Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

ZiNgA BuRgA · 24/02/2011 04:10 AM

Here's (possibly) Apple's next marketing tactic to promote sales on their iTunes distribution platform.  And everyone knows: where Apple goes, everyone else is sure to follow.

So what is it?  Rumours are that Apple are going to start selling music in 24-bit, so they can probably claim that the quality of their music is better than what you get on CD (16-bit).  Dunno whether they'll be sticking it in lossy AAC or their lossless ALAC format (one would hope for the latter).

However, 16-bit audio is already fairly close to human auditory limits, so I'd say that this is completely useless for the large majority of people.  Thinking as hard as I can, these are perhaps the only real benefits to consumers:

Music which hasn't been dynamic-range compressed as f*ck (aka most pop songs; an example of something not range compressed these days would be classical music), on high quality audio equipment which is also capable of 24-bit fidelity, played at very loud volumes (like >100dB)
Perhaps if you want to do some particular editing which will make more apparent small variations in amplitude
If you don't trust the studio's 24-bit to 16-bit downmixing, or any artefacts introduced in the process
Increase size of e-peen

So really, it's for hardly anyone, especially those using portable iDevices (unless Apple uses this to promote a new range of 24-bit capable iPods).

Story, if interested: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/365467/24-bi...-for-music

diego · 24/02/2011 04:16 AM

It's stupeed.
No need to do this. Hell, majority of the people I know are completely fine with youtubes spoon audio and won't be able to tell the difference.

Vegetano1 · 24/02/2011 05:47 AM

I am guessing it will be better sound,. but its my optioning,. i had have to listen to 24bit first,..

Zinga already made 3 points why(this could be beneficial) ,.. so there is some use to it anyway,..

my only concern will be the file size,. mbish,..

Assassinator · 24/02/2011 06:10 AM

(24/02/2011 04:10 AM)ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote: Dunno whether they'll be sticking it in lossy AAC or their lossless ALAC format (one would hope for the latter).

Lossless I would assume. High bit depth makes little sense for lossy.

But the whole thing is just a new way of ripping off consumers.

ProperBritish · 24/02/2011 11:48 AM

i have poo poo hearing

i can't really tell the difference between 196kbps and 320kps

Assassinator · 24/02/2011 07:47 PM

(24/02/2011 11:48 AM)ProperBritish Wrote: i have poo poo hearing

i can't really tell the difference between 196kbps and 320kps

I can't really tell the difference between 128kbps and 192kbps... :\

diego · 25/02/2011 08:16 PM

(24/02/2011 07:47 PM)Assassinator Wrote:
(24/02/2011 11:48 AM)ProperBritish Wrote: i have poo poo hearing

i can't really tell the difference between 196kbps and 320kps

I can't really tell the difference between 128kbps and 192kbps... :\

ZiNgA BuRgA · 26/02/2011 02:14 AM

This is somewhat unrelated to bitrate of compressed audio.
Bit depth affects how much variation between amplitudes there can be. Bitrate is how much information is removed due to some acoustic model... >_>

Barcelona · 26/02/2011 02:32 AM

(26/02/2011 02:14 AM)ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote: This is somewhat unrelated to bitrate of compressed audio.
Bit depth affects how much variation between amplitudes there can be. Bitrate is how much information is removed due to some acoustic model... >_>

I'm perfectly aware of that, lol

I'm just saying that higher bitdepth makes little sense for lossy, only really good for lossless. And I can't even tell the difference between 128kbps and 192kbps, then I don't care about lossless, therefore, I don't care about high bit depth.

Barcelona · 26/02/2011 02:35 AM

Well, fuck.

I forgot to log out of this account. You can figure who it was anyway.

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode 24-bit Audio to be the new standard, perhaps
Author	Message