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

[Simon]

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.

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.

Read more: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/365467/24-bit-audio-the-new-way-to-make-you-pay-more-for-music

[.Griff.]

I think PC Pro could have been more accurate with their headline..

"the new way to invite the gullible and naive to pay more for music?"

"Making" people pay more would involve removing all other options apart from 24bit versions and I can't see any evidence of that happening.

Not that any of this affects me as I'm not a massive music fan but paranoid headlines do bug me.

EDIT - You know what's coming next. Apple (hmm do they own iTunes by any chance?!?) will bring out the 64GB/128GB iPod to store all that extra information on.

[Bill]

Not bothered one way or the other about 24-bit audio, but I wish they'd put their HD video stuff up with a 1080p option

[john]

It may be only the very young whose ears are sensitive enough to discern the difference in sound quality, I certainly doubt that mine would be capable. I do like music but I can't think of anything that's been made over the years that I really want for my existing collection and there doesn't appear to be much contemporarymusic that I would like enough to buy.

The problem I think for the music industry is that the sound quality is currently more than adequate for most people but there is not a lot of new music being produced that appeals to anyone over 30.

Also there are a lot of other ways now of obtaining media entertainment with multiple TV Channels, more radio stations in particular the thousands of internet ones, DVD's and Computer Games etc.

[Niall]

Well I've spent years listening to CDs and the maximum quality they hold has been perfectly adequate for decades, so I see no point at all in paying Apple any money at all, until all other formats of music are no longer in production, and even then you'll have whatever replaces CDs, so I'll buy that instead as I prefer to have a hard copy of my purchases.

However, I wouldn't put it past them to try and put some form of lock on itunes that stops you ripping 24bit unless you pay them

[Simon]

A lot of CDs actually sound sh*te these days, as they seem to be mastered for loudness over clarity. 

[Niall]

I only listen to blues music and a bit of folk recently, so what I buy is processed as any other I've got is. The Death Magnetic album from metallica was processed for loudness. It was quite literally the worst album I've ever heard for production values. The music sucked too! I'm so glad I borrowed it from a bloke in work before buying it!

[Steve]

I suppose this is about getting back to HiFi, with recordings of a broader dynamic range akin to good old fashioned vinyl. They are only selling you the same quality that the music was recorded at. The key is can you tell the difference that depends on your ears and the quality of your system. Both Windows and Mac OS X/Linux with the an appropriate soundcard or external USB DAC can be set up to output 24 bit sound at 96kHZ (although the majority of equipment is still 16 bit), the OS setup is not straightforward either as any mixing/equalizer function has a habit of changing the output frequency.

You are not going to play or serve this on your iPod as they currently cannot output 24/96 plus album sizes will be in the order of 2Gb.

Not forgetting that many already listen to to 24 bit 96Hz sound i.e Blu Ray via surround sound system.

[Rik]

I hate to argue, Steve, but vinyl had a poorer dynamic range than CDs, 80db typically, occasionally up to 120db. CDs are around 150db. The first time I could really hear the opening bars of the Verdi Requiem was with the move to CD. Before that it was either lost in the background mush, or the recording was heavily compressed.

[pctech]

My sound card (Creative X-FI Xtrememusic, 5 years old) has always had a 24-bit crystalizer option, you notice a very slight difference but not that much.

This ia a complete con.

A friend of mine who is a DJ prefers vinyl for mixing.

[Steve]

Must be a con , that's why Linn the well respected Hifi manufacturer have been releasing 24/96 and higher recordings for some time after all they are only allowing you to play the music at the quality it was recorded at i.e the studio master.It is only recently that consumer hardware and software applications have been able to deliver the bits perfectly without any conversion at an affordable price. Me I can't tell the difference between 16/44.1 or 24/96 in the end it's all down to the quality of the studio master you can't make a bad recording better.

[Niall]

I've got that sound card too. I'm actually replacing it with an Asus one when I get paid, but I don't think I've actually got anything that's been ripped in 24 bit, although games support it. Hmm, I can't think of anything I have that could actually be ripped to that quality.

[pctech]

It tends to amplify the 'digital artefacts' when playing MP3s.

[Steve]

For any one that's interested but it's not an easy read, you can see some of the issues especially with XP of getting bit perfect sound from a PC. The infamous kmixer unless certain conditions are met will change the frequency and volume of the input to the soundcard and the quality of the conversion is not good. There are drivers available that bypass kmixer i.e ASIO which invokes kernel streaming and more recently in Vista/7 WASPI which invokes exclusive access to the soundcard driver.


http://code.google.com/p/cmediadrivers/wiki/Bitperfect

Suitable software players are Foobar and J River Media Center

With the Mac it's relatively easy as iTunes from version 7 is bit perfect as long as the volume slider is on full, the sound check is unchecked and the equaliser adjustment sits in the middle.

There some free 24/96 here https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=login&redirectto=samplealbumdownload&ialbum_id=6446

[.Griff.]

I've got that sound card too. I'm actually replacing it with an Asus one when I get paid,

Which card? The Asus Xonar?

I swapped from an X-Fi Xtreme music to a Xonar but a week later I gave it away to a mate and got another X-Fi card.

The Xonars aren't as great as some reviews make out.

[Niall]

I may do a little more research then. Pretty much every review I read up to about 3 months ago raved about how much better they were, but I suppose things could change though.

I'm actually pondering holding off on the card as it is. My plan was to totally rebuild the majority of my PC, then upgrade to a bluray reader, new gfx card and then monitor. As I'll have to wait to get a new case, I might as well just leave the soundcard out for now as I wont have a case to put the new bits in as I'll be using this old case. Although with the £80 saved on the sound card I could get another case

[Niall]

Hmm, looking around the Xonars are still looked upon as being better, but apparently http://www.guru3d.com/article/auzentech-xfi-prelude-71-review/ this is better.

Looking at that review, and around a bit more there doesn't seem to be much in it at all. If you get the extreme gamer X-fi or if you get the prelude. The only thing that baffles me is why can't I find a prelude anywhere to buy? The Auzentech X-fi Prelude when I search for it on google only comes back with TWO used items for sale. The only one they have on Scan is a cut down version. Also, the Xonar range seems to be a bit over the top as there are LOADS of different types of their cards.

Okay, I've searched more now (and just realised I never posted the above ) Auzentech seems to not be sold by the major PC building companies, so I'm assuming the problems with drivers that were mentioned in that 2 year old review didn't get better. In fact I just googled them and found forums with a lot of rather nasty issues with Win7 64 bit, so it looks like more research into the top end Xonar or X-Fi may be on the cards. If it's even close to being the X-fi then it's not worth bothering at all!

[pctech]

When I had my system built I selected it as I usually have some music going through the speakers when using the PC (either from my own collection, Spotify or the Digitally Imported trance channel). it's driving a nice a Harman Kardon Soundsticks 2 speaker system.

[Niall]

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/asus-xonar-essence-stx-pci-e-audiophile-sound-card-optical-dolby-pro-logic-ii

Well that seems to be the best looking at a LOT of reviews. However the same company do a card they claim is PC Hi-Fi which is the same price. This I don't understand. Why would you have two cards in the same price bracket? I suppose the sound isn't as good as it could be with the above and the other is dedicated for music, but has a lesser performance with games.

I'll read comparisons on those two tomorrow. One thing that did amuse me was the Creative blurb about the X-Fi range when they came out. They claimed they could take a 16hz signal and turn it back to 24 to replace the lost information. That's impressive, adding information that isn't there to begin with The review is on the PC Pro website if you want to read that (from 2005)

[Steve]

24 bit bad for users

Edit .Link sorted

[pctech]

Link seems to just take me to the main site Steve, the links on it don't seem to work either.

[Rik]

Fine here, Mitch. Try this.

[pctech]

second one works, must be my work PC.

[Rik]

You'd have to copy & paste the first link, Mitch.

[Steve]

I think it's sorted now