Apple lossless codec and iTMS

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
I've noticed that a file encoded with the Apple lossless codec uses the same file extension as an ordinary AAC file (,m4a)



In other words, iTMS could use the existing DRM scheme for selling lossless music.



Interesting....
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Why would they want to? For the most part, the gains are negligible. Apple has neither the technological nor financial will to provide us with trouble free ~700 kbps downloads on the scale we'd expect.



    The major labels wouldn't be too happy about it either.
  • Reply 2 of 29
    Eugene If the heat gets on the iTMS (And I don't see that happening any time soon, looks like we will be Number 1 for a little while yet) this could be an option they would explore. There are a lot of audiophiles out there still that wont shop at the iTMS because the quality is not good enough.
  • Reply 3 of 29
    defiantdefiant Posts: 4,876member
    Audiophiles will never shop digital, if they do they aren't audiophiles, are they? 8)
  • Reply 4 of 29
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Defiant

    Audiophiles will never shop digital, if they do they aren't audiophiles, are they? 8)



    Precisely. You've hit the nail right on the head.
  • Reply 5 of 29
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    I for one am really hoping that the iTMS will offer lossless downloads sometime in the future. The iTMS shopping expereince is excellent but purchased material is obviously low fidelity when auditioned on expensive gear. True, most people aren't clamoring for higher bit rates... but for some, 128aac is enough to deter use altogether.
  • Reply 6 of 29
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    Well, SACD is digital and is damn close to analog IMO.



    I think it sounds great.
  • Reply 7 of 29
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dfiler

    I for one am really hoping that the iTMS will offer lossless downloads sometime in the future. The iTMS shopping expereince is excellent but purchased material is obviously low fidelity when auditioned on expensive gear. True, most people aren't clamoring for higher bit rates... but for some, 128aac is enough to deter use altogether.



    I agree, the pepsi promo actualy turned me off to the ITMS, the music sounded.....ok but when I loaded up....lets just say "bad karma"... and got the same thing in 280 k mp3, it was night and day, the itunes track was way too compressed, the mids are great but the highs and lows were non existant!!
  • Reply 8 of 29
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by msantti

    Well, SACD is digital and is damn close to analog IMO.



    I think it sounds great.




    As if "close to analog" is a good thing.
  • Reply 9 of 29
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    Why would they want to? For the most part, the gains are negligible. Apple has neither the technological nor financial will to provide us with trouble free ~700 kbps downloads on the scale we'd expect.



    The major labels wouldn't be too happy about it either.




    The Grateful Dead has already announced that they are going to sell their entire history of concerts in iTunes. I know they're in favor of lossless codecs so I'm guessing this addition might be in part for them.



    The bandwidth though will be expensive. Long songs, 2:1 compression, big files. I'm not sure how Apple is going to handle that.
  • Reply 10 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    As if "close to analog" is a good thing.



    Believe me, I thought the same way as you did. Go out and audition even a mid-range turntable on a mid-range system, and you'll be amazed at the difference.



    Nothing beats digital for convenience, but (IMHO) nothing beats good ol' vinyl for richness and depth of sound. Compare the 1/2 speed remaster of "Wish You Were Here" to any digital release of the same work, and you will REALLY hear the difference (even though the 1/2 speed releases are not considered "audiophile grade").



    ... and thankfully more and more new (and older, remastered releases) are available on vinyl every day! I think I've purchased one CD and about 120 LPs this year!



    -John
  • Reply 11 of 29
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bangstudios

    Believe me, I thought the same way as you did. Go out and audition even a mid-range turntable on a mid-range system, and you'll be amazed at the difference.



    I don't have any problem with someone thinking analog sounds better as a matter of taste, I just dislike all of the bogus claims that often surround the analog mystique, such as "analog has infinite resolution", which is often stated in contrast to misconceptions about digital sampling.



    If analog sounds better, it's because of euphonic distortions, meaning the perceived quality is the result of pleasant inaccuracies, not greater accuracy.



    Some people who like analog are willing to accept this. Others insist on using myths, pseudoscience, or very exagerrated extrapolations from actual facts so that they can claim that what they like best is also what's most faithful to the original source material.
  • Reply 12 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    I don't have any problem with someone thinking analog sounds better as a matter of taste, I just dislike all of the bogus claims that often surround the analog mystique, such as "analog has infinite resolution", which is often stated in contrast to misconceptions about digital sampling.



    If analog sounds better, it's because of euphonic distortions, meaning the perceived quality is the result of pleasant inaccuracies, not greater accuracy.



    Some people who like analog are willing to accept this. Others insist on using myths, pseudoscience, or very exagerrated extrapolations from actual facts so that they can claim that what they like best is also what's most faithful to the original source material.




    That's a very fair series of statements. I find digital copies of music a bit "harsh" or "cold" -- but that could simply be accuracy. Conversely, I find vinyl very "warm" -- but that could be the pleasant innaccuracies mentioned above. Heck, I had the opportunity to listen to the SACD of "Dark Side of the Moon" on a $300K reference system at a local audiophile shop and found it TOO clean, so what does that say?



    "I may not know art, but I know what I like!"



    -John
  • Reply 13 of 29
    whisperwhisper Posts: 735member
    There are only so many electrons that can be in the head of whatever analog device you're using to playback your recording, so analog is essentially the same as digital, just with more than 16 bits. Food for thought...
  • Reply 14 of 29
    4fx4fx Posts: 258member
    Remember too that nearly every album made within the last 10-15 years was originally recorded digitally (there are some analog circumstances). So any music you listen to on a record has once been digitized. However, remember that all professional sound recording is done in 24 bit (vs CD's 16 bit) and at a higher sampling rate than CD audio. 24 bit certainly sounds better than 16 bit, and the higher sampling rates will make for a richer, warmer, and deeper sound.



    True, analog does have a higher "resolution". Technically this is the size of 1 atom. But analog recording solutions suffer from degredation over time. And in the recording phase, no one would dream of resorting to editing with analog systems. You simply could not make "error free" - you really dont believe that musicians sound that good in concert do you? - clean sounding music with analog editing systems. I suppose the question is: at what point can you notice the difference? This depends on a wide varity of factors and will obviously depend on the individual. Clearly, you can notice difference between 16 bit audio and 24 bit audio as long as you are using higher quality equipment. CD audio (and even compressed digital audio) will sound much better with the right equipment.



    Personally, I dont care if a record "sounds better" than CD audio. I would take a CD over the record any day because I dont have to listen to those distracting pops and annoying static. DVD Audio is actually much better than CD Audio, but the demand is just not there right now and there is little chance that it will overtake CD audio any time soon.



    Finally, I would just like to point out that there is nothing stopping digital audio from sounding just as good (in richness, depth, warmness) as analog. 16 bit is fairly close, 24 bit is pretty darn close, and future higher bit depths with faster sampling rates will make this a reality. Its just a question of when.
  • Reply 15 of 29
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    Why would they want to? For the most part, the gains are negligible. Apple has neither the technological nor financial will to provide us with trouble free ~700 kbps downloads on the scale we'd expect.



    The major labels wouldn't be too happy about it either.




    They'll be perfectly happy to charge Apple $16 per album and $2 per single for the lossless stuff, forcing Apple to charge CD prices for CD quality audio.



    You just know some suit in the Big 5 already has the PowerPoint presentation mocked up to pitch this idea.
  • Reply 16 of 29
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 4fx

    True, analog does have a higher "resolution". Technically this is the size of 1 atom.



    This is NOT true. Analog does NOT have inherently higher resolution than digital.



    Noise and frequency response limit analog resolution the same way sample size and sample rate limit digital resolution, the only difference being that the fuzzy error bars surrounding analog signals make it harder to quantify these limitations.



    While there may be things that are appealing about analog sound, real resolution isn't one of them. Cheap digital devices and recordings routinely exceed the resolution of hideously expensive analog devices and recordings.



    Too many people have seen too many stupid diagrams of waveforms with digital sample points or lines drawn over them and had someone say "See all the stuff between the lines/points that's missing in digital?" -- if you're buying that, you don't understand signal processing.
  • Reply 17 of 29
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    They'll be perfectly happy to charge Apple $16 per album and $2 per single for the lossless stuff, forcing Apple to charge CD prices for CD quality audio.



    That won't cover the bandwidth increase and associated costs. That also doesn't seem likely as many albums are alreaady approaching the mid-teen dollar range.
  • Reply 18 of 29
    resres Posts: 711member
    I use 320aac to rip my own CDs and even then you can tell the difference when doing an a/b comparison. I accept the loss for the sake of portability, but when I'm at home I use the CDs.



    I buy very little music from iTMS because of the low sound quality. If they went lossless I would buy a lot more from them. Even if they just rased the bit rate up to 320 I would buy a little more from them.
  • Reply 19 of 29
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:

    Analog does NOT have inherently higher resolution than digital.



    Analog is higher resolution. It also has frequent random waveform errors of higher magnitude.



    Preference for either is a personal opinion greatly related to differences in how the brain perceives inaccuracies in reproduced/approximated sound.
  • Reply 20 of 29
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dfiler

    Analog is higher resolution.



    Proof by vigorous assertion?

    Quote:

    It also has frequent random waveform errors of higher magnitude.



    If you have random errors, you have loss of resolution.



    Because of noise, at no point along an analog waveform can you be certain just how close the reproduced value of the magnitude of the waveform is to the corresponding original magnitude. That uncertainty is just as limiting for resolution as digital sample size.



    Frequency response errors cause the shape of a reproduced analog waveform to deviate from the original waveform in ways that are, if you'll pardon the word, "analogous" to the uncertainty of what's happening to a waveform between two digital sample points.



    Quote:

    Preference for either is a personal opinion greatly related to differences in how the brain perceives inaccuracies in reproduced/approximated sound.



    Inaccuracy plus noise and loss of resolution are the same thing. Think of what the word "resolution" means -- the degree to which a thing can be resolved. Analog noise and distortion prevent fine details from being resolved just as much (if not typically more) than digitization does.



    I think a lot of people confuse the concept of the resolution of a signal with what might be called the "grain" of the signal. They perhaps think of the surface of an LP, and consider the signal to have as much "resolution" as the most subtle molecular detail of the vinyl surface, or think of an analog signal running through a wire, and consider there to be as much resolution as the smallest quanta of electrical energy.



    But that's just "grain", it's not resolution. It's lots of detail that adds nothing to the amount of true information present. Analog noise and distortion decorrelate all of that fine detail from the original signal information.



    I think another thing people do when thinking about analog is that they generously picture analog this way:



    analog_signal = original_signal + noise



    which is perfectly fine, unless you let yourself believe that in some mystical way analog media truly carry some Platonic ideal of the original signal, with any noise or distortion merely being an annoyance mucking up some tangible, physically present, underlying perfection.



    What about digital? Well, you have a digital signal which is not a perfect representation of an original. What do you call the difference between the original and the digital reproduction? Noise and distortion, of course, or simply noise.



    digital_signal - original_signal = noise



    Do a little simple algebra...



    digital_signal = original_signal + noise



    This connection to the original signal is just as true about digital as it is about analog, and just as meaningless if you think the equation uncovers some special magical connection to the full resolution of the original signal.
Sign In or Register to comment.