if I haven't already. I'm hoping they'll have some system to re-download old purchases in lossless, even if there's an upcharge


Theoretically they could flip a switch and it would be done rather quickly. They refuse to offer it due to stubbornness and marketing. They'll make a big deal of it when they do it.

 

It would take about as long as it takes for them to get the rights to do so, Apple does all the AAC encoding in house I believe to it's just a matter of making the files they have into a deliverable format. Truth is I think Mastered for iTunes is probably good enough quality that they won't bother. What I'm really curious about is whether or not they use the Mastered for iTunes encodes for Apple Music or if they do a seperate encode specifically for the streaming service. Not that I could tell the difference between Mastered for iTunes and a standard 256k AAC file.

 

Schubert, Sibelius : Death & the Maiden, Intimate Voices | Compositeurs Divers par Ehnes Quartet

Well this
Schubert, Sibelius : Death & the Maiden, Intimate Voices | Compositeurs Divers par Ehnes Quartet
sure piques my interest, but it is past time to go to bed. How does the streaming part work?

 

I'm sure 97% of their customers feel 256k AAC is fine, and that actually 90?% of them don't even think about it at all. Apple doesn't care about the fringes, they serve their mass constituency. One of their chief engineers actually told me so to my face. And it makes a lot of sense as a way to make money-like the old 80/20 business rule.

The only reason I can see Apple going to higher quality would be
- just because they can
- to try and push iTunes Music as advantageous over other services.

My friend says I could use Siri to pick music while driving, which would be a killer app for me. But I still stick with Spotify as I have a family plan and my brother and child are all wired with Spotify, they don't want to change.

 

Well, Apple won't offer lossless music because they don't have to. Their customer base is still the largest in the industry. Lossy files is working for them just fine, and, besides, streaming is the thing now, and most people who stream don't know or care about the quality of the stream as long as it "sounds good". "Most" people think iTunes has CD quality already, and now that they offer "Made For iTunes", people think it somehow superior to CD.

 

We were supposed to get Qobuz here in the U.S. last year, and the deal fell through. Some company bought them, I think. Maybe Apple had a hand in killing it. I don't know. I wouldn't put it past them. Anyway, it would have been great.

But none of it will matter once Pono gets back up and running in the next 10 years.

 

Anyone know what 'Mastered for iTunes' actually means? As someone who doesn't play their music through cheap earbuds, it worries me!

 

For streaming it's easy and you can stream in Hi Res but I am aware that BlueTooth can not handle Hi Res.
And if you join you can have that album, complete with cover and notes in Hi Res for £7.99!

 

Why would it worry you? As far as I know it's like THX, it's a series of standards which the Master file must meet, Apple prefers to be sent high resolution files with good dynamics.

 

The general public doesn't care about hi-res, or even lossless quality. They are pretty happy with high quality mp3s, so no player in the field is eager to better their sound quality. Tidal offers lossless, but at the moment it can't compete with Spotify and Apple, Deezer started to offer lossless and it went basically unnoticed.

 

Well, are they not changing the original music to suit the mass market? The mass market being cheap Earbuds and bought coloured Bluetooth speakers.

 

Since earbuds are being mentioned: not all of them sound bad. And, a high-bit mp3 with decent earbuds played through a smartphone can sound quite good.