Apple and Hi Rez
 

It looks like the rumors are starting up again that Apple will be carrying hi-rez content in the near future. The announcement could come at WWDC in June. Let us hope that they can get a larger catalog out there and we currently see.

High Definition iTunes Music Downloads May Be on the Horizon - Mac Rumors

Jim.......I will remain in the "wait and see" mode until enough professional audio sources verify that what Apple is actually offering is true 24/96 from master tapes of equal or greater resolution and true analog master recording directly digitized to 24/96 or greater. They talk about their large catalog but what exactly is the quality of that catalog. 16/44.1 upsampled to 24/96 isn't going to cut it. Until I am positive the downloads Apple offers are authentic I will remain skeptical. Apple and iTunes has never been about quality audio. It's about enormous profit centered around slickly integrated iTunes software that makes it simple for Apple to milk the MP3 minions. Until Apple proves they can faithfully deliver high resolution content in a format I want from a catalog that actually interests my musical tastes, I will remain on the side lines.

I hope Apple can deliver the goods. Additional competition and larger content selection is a good thing. High resolution audio downloads are fabulous. The more music available in 24/96 or higher resolution the better. I hope that Apple doesn't try to deliver the content on demand from their "cloud" servers, trying to control ownership of the download files. That would not be a working model that I could embrace. Apple has a long history of making every effort to maintain complete control over proprietary content. Time will tell how this plays out. I am hoping for the best.

Good post.

Dan
Apple is at the mercy of the content providers just like HDTracks and any other hi-rez site out there. We know that there have been many current hi rez offerings that have been shown to be nothing more than 16/44 masters. Apple has been asking for higher rez sources for some time now but push-back from content providers has slowed any traction.

I am not sure if the pricing model is understood or clear. They note that Apple might charge $1 more for hi-rez. If that is per album then the current screwing we are getting from HDTracks will be short lived. If that is per track then their pricing will be in line with the current hi-rez offerings.

We recently ran a comparison on 5 albums from iTunes at 256 versus a burned copy of a CD. It was virtually impossible for anyone to repeatedly identify the source correctly.

We also need to remember that Apple thinks Hi Rez is = "Mastered for iTunes."

NTY.

Jim.......I can't say that I have any interest in a random group comparing MP3 to 16/44.1. I wish I couldn't distinguish the differene. I could save a a lot of money on content. What I am interested in is high resolution audio and have my fingers crossed that Apple comes on strong with true hi-res files.

There was some shenanigans during the initial infancy of high-res downloads. Linn in particular was upsampling 16/44.1 to 24/96 and 24/192 and selling the downloads as high-res files. They didn't get away with it long and after the exposure they apologized profusely, claiming it was an engineering mistake. That didn't hold much water with me. It tarnished my opinion of Linn's download content and it remains so for me. Being duped is never a good thing. That's why I said my hope is Apple will do it right. I don't mind paying for high-res recordings but I do want what I am paying for.

I guess you decided not to read the article. :no:

I hope they offer FLAC in addition to ALAC. The Bryston BDP-1 will not play high-res ALAC, but has no issues with 44/16. It works fine with FLAC.

Jim, Great Post, I'm excited to see what happens! I think if Apple commits to this, they have the best chance of pulling it off and bringing Hi-Res into the mainstream. Thanks for posting! :thumbsup:

Derek.......No one can deny Apple brought low-res into the mainstream. :lmao: