Apple Rumored To Be Developing High-Resolution Audio Formats

Stick to Vinyl and FLAC (or other uncompressed, DRM free digital).
 
BryanSTG said:
They don't need to do anything here but they are...which is why everyone is suspicious. Apple has a very bad track record of implementing proprietary everything/walled garden/vendor lock-in to screw over consumers.
Click to expand...

Except what the rumors are talking about is them offering high-resolution streaming (24/96 or higher). Everything else is extrapolation of what that might mean (for no benefit, so there's no logical reason to do it).

All streaming music services are DRM-encumbered anyway, so if Apple use a different format for their implementation it has zero net effect on anything.

Last time I checked, all of the interesting streaming options are available, without additional restriction on Apple's platforms. And Apple Music is available on Android ... a curious move if vendor lock-in is the goal.
 
rabidz7 said:
Stick to Vinyl and FLAC (or other uncompressed, DRM free digital).
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to where one would go today to buy a DRM-encumbered music-file that wasn't also legally available, for the same price, as a DRM-free file.

You know, unless you're buying your music on SACD.

But as downloads? No idea who's selling in an non-DRM format anymore - I think you'd have to go out of your way to find something that wasn't.
 
I could see this as a marketing strategy to get people to buy music on iTunes, I'm all about quality but I don't think it'd be that much more better to justify the headache that might with this file type
 
RandemTox said:
Its losslessly compressed, however. So once you unpack it, the data is the same as the original file. Not the case with MP3 etc.

Though I'm sure you know this.
Click to expand...

He has a habit of throwing out words that sound cool but he doesn't actually know what they mean. The word he was looking for was lossless, as you mentioned. WAV would be uncompressed, which is actually quite useless since compression is very useful as long as it's lossless. You want FLAC or similar as the master file, but a 320kbps MP3 done with LAME is much more practical for mobile devices since it will sound exactly the same.
 
RandemTox said:
Except what the rumors are talking about is them offering high-resolution streaming (24/96 or higher). Everything else is extrapolation of what that might mean (for no benefit, so there's no logical reason to do it).

All streaming music services are DRM-encumbered anyway, so if Apple use a different format for their implementation it has zero net effect on anything.

Last time I checked, all of the interesting streaming options are available, without additional restriction on Apple's platforms. And Apple Music is available on Android ... a curious move if vendor lock-in is the goal.
Click to expand...
Vendor lock isn't their goal. Most of the responses in this thread are ignorant of Apple's interaction in the marketplace. They aren't even aware of ALAC, for example.

This article is about developing hi-rez *streaming*. Apple isn't going to stream ALAC files, nor is anyone else going to stream FLAC files.

If Apple can successfully develop a hi resolution streaming solution then they won't need vendor lock because people will use their Apple Music and be happy about it. As far as I know, it'll be the only large-scale hi-resolution streaming solution available (if not the only one). It's difficult enough paying extra to download hi-resolution files, and I don't know any service that streams them.

But we'll hear endless rants on this forum about how stupid people are for paying for a service that they enjoy...mostly posts based on ignorance about what Apple does or does not offer to its customers.
 
mope54 said:
This article is about developing hi-rez *streaming*. Apple isn't going to stream ALAC files, nor is anyone else going to stream FLAC files.
Click to expand...

I have not used it, but Tidal is supposed to offer FLAC at Redbook quality (16-Bit/44.1 kHz). It's not "hi-res", but it's a nice move in that direction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_(service)


RandemTox said:
I'm curious as to where one would go today to buy a DRM-encumbered music-file that wasn't also legally available, for the same price, as a DRM-free file.

You know, unless you're buying your music on SACD.

But as downloads? No idea who's selling in an non-DRM format anymore - I think you'd have to go out of your way to find something that wasn't.
Click to expand...

HDTracks claims not use DRM

Q: What is DRM and why should I care that HDtracks offers DRM-free music?

A: DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. It is a system that restricts people from using their music in a variety of ways and is generally frowned upon by music fans. DRM locks you into a certain hardware brand for the life of the music file. By cutting DRM out of the equation, we have enabled HDtracks users to play their files on any portable player system they wish.
Click to expand...
 
westrock2000 said:
HDTracks claims not use DRM
Click to expand...

They don't.

In fact none of the vendors that offer high-resolution downloads use DRM.

Which is exactly my point - you couldn't buy a DRM-encumbered file if you tried. DRM on purchased music is done (outside SACD) - it's been over for years, both for lossy iTunes/Amazon Music stuff AND for high-resolution formats.

At most Apple are looking at offering high-resolution streaming and as far I know their existing container can support that - though they may be looking at more efficient encoding methods that might necessitate a new streaming format.

But since streaming services all use DRM anyway, even if they do come up with a new one, no one is any worse off (especially if you're not an Apple user in the first place).
 
RandemTox said:
But since streaming services all use DRM anyway, even if they do come up with a new one, no one is any worse off (especially if you're not an Apple user in the first place).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you are saying that streaming and DRM is bad, so I will give this opinion.

Streaming services have to use DRM of some kind, otherwise it's a free for all. When Spotify first started, they were storing the music in OGG Vorbis chunks, with no DRM. People quickly figured out how to put the pieces together and get songs for free.

If you want to purchase the songs for personal keeping, then you need to buy them. Otherwise you can use streaming. But you can't pay for a streaming model and keep them like an a-la cart model.
 
westrock2000 said:
I'm not sure if you are saying that streaming and DRM is bad, so I will give this opinion.

Streaming services have to use DRM of some kind, otherwise it's a free for all. When Spotify first started, they were storing the music in OGG Vorbis chunks, with no DRM. People quickly figured out how to put the pieces together and get songs for free.

If you want to purchase the songs for personal keeping, then you need to buy them. Otherwise you can use streaming. But you can't pay for a streaming model and keep them like an a-la cart model.
Click to expand...

Sure, but if you really want to, you can just run a recording program and take your digital out into digital in and record. You might have some minor differences, but essentially you'll have a perfect or near perfect copy of what Tidal streamed to your PC.
 
nilepez said:
Sure, but if you really want to, you can just run a recording program and take your digital out into digital in and record. You might have some minor differences, but essentially you'll have a perfect or near perfect copy of what Tidal streamed to your PC.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think we need to tell people how to do that. They do not need to know about enabling Stereo Mix in the sound panel. And we definitely aren't going to discuss using Audacity and Timer Record to record songs or playlists of songs. And we sure as shit aren't going to tell them about using Export Multiple command to separate the sound file into individual songs. Luckily by not telling them all that stuff, we will be able to protect the artists.
 
westrock2000 said:
I'm not sure if you are saying that streaming and DRM is bad, so I will give this opinion.

Streaming services have to use DRM of some kind, otherwise it's a free for all. When Spotify first started, they were storing the music in OGG Vorbis chunks, with no DRM. People quickly figured out how to put the pieces together and get songs for free.

If you want to purchase the songs for personal keeping, then you need to buy them. Otherwise you can use streaming. But you can't pay for a streaming model and keep them like an a-la cart model.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying streaming is bad at all; in fact I subscribe to TIDAL, Spotify, Apple Music and Prime.

I use those services extensively for listening at the office, finding new music, and for various parties and functions at my home so that there is always suitable music available. Also, they help minimize how much storage I'd otherwise have to carry with me for music.

DRM is inevitable for streaming services, and I have no issue with that. I wouldn't, and haven't, buy/bought music that is DRM-encumbered, but then streaming is not buying per se.

My responses were more aimed at the ill-informed nonsensical hysteria about Apple doing something they're not (and the referenced rumor doesn't even claim) than anything else.

98% of my music comes from CDs that I have bought and ripped myself or 16/44.1 lossless downloads. 1% is purchased on vinyl (for a variety of reasons, mostly either aesthetic or historical). About half a percent or less is random tracks, invariably of the one-hit-wonder variety bought via iTunes or Amazon.

The remainder is high-resolution stuff, which I limit to situations where I know the mastering and subsequent commercial mix have been done to a suitable standard and haven't then been subjected to dynamic range compression. Which is very little music at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top