• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

Finally! High-quality music downloads are coming

Flint

Dog Faced Pony Soldier
Superstar
It doesn't mean anything to be 24 bit. I would rather have lossless 16-bit than highly compressed 24-bit.

Once we know the data rate we'll know if this is more interesting or completely pointless.
 

soundhound

Well-Known Member
Lossy compression is what effects sound quality. 24 bit doesn't mean a thing. Like Flint said, I would rather have lossless 16 bit than lossy compressed 24 bit.
 

Zing

Retired Admin
Famous
Yeah, 24-bit in and of itself is meaningless. As Flint and Soundhound have said, I would rather have 16-bit lossless than 24-bit lossy. :eusa-whistle:
 

soundhound

Well-Known Member
Zing said:
Yeah, 24-bit in and of itself is meaningless. As Flint and Soundhound have said, I would rather have 16-bit lossless than 24-bit lossy. :eusa-whistle:


And I would wholeheartedly second Zing's post. :text-+1:
 

Flint

Dog Faced Pony Soldier
Superstar
You guys are right on the money.

As many have already stated, I would rather have lossless 16-bit audio instead of lossy 24-bit audio.
 

mzpro5

Well-Known Member
Famous
When I think about it I would rather have 16-bit audio instead of lossy 24-bit audio. :text-bump:
 

PaulyT

Behind the Curtain
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Superstar
You all suck. 24-bit is better, no matter what the compression level. So there.
 

Haywood

Well-Known Member
Famous
Flint said:
It doesn't mean anything to be 24 bit. I would rather have lossless 16-bit than highly compressed 24-bit.

Once we know the data rate we'll know if this is more interesting or completely pointless.

I believe the article identifies it as lossless 24-bit.
 

Haywood

Well-Known Member
Famous
It was the idea that they were going lossless that excited me. I completely fail to see the point of lossy 24 bit.
 

Haywood

Well-Known Member
Famous
This line was the basis of my assumption, "Essentially, these retailers are hoping to hawk 24-bit audio rather than the compressed 16-bit files available today, possibly with a price premium attached. " They talk about compressed 16-bit files. That implies that the 24-bit files are not compressed.
 

Zing

Retired Admin
Famous
Haywood said:
This line was the basis of my assumption, "Essentially, these retailers are hoping to hawk 24-bit audio rather than the compressed 16-bit files available today, possibly with a price premium attached. " They talk about compressed 16-bit files. That implies that the 24-bit files are not compressed.
While I agree that could be the implication, it could also be that the author and/or "unnamed source" erroneously believe that all 16-bit files are lossy and that the higher 24-bit files are lossless. Just because they're the people selling it to us doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.
 

Yesfan70

I'm famous now bitches! vvvvv
Famous
If both files are lossless, then I wonder how much longer a 24 bit lossless file would take compared to its 16 bit counter part. If it's much longer, then I'll stay with 16 bit lossless.
 

soundhound

Well-Known Member
Yesfan70 said:
If both files are lossless, then I wonder how much longer a 24 bit lossless file would take compared to its 16 bit counter part. If it's much longer, then I'll stay with 16 bit lossless.

24 bit files would take 1/3 rd longer by themselves to download, but 24 bit files are also usually at either at 88kHz or 96kHz sampling rates instead of the current 44.1kHz, and that along with the 24 bit word length would make for a VERY long download.
 

Yesfan70

I'm famous now bitches! vvvvv
Famous
soundhound said:
Yesfan70 said:
If both files are lossless, then I wonder how much longer a 24 bit lossless file would take compared to its 16 bit counter part. If it's much longer, then I'll stay with 16 bit lossless.

24 bit files would take 1/3 rd longer by themselves to download, but 24 bit files are also usually at either at 88kHz or 96kHz sampling rates instead of the current 44.1kHz, and that along with the 24 bit word length would make for a VERY long download.


Bingo. That's why I think 16/44.1 would be more than good enough for me. I think with my environment, system setup, listening experience, and hearing abilities I question if the added resolution would outweigh the longer download times.
 

Kazaam

Well-Known Member
I'll be happy if iTunes were to offer 44.1kHz/16-bit Apple Lossless song files of their entire library. At least this way we'd get true CD-quality, which can be pretty decent if done right. And let me make the point that I'd want to see this become commonplace FIRST before they try anything fancy like 24-bit downloads.

That said, I think lossless hi-rez 96/24 stereo downloads may be worthwhile for a minority of folks and for some specific titles that were recorded well and specifically meant for hi-fi equipment. But I just don't want to put the cart before the horse, to be trite.
 

Haywood

Well-Known Member
Famous
I just want lossless downloads. I think 24-bit in and off itself is a bit gimicky. I was never sold on SACD or DVD-A sounding subtantially better than a good quality redbook CD. If 24-bit allows them to market lossless audio, I can deal with the bigger file size. Storage is cheap.

The reason I'm following this is that I am afraid that CDs will disappear over the next ten years and I don't want to be left with nothing but lossy options.
 

Kazaam

Well-Known Member
Haywood said:
If 24-bit allows them to market lossless audio, I can deal with the bigger file size. Storage is cheap...............The reason I'm following this is that I am afraid that CDs will disappear over the next ten years and I don't want to be left with nothing but lossy options.

I hear ya!

The physical CD is dying. Well... music sales in general are dying, I suppose. But I do hate it when something I want isn't available on CD anymore, and the only download option is lossy.

Still, I'm not sure how 24-bit would affect my current equipment: An old iPod from 2004 and an Airport Express for music streaming. If Apple can make it easy for me to make a transcoded copy of that lossless 24-bit file into a lossy MP3 based around 16-bits for my iPod, then it's probably a good thing even if the added sonic benefit of 24-bit is questionable.

The article seemed to indicate iTunes was already compatible with 24-bit music files, which is news to me; but good to hear if true. (Does anyone here know for sure?) If so, I wouldn't mind trying it out. Plus, it would give me a chance to see if the optical output on my Airport Express is able to handle 24-bit files, or if I'd have to transcode those down to 16-bit, too. Unfortunately, the only 24-bit download I have is a FLAC version of a Tom Petty album that I got gratis; but I don't know how I'd go about converting FLAC to wave or ALAC even to try this test.
 
Top