Apple has only confirrned 256kbps, but not that it will be AAC. Probably should wait for that before demanding the article be taken down.
AppleInsider should know better than the leave open such an important detail. To claim in the headline "Apple using 256kbps", without mentioning the codec, and then in the story say that "Beats is using 320kbps MP3", it's designed to create controversy, discussion and, ultimately, page views for ad revenue.
AAC was invented by the same German company who came up with MP3. AAC was supposed to be a better standard in terms of quality vs. file size and was intended to replace MP3 but MP3 still lives to this day. I imagine that Spotify is using Ogg Vorbis since they don't have to pay a royalty.
That being said, I would have paid a premium for CD quality or better. Maybe one of these days we'll get it. Right now, Tidal is the only game in town for audiophiles.
AAC was invented by the same German company who came up with MP3.
AAC was developed by a committee of MPEG. While it contains significant work by Fraunhofer, it also contains work by Dolby, Sony, Microsoft, NTT DoCoMo, AT&T Bell Labs and others. The IP from the HE extension is mostly by Coding Technologies.
Fraunhofer isn't a company either, it's a research organization owned by the German government.
I was just going to post that I'm disappointed in hearing this but I totally forgot about iTunes Plus. iTunes Plus sounds really good to me, even better than 320kpbs mp3's I have. Now the only downfall, most of the music I have from iTunes aren't Plus songs.
Does Apple still offer normal songs? I thought everything that I purchase now on iTunes are Plus? Am I wrong? ( I only purchase music via iPhone, not Mac)
Bit rate? You gotta be kidding. While the tech bloggers are busy finding fault with Apple Music, let's also mention that Apple is losing (or "loosing" in trollspeak) the camera megapixel race too.
Has there been any research done to see if the average user can tell the difference between 128, 256, 320? I'm talking about your average music listener, not audiophiles.
Average should never be the standard. It would have been nice to get top quality. Most of us now listen to music purchased from iTunes at home, and it would be nice if we could have the option to get top quality tracks. I am not an audiophile, but even on my inexpensive B&W sustem, I can hear the difference between iTunes Plus and CD. Easily, not even a competition.
Fan-Bloody-Tastic. All the insincere hyperbole from Apple about maintaining respect for an artists musical integrity and then Apple inflict data-reduction across the board. No choice. Just a measly 256kbps. Fine if you like Pop, Springsteen, U2, RAP and Dire Straights. Not nearly adequate enough for well recorded and produced work.
Does Apple still offer normal songs? I thought everything that I purchase now on iTunes are Plus? Am I wrong? ( I only purchase music via iPhone, not Mac)
I don't think so. I'm sure everything you've purchased is iTunes Plus. I have a ton of stuff I bought years ago before Apple made music DRM free.
Correction for you – *most* people don't care. But those that do will hear the difference.
It's not that no one cares, it's that no one cares about people that say they can hear the difference. And most importantly, Apple doesn't care. They love music so much they would prefer audio snobs subscribe to a different service better suited to their ears. I'm not criticizing you/them because I'm a video snob and understand that no one wants to hear me go on about how sensitive and great my eyes are and how 1080p doesn't cut it compared to 4k, HDR and uncompressed video.
I don't, I think this "inside info" sounds a little fishy, one of the biggest things Reznor was concerned about with Beats was providing ONLY the highest quality possible.
Average should never be the standard. It would have been nice to get top quality. Most of us now listen to music purchased from iTunes at home, and it would be nice if we could have the option to get top quality tracks. I am not an audiophile, but even on my inexpensive B&W sustem, I can hear the difference between iTunes Plus and CD. Easily, not even a competition.
Average is the standard by mathematical definition. Substandard would be rubbish.
Apple needs to allow Ad Block to be installed in Mobile Safari. I can barely browse this forum due to the flood of ads all over the page. Is the front page not enough?
It's not that no one cares, it's that no one cares about people that say they can hear the difference. And most importantly, Apple doesn't care. They love music so much they would prefer audio snobs subscribe to a different service better suited to their ears. I'm not criticizing you/them because I'm a video snob and understand that no one wants to hear me go on about how sensitive and great my eyes are and how 1080p doesn't cut it compared to 4k, HDR and uncompressed video.
Just like no one wants to hear me go on about how LaserDisc is the best format for purists who don't want all that nasty DNR and other crap, and don't want the icky sound of DVD. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Many people can't tell the difference between various audio codecs/sampling rates, especially those that grew up listening exclusively to MP3s. You can test yourself at NPR's music news site "The Record".
Comments
If it matters here's what Beats had to say about their music streamer: It's not ridiculous to think Apple may do the same.
https://support.beatsmusic.com/hc/en-us/articles/200459220-What-audio-quality-bitrate-does-Beats-Music-support-
Apple should just claim its 1024 bits, because no one can tell the difference anyway.
Correction for you – *most* people don't care. But those that do will hear the difference.
Apple has only confirrned 256kbps, but not that it will be AAC. Probably should wait for that before demanding the article be taken down.
AppleInsider should know better than the leave open such an important detail. To claim in the headline "Apple using 256kbps", without mentioning the codec, and then in the story say that "Beats is using 320kbps MP3", it's designed to create controversy, discussion and, ultimately, page views for ad revenue.
It's all good.
Fodder for the tech spec monkeys, that’s all.
That being said, I would have paid a premium for CD quality or better. Maybe one of these days we'll get it. Right now, Tidal is the only game in town for audiophiles.
AAC was invented by the same German company who came up with MP3.
AAC was developed by a committee of MPEG. While it contains significant work by Fraunhofer, it also contains work by Dolby, Sony, Microsoft, NTT DoCoMo, AT&T Bell Labs and others. The IP from the HE extension is mostly by Coding Technologies.
Fraunhofer isn't a company either, it's a research organization owned by the German government.
Does Apple still offer normal songs? I thought everything that I purchase now on iTunes are Plus? Am I wrong? ( I only purchase music via iPhone, not Mac)
Average should never be the standard. It would have been nice to get top quality. Most of us now listen to music purchased from iTunes at home, and it would be nice if we could have the option to get top quality tracks. I am not an audiophile, but even on my inexpensive B&W sustem, I can hear the difference between iTunes Plus and CD. Easily, not even a competition.
Fan-Bloody-Tastic. All the insincere hyperbole from Apple about maintaining respect for an artists musical integrity and then Apple inflict data-reduction across the board. No choice. Just a measly 256kbps. Fine if you like Pop, Springsteen, U2, RAP and Dire Straights. Not nearly adequate enough for well recorded and produced work.
Does Apple still offer normal songs? I thought everything that I purchase now on iTunes are Plus? Am I wrong? ( I only purchase music via iPhone, not Mac)
I don't think so. I'm sure everything you've purchased is iTunes Plus. I have a ton of stuff I bought years ago before Apple made music DRM free.
Average is the standard by mathematical definition. Substandard would be rubbish.
It's not that no one cares, it's that no one cares about people that say they can hear the difference. And most importantly, Apple doesn't care. They love music so much they would prefer audio snobs subscribe to a different service better suited to their ears. I'm not criticizing you/them because I'm a video snob and understand that no one wants to hear me go on about how sensitive and great my eyes are and how 1080p doesn't cut it compared to 4k, HDR and uncompressed video.
Just like no one wants to hear me go on about how LaserDisc is the best format for purists who don't want all that nasty DNR and other crap, and don't want the icky sound of DVD.
Many people can't tell the difference between various audio codecs/sampling rates, especially those that grew up listening exclusively to MP3s. You can test yourself at NPR's music news site "The Record".
http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality