Report insists Apple 'keeping options open' on phasing out iTunes downloads

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 41
    nburchnburch Posts: 1member
    geekmee said:
    Vinyl sales eventually withered, why should downloads be any different?
    Vinyl sales are on a 28 year high! http://fortune.com/2016/04/16/vinyl-sales-record-store-day/
    baconstangmattinoz
  • Reply 22 of 41
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    One quote of Prometheus (the movie) is really appropriate (picture the sound with it): "I was wrong. We were so wrong..."
  • Reply 23 of 41
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    I wonder how this plays into iTunes match?  Being able to 'download' a higher quality version than your original CD rips has always seemed a great feature but I just haven't had the time nor the inclination yet to re-download my 100 GBs of music.  Maybe this isn't an issue, can a audio tech expert here tell me if I re rip my CDs (boxes of them in attic) today would they be on par with what iTunes match downloads now?
    A rip of your CD will be sonically indistinguishable from an iTunes purchase, with a couple minor caveats.

    On rare occasions a CD with manufacturing errors or surface damage may result in a rip with an audible pop or tick. It happens infrequently enough that it's worth ripping your CDs and only replacing "bad" tracks (if you even wind up with any) with iTunes purchases.

    The other consideration is that it is technically possible for the label to produce an iTunes track that is ever-so-slightly technically superior to a CD version by not having to reduce the word length to 16 bit (assuming a higher depth master) but the difference is infinitesimal for a couple reasons.

    First, most modern music (with the possible exception of a few audiophile classical titles) is mastered to maximize loudness. This completely eliminates the benefits of a longer digital word, since the only benefit of more bits is wider range between the loudest and quietest values it can store.

    Second, most humans would not be able to detect the difference in range between 16 bit and 24 bit even under ideal circumstances.
    To be clear, and to others who answered (thank you all) I never mentioned 'iTunes purchased' material.  I was asking if the CDs I ripped a decade ago (maybe way more, the way time flies) and were used by iTunes  Match to give me access to Apple's Library in the cloud (and pertinent to this article perhaps, currently allow download at the newer Apple quality to my Mac)  would be better quality than if I re-ripped them myself from the original CDs using the latest technology.  The rest of your answer made sense to me.  It was a purely an 'out of interest' question really.  

    I am stupid as the question should have been ...  are my CDs higher or lower quality than what Apple now offer as downloadable?  That would have been a lot simpler!  :)  

    As to if I can hear the difference, absolutely not.  I used to own a recording studio on the side (just 8 track) and I still have a lot of that equipment too.  I can't even hear the 10K tone anymore! I currently am about to take a Quad amp, a pair of Nightingale NM1s and a load of other HiFi equipment to the dump.  My hearing is so terrible and I find my Vizio wireless surround sound system to sound as good as it gets for me now. /sigh
    argonaut
  • Reply 24 of 41
    This is a terrible idea. Why would I pay a subscription? My girlfriend streams music, but I don't see the point if you end the subscription you have nothing. It's not like the music Mafia used to come into your home and remove your cd's in the middle of the night if you stopped paying for "protection" (ownership). If this happens I believe cd's might probably make a comeback. 
    baconstang
  • Reply 25 of 41
    technotechno Posts: 737member
    JDP81 said:
    bobschlob said:
    This company is lost. They have no clue what to do anymore.
    I fought and fought for Cook; Jobs' hand-picked man. But I'm through.
    Think criticizing them over something that you don't even know if they're gonna do is a little premature. Even if this is totally true they're only responding to what consumers are choosing. I don't at all disagree with you but I think it's fair to actually wait and see what they're going to do before saying the most profitable company in the world is "lost".. they clearly don't make THAT many wrong decisions if they make as much money as they do.
    I think people are hoping that an outpouring of disapproval might influence the company's decision. 
  • Reply 26 of 41
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,015member
    I wonder how this plays into iTunes match?  Being able to 'download' a higher quality version than your original CD rips has always seemed a great feature but I just haven't had the time nor the inclination yet to re-download my 100 GBs of music.  Maybe this isn't an issue, can a audio tech expert here tell me if I re rip my CDs (boxes of them in attic) today would they be on par with what iTunes match downloads now?
    iTunes quality is nowhere near the quality of a CD rip. CD's are uncompressed sound. If you ripped your CD's now, the quality will be way better than what iTunes Match downloads. 

    EDIT: I wanted to add is if you are going to rip a ton of CD's, DO NOT use iTunes Match. It will ruin your collection. I know a lot of people in the music industry so my iTunes library is mostly filled with studio masters. When I first tried Apple Music, my whole library of studio masters was deleted. I waited a few months to give Apple Music another try and same thing happened on my second Mac. Thankfully I didn't have much music because it was a test. Until Apple Music doesn't require iTunes Match to download music, I wouldn't use it at all. 
    In general, you're wrong about iTunes, at least if we're talking about purchases.  I don't know about match.  A CD rip may or may not be compressed depending on what format you're using (AAC, Lossless, AIFF, etc.).  
  • Reply 27 of 41
    redefilerredefiler Posts: 323member
    sdw2001 said: 
    A rip of a CD should be indistinguishable (for the reasons you've mentioned and more), but in my experience, it's not.  When iTunes was using 128K compression, I found that purchased material sounded somewhat better than ripped content (128 or even 160kpbs AAC).  Keep in mind, this was on mediocre consumer-level equipment, so I'm assuming the difference would be even more noticeable on a mid-fi or hi-fi system.  As to the reasons, it has to be something to do with the encoding software being inferior to what Apple is using.  They are obviously not encoding music with consumer desktop software and a combo drive, after all..  In reality, while he probably won't hear much difference, he may notice a perceived lack of depth or dynamic range.  

    I've had many discussions with people who focus on bit depth, as you are.  What you're saying is true (indistinguishable between 16/24 depth), though I really don't think that's what is affecting most recordings.  Compression is much more of a factor, but so is analog vs. digital in my opinion.  Technically, the human ear should not be able to notice that a CD sampled at 44.1khz is taking "pictures" of the sound wave instead of reproducing it.  Human frequency range tops out around 20khz.  However, I've always questioned whether there is a subconscious effect or intangible effect on timbre with certain kinds of music (notably, classical genre).   To me, there can be a certain antiseptic quality to digital recording, particularly with strings and brass. Many have argued that what some of us perceive as "warmth" is really distortion (particularly with those who use tube amps)but I don't think we'll ever solve that for sure.  All that said, the advantages of digital are overwhelming compared to any minute difference one might hear.  The lack of noise and extended dynamic range alone make the case.  
    Apple uses iTunes to encode, no difference in DSP from the 'consumer' software.

    What you may have heard is the difference in mastering processes of the CD and the digital files delivered to the ITunes Store.  Some artists/labels use the same master for every media type, but some have different variants to account for strengths and weaknesses of each.  It's a spending consideration, they figure most people won't care so they can save money on mastering services and just work off one master.
    With platform specific masters, there may be subtle EQ differences, but more likely there are small differences in volume.  That alone tends to fool a majority of listeners in any audio comparison.  So even a 0.1db lower master that had identical material, most would hear as sounding worse when A/B to the hotter output track.  

    Then again most people listen on headphones of some type, and there's no worse consumer quality degradation process.  CD or digital means next to nothing considering the much more significant degraded frequency response of listening on speakers small enough to strap onto your head.  It's like eating two different pieces of shit, then comparing the flavor of any peanuts.
  • Reply 28 of 41
    bobschlobbobschlob Posts: 1,074member
    sdw2001 said:
    bobschlob said:
    This company is lost. They have no clue what to do anymore.
    I fought and fought for Cook; Jobs' hand-picked man. But I'm through.

    I have no idea what any of that even means.  
    Pretty simple really.
    If you've been keeping up with current events (i.e. last 4-5 years) Cook has taken a good amount of bashing from doubters over that period of time. I have always defended him and the company (vision) that I love. But now, he's going to have to prove where that vision is going (for me).
    Apple has let too many opportunities pass them by. If the next phase of Apple is simply "Fashion" (capital F) and a "music clusterf***" then I don't see much to hold my interest. (JMO)
    (wondering what happens if Ive ever 'does' actually head back to England)
  • Reply 29 of 41
    digitalclips said:

    ...  are my CDs higher or lower quality than what Apple now offer as downloadable?  That would have been a lot simpler!  :)  

    The CD is much better quality than a download.  How you rip that CD to your computer will determine whether your rip is superior to iTunes downloads.  Obviously, a lossless codec would be better, but you end up with a 3 minute song that takes up 50MB of space.  Ripping at 256-320 kbps will give you a file that is on par with iTunes purchases.

    Personally, my ears are shot to the point where I probably can't hear any better than a 128kbps rip anyway... too many years spent perched atop jet engines.
    baconstang
  • Reply 30 of 41
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,299member
    Wait iTunes is getting a very much needed overhaul from the ground up with streamline and hopefully purge of grafted on sideline function?

    Yet the story you publish is all about un-supported rumour that has been denied by the company and doesn't make a whole sense in the first place.

    Exactly how much did sentiment traders pay for this spot?
  • Reply 31 of 41
    bestkeptsecretbestkeptsecret Posts: 4,265member
    bobschlob said:
    This company is lost. They have no clue what to do anymore.
    I fought and fought for Cook; Jobs' hand-picked man. But I'm through.


    What exactly are you reacting to? The fact that Apple has officially denied stopping iTunes sales, or the rumour that they will stop selling songs and videos on iTunes?

    If it is the fact that Apple has denied it, then does it mean you do not want them to sell on iTunes? If you are reacting to the rumour, I'd suggest you just let it go. Not worth getting worked up about it.

    mattinozcornchip
  • Reply 32 of 41
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    digitalclips said:

    ...  are my CDs higher or lower quality than what Apple now offer as downloadable?  That would have been a lot simpler!    

    The CD is much better quality than a download.  How you rip that CD to your computer will determine whether your rip is superior to iTunes downloads.  Obviously, a lossless codec would be better, but you end up with a 3 minute song that takes up 50MB of space.  Ripping at 256-320 kbps will give you a file that is on par with iTunes purchases.

    Personally, my ears are shot to the point where I probably can't hear any better than a 128kbps rip anyway... too many years spent perched atop jet engines.
    If its 256 kbps aac, it's undistinguishable from CD for 99.9% of humans in normal listening condition with normal equipment listening to what people normally do (which are very far from ideal); though it doesn't account for the placebo effect of course. That's not even accounting the fidelity loss in the recording to mastering process which is immense.

    In certain types of music (jazz, classical), recorded with the outmost of care with the least processing and listened to with the best listening equipment (probably some kind of headphones) the difference can be RELIABLY distinguished by some people.
    edited June 2016
  • Reply 33 of 41
    copelandcopeland Posts: 298member
    If I can't buy music anymore on iTunes then I won't buy any music on iTunes any more.
    I also don't like this rent the application stuff. I want do decide if I upgrade and when I upgrade.
    If the usage of an application gets more seldom I don't want to loose access to the files I created with that application because I stop paying the monthly fee.
    cornchip
  • Reply 34 of 41
    wuchmeewuchmee Posts: 41member
    If - IF - Apple eventually does this, it will benefit smaller sites that offer downloads, especially with high bit rates (e.g. HDtracks). Who knows, it may even have the unintended consequence of bolstering (however small) CD and vinyl sales, too.
    cornchip
  • Reply 35 of 41
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member
    sdw2001 said:

    [...]  What you're saying is true (indistinguishable between 16/24 depth), though I really don't think that's what is affecting most recordings.  Compression is much more of a factor
    Yeah, I forgot to include a critical detail in my comment: What I meant to say is that a 256K AAC rip of a CD should be sonically indistinguishable from an iTunes purchase.

    It's possible that an uncompressed rip, like a wav file, may sound better than the iTunes purchase, but I doubt most people would notice the difference. Critical listeners who DO hear a difference then have to decide if the improvement is significant enough to warrant a ten-fold increase in storage requirements.
    cornchip
  • Reply 36 of 41
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member
    To be clear, and to others who answered (thank you all) I never mentioned 'iTunes purchased' material.  I was asking if the CDs I ripped a decade ago (maybe way more, the way time flies) and were used by iTunes  Match to give me access to Apple's Library in the cloud (and pertinent to this article perhaps, currently allow download at the newer Apple quality to my Mac)  would be better quality than if I re-ripped them myself from the original CDs using the latest technology.

    Sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking.

    The answer depends on how you ripped your old tracks. If it was at 128K, without error correction, or mp3 format, then the iTunes Match versions are probably considerably better. If your old tracks were ripped at 256K AAC then there probably won't be any difference. If your original rips were uncompressed they may be a little better than the iTunes versions.

    As for whether you're better off downloading tracks from Match or re-ripping your CDs, see my original answer. I'd say don't bother re-ripping. If you're going to compress the rips with AAC they won't be any better than what you get with Match, and if your old rips are uncompressed you won't gain anything by re-ripping with "newer" technology because nothing has really changed in that arena.


    are my CDs higher or lower quality than what Apple now offer as downloadable?

    Higher, but only in their "raw" form. Once you convert to 256K AAC they're essentially the same, with the iTunes version having a very, very slight potential for advantage.


    As to if I can hear the difference, absolutely not.  I used to own a recording studio on the side (just 8 track) and I still have a lot of that equipment too.  I can't even hear the 10K tone anymore! I currently am about to take a Quad amp, a pair of Nightingale NM1s and a load of other HiFi equipment to the dump.  My hearing is so terrible and I find my Vizio wireless surround sound system to sound as good as it gets for me now. /sigh

    I feel your pain. I miss being able to read text with characters smaller than a dime!
  • Reply 37 of 41
    Teh GergTeh Gerg Posts: 5member
    So, Apple wants to abandon people who aren't constantly on a network. Sorry, but I want to download my music so I can listen to it on the road, in a park, or any place that doesn't have ethernet or wi-fi. Why is that so hard for streamheads to understand?
    cornchip
  • Reply 38 of 41
    bregaladbregalad Posts: 816member
    I really wonder what will happen when today's young streamers grow up and realize that they own no music whatsoever and that if they want to keep listening they'll have to pay a subscription fee for the rest of their lives.

    The reality is that most music is purchased by those 18-34. After that most people don't care about new music and are happy to stick with what they already have. Will the next generation really want to spend 70 years paying for 16 years' worth of music?

    I also wonder how the streaming companies are going to convince today's children to pay for music at all. My daughter gets everything she wants free from YouTube. To her paying a fee to listen to music is ridiculous and stupid.
    cornchip
  • Reply 39 of 41
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    techno said:
    JDP81 said:
    Think criticizing them over something that you don't even know if they're gonna do is a little premature. Even if this is totally true they're only responding to what consumers are choosing. I don't at all disagree with you but I think it's fair to actually wait and see what they're going to do before saying the most profitable company in the world is "lost".. they clearly don't make THAT many wrong decisions if they make as much money as they do.
    I think people are hoping that an outpouring of disapproval might influence the company's decision. 
    Er, what decision? They've denied it once already. 
  • Reply 40 of 41
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    I wonder how this plays into iTunes match?  Being able to 'download' a higher quality version than your original CD rips has always seemed a great feature but I just haven't had the time nor the inclination yet to re-download my 100 GBs of music.  Maybe this isn't an issue, can a audio tech expert here tell me if I re rip my CDs (boxes of them in attic) today would they be on par with what iTunes match downloads now?
    Short answer, no. Stereo compression has nothing on two discrete audio channels.

    The reason you'd not want to bother re-ripping CD's lies more with frequency of being listened to. The average person only needs about 8 hours of music that they can loop through over time and start at different points in their play list. The reason streaming-only is a bad idea is because of bandwidth caps, low-bandwidth quality (especially on mobile) , and the lack of internet access. Try to listen to Apple Music, Rdio or spotify while on a train. It will be dropped once you get 5 minutes outside the city.

    If Apple dropped downloads, then people will be extremely incensed by it and may drop their Apple ecosystem devices entirely. The reason sales are falling off is due to the number of Apple devices being sold to new people is dropping off. People who already have 3 Apple devices, aren't buying songs 3 separate times. They aren't re-buying music every time they switch devices. But let me tell you, if you force people to have to stream the music, people will go right back to piracy, and they will use the music streaming service to create an off-line collection anyway by recording the audio from the device. So Apple would only be harming it's own business model by doing so.

    The more-likely thing is that Apple is going to break the iTunes store, iTunes Player and Apple Music software up, so the the player is more light-weight. People hate using the iTunes app because it's resource heavy, even when it does nothing. VLC is only 70MB, XMPlay is 16MB, and only takes up 1MB on disk. They could continue to share the underlying libraries, but there is no need for all the web-browser junk when you're just playing music or video.
    edited June 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.