Several digital music retailers, including Apple, are in discussion with record labels about increasing the audio quality of music downloads.

Executives involved in the talks have reported to CNN that the companies may move to 24-bit files in order to offer songs at a fidelity that is more in keeping with the original recording.

Digital music files have traditionally been compressed to lower bit rates in order to keep download times as low as possible; however, there's a trade-off in terms of music quality.

High cost fidelity

The talks between retailers and labels may result in higher quality audio being offered by retailers at a more premium price point.

But it's going to be no quick jump to the higher quality files, with manufacturers like Apple having to "retool" future iterations of its music players in order to handle the larger, better quality files.

Although iTunes, Apple's music store, is able to handle the 24-bit files, but most PMPs don't currently support the format.

Jimmy Iovine, a music executive and chairman of Universal Music Group's Interscope-Geffen-A&M record label, told CNN: "Apple has been great. We're working with them and other digital services – download services – to change to 24-bit.

"And some of their electronic devices are going to be changed as well. So we have a long road ahead of us."

http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/ ... way-930379

Just thought that was interesting, not that I buy many of them

24bit 96000Hz FLAC pl0x

I want FLAC, I want FLAC, I want FLAC..........

I just downloaded the Radiohead album in wav, because I assume people don't know how to convert flac to play on their iTunes...

Oh what, you mean make it worse quality to play on their iTunes??

Why are Apple doing this? Nobody with an iPod gives a [LIFTED]. They buy what they're told to (present company excluded of course).

On the rare occasions I buy music digitally, I get WAVs and FLAC them myself. Is that so hard?

24-bit audio: the new way to make you pay more for music?

Apple and music labels are reportedly in discussions to raise the audio quality of of the songs they sell.

The iPod maker is considering selling 24-bit versions of albums via iTunes, a step up from the 16-bit audio currently on offer, according to a report on CNN.com.

The move could see digital downloads that surpass CD quality, which is recorded at 16 bits at a sample rate of 44.1kHz. It would also provide Apple and the music labels with an opportunity to "upgrade" people's music collections, raising extra revenue in the process.

...
Opinion - Jonathan Bray

iTunes moving from 16-bit to 24-bit audio files would be great for audiophiles’ ears, but most people will be unlikely to benefit from the extra quality.

While there is a benefit to recording in 24-bit (and its associated increased sample rate of 96kHz), for consumers the advantage is less clear cut. Even with top-end hi-fi equipment or headphones, you may not hear the difference between the higher resolution files and standard resolution, simply because the human ear isn’t capable of appreciating the lower noise floor and higher top-end frequencies offered by 24-bit files.
...

Apple has pulled off a similar feat before. In 2007, Apple upgraded its albums from protected 128Kbit/sec files to DRM-free 256Kbits/sec AAC files, and charged users 20p per track to upgrade their music collection.

Apple isn't the only one to attempt to differentiate on audio quality. Last week Radiohead released its new album for download, charging £6 for 320Kbits/sec MP3s, or £9 for an uncompressed WAV files.

Hardware upgrade
Album upgrades won't be the only potential source of extra revenue if download stores do migrate to 24-bit files. While iTunes and many PCs are perfectly capable of playing 24-bit files, most digital music players are not.

The current iPod and iPhone range is reportedly incapable of playing 24-bit files, for example. Apple could therefore use access to the higher quality files as an incentive to upgrade an iPhone/iPod.

Can you tell the difference?
The big question is whether anyone would even notice the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit files on a portable player, especially with the low-quality earbuds supplied by Apple and other manufacturers.

The move to 24-bit would improve the dynamic range of the audio: professional recording studios capture audio at 24-bit, before downgrading it to 16-bit for CD production.

Labels such as Linn Records already sell "studio master" versions of albums in 24-bit FLAC format, but these are targeted at high-end audio buffs with equipment of a high enough calibre to accentuate the improvement in quality.

The upgrade to 24-bit would also have a huge impact on file sizes. The 24-bit studio master of Philippe Rogier's Polychoral Works weighs in at almost 3GB. That 8GB iPod nano is going to fill up pretty quickly.

Read more: 24-bit audio: the new way to make you pay more for music? | News | PC Pro http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/365467/24-b ... z1EmnzJBhk

I haven't read that yet, but it's clearly an outrage

I'm tending to lean towards the fact that this will make no difference to the vast majority of people. I strongly doubt most people have the kit to hear the difference, and I kinda think some of the people who do have the gear are kidding themselves.
Good for the consumer? Perhaps. Easier for the labels? Absolutely, it's one less step from the master to the customer.

TBH I strongly doubt that most people have the ears to hear the difference, let alone the kit. And that's before we get into whether or not they appreciate the difference, even if they do hear it...

Agree with both of you. This is the kind of move you would expect from Jon's "audiophile" shop.

Promoted right, you could of course sell it to people who don't know any better, or who are thinking about upgrading their equipment later, maybe.

Maybe it'll eventually reach a tipping point where they'd slightly reduce the price of 16-bit files for the better margins on the 24-bit files