[Chris Breen]

MacPCJustCreate said:

If this were not the case why are the resolution of most audio masters 24-bit and at higher sampling rates than CD, recorded using converters with stellar internal or external digital clocks that reduce jiter and jitter artifacts. Why were 24-bit converters and higher sampling rates even developed if there was no audible difference -- why not stay with the 16-bit/44.1 kHz CD standard?

It would serve you well to research exactly this issue. You've got the buzzwords, but you don't seem to understand why 24-bit is used in the studio and not in the home. Hint: It's about headroom.

[Chris Breen]

MacPCJustCreate said:

"Conducting
spectrographic tests, while interesting and informative DOES NOT
MATTER. I AM THE CUSTOMER and I want my DVD player to display the FULL
ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM including infa-red and ultra-violet. It
doesn't matter if I can see them or not. I am the customer and that is
what I want!!!"


Great, if that is your preference then I encourage you not to compromise and hold out for what you want! Good for you!!!

See, much as I find the over-use of smilies annoying, here's a case where the "sarcastic" emoticon would have come in handy.

[jtnave23]

I've almost caught up to you Chris! Although, I believe that I got one of the best discounts ever offered by iTunes. When Best of SNL videos came out, I purchased Best of Dana Carvey and Chris Farley for $1.99 each! They had a typo and I happened to be looking at it right around 12am, but by 7am, Apple changed the price to $11.99. Not a bad deal for a full dvd movie...

[smax013]

MacPCJustCreate said:

"there is a huge financial burden in the storage requirements of high fidelity audio"

The burden for approximately ten times the amount of storage for CD quality (16-bit/44.1 kHz) audio files is most likely not where the huge financial burden lies. Of course the amount of extra disk space will cost, but I think that it is the increased bandwidth costs to deliver approximately 10 times the amount of data for CD quality audio that may be the true cost driver. However Apple, Inc. could charge more for those tracks to cover the incremental cost difference.


Really it is just as well that Apple, Inc. will not offer what I prefer. Coming from the days of AOR (Album Oriented Radio) and the era of great concept albums like Genesis' "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway", Yes' "Tales From Topographic Oceans", Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" and "The Wall" The Who's "Tommy" and Quadrophenia" Jethro Tull's "Thick as a Brick", Camel's "The Snow Goose", Rick Wakemans "Journey to the Center of the Earth, etc., etc. I still prefer to buy the entire album. I like to hear the concept behind the entire recording including the choice of song sequencing, and prefer to have the liner notes and album art readily available while listening. I guess that I will never really get away from wanting the entire album, including the so-called "bad songs" which may be great when taken with the album as a whole and weaker by themselves.

And you kind of just hit on the biggest likely reason why Apple won't be doing it anytime soon (in red). You look at it as not being a big deal...Apple just charges more. OK. In and off itself, that is not likely a big deal. But, how many people want higher quality, uncompressed (or less compressed) songs? And how many people are going to be willing to pay extra for it? After all, how many people were willing to pay $0.30 more for iTune Plus songs without DRM before Apple dropped the price when DRM free stuff came to Amazon? To my knowledge, most people were still buying the DRM versions for 30 cents less. The point is that you are looking purely at what would please you and thus don't seem to believe that it would be that big a deal to add. Apple is looking at all that extra cost and the reality that most likely the additional market it will cater to will not likely cover that cost and thus would have to spread that cost to people who don't give a crap about higher quality audio files.



And THEN you go on to mention that if Apple did offer what you prefer, you would likely still NOT take advantage of it...which just reinforces that Apple might have trouble attracting that market segment enough to cover the cost of what you say you want but would not actually use.



Thus, why Apple does not do it.

[smax013]

MacPCJustCreate said:

I really do not care if Apple, Inc. adds high resolution audio or not, however my wallet will not open to iTS until they do -- thats really all I am saying, along with the point that better recording and reproduction of audio should still be pursued.

There are lot of things out there that should be "pursued" in life. The reality is that most, if not all, of them require money to be pursued. As a result, most companies will not pursue them unless there is a reasonably good chance that they make a return on their investment on that money they would have to put out to pursue those things. And the reality is that at this time Apple does not likely see a return on investment to pursue higher quality iTunes Store music....and it is not likely to change for a while. Not to mention whether or not the record labels would really WANT to put higher quality stuff out there that then makes it easier for people to copy stuff and still have decent quality...keep in mind that Apple does not control the content...so it could also be that maybe Apple would go better, but their contract with the labels prevents it. The whole digital world is giving record labels and movie studios enough heartburn as it is. :)

[mdawson]

The reality is that most, if not all, of them require money to be pursued. As a result, most companies will not pursue them unless there is a reasonably good chance that they make a return on their investment on that money they would have to put out to pursue those things. And the reality is that at this time Apple does not likely see a return on investment to pursue higher quality iTunes Store music....and it is not likely to change for a while.

And there it is. Most audiophiles are very likely to be of the same mindset as MacPCJustCreate and myself, and are therefore far less likely to purchase music from the iTunes Store even if Redbook quality audio was offered. As most would have invested in (expensive) high-end equipment, they are very likely to be inclined to use that equipment. Short of the industry ceasing production of physical media—which is not on the horizon just yet—, audiophiles will generally continue to purchase physical media that allows them to dictate how they ultimately get content onto their computer, if at all.

So until the audiophile market, which while a minority is still significant due to their buying power relative to the average person, is forced online it may very well be the case that it is not beneficial for Apple to provide CD audio through the iTunes Store. Also, given the price of a typical CD and the number of tracks that a typical contemporary CD contains—roughly 16 tracks on a $20 disc amounting to $1.25 per song—Apple would be hard-pressed to gain clientele if they charge more than they already do for iTunes Plus songs.

Not to mention whether or not the record labels would really WANT to put higher quality stuff out there that then makes it easier for people to copy stuff and still have decent quality…

And there it is… again. The music industry is as contradictory as any {name your favorite fundamentalist group}. CDs that offer the highest fidelity audio have been sold without any form of copy protection for over 20 years. Once CD recorders were hitting store shelves, the Industry attempted to have an injunction imposed on the manufacturers, but the courts, as they did in the early-1970s regarding cassette tape, told the Industry to eat it. So now the music industry sits behind the “offering CD-quality audio over the Web will result in rampant piracy” argument. If anything, those that do acquire music illicitly have clearly demonstrated that quality is far from the top of their list, so it does not matter what the music industry does or does not offer.

You bring up a very true point, smax013, but the music industry’s position on that matter is about as solid as baby feces. There are valid reasons for online resellers not to stock high end audio at this time, but the piracy argument is not one of those reasons as such music acquisition long predates legal online music downloads.

[smax013]

[quote name='mdawson']
>

>
> Apparently Barnum was right about how often suckers are born...
>

No he did not...me no write that. :)

mdawson said:

You bring up a very true point, smax013, but the music industry’s position on that matter is about as solid as baby feces. There are valid reasons for online resellers not to stock high end audio at this time, but the piracy argument is not one of those reasons as such music acquisition long predates legal online music downloads.

I never said it was a logical or intelligent position. I agree that the music industry is smoking some good stuff (possibly literally). Considering that CDs have been and still are 100% DRM free, they lost that battle a LONG time ago. Which is why it was only a matter of time before they ended up selling DRM free MP3s or other digital format. Their arguement about having to have DRM free stuff is a complete load of crap (to extend your analogy). The notion that selling DRM free MP3s will change ANYTHING is complete crap when all it takes in one person to go buy the CD, rip it, and post the resulting MP3s on the Net. It was a battle they lost before they even started. At least the movie industry with DVDs with CSS have some solid ground to stand on...their content has had DRM for quite a while and consumers have accepted it.

[mdawson]

> {quote:title=smax013 wrote:}{quote}
>
> No he did not...me no write that. :)
Ooops. Copy and paste error.
> {quote:title=smax013 wrote:}{quote}
>
> I never said it was a logical or intelligent position.
I know. I was agreeing with you and bolstering your argument. I agree with MacPCJustCreate from the audiophile perspective, but I am in complete agreement with you that the expectation of offering such content at this time is unrealistic.

[smax013]

[quote name='mdawson']
>

>
> No he did not...me no write that. :)
Ooops. Copy and paste error.

Could be forum software gremlins too. I have found that cut and paste tends to make some things go "kablewy". It is generally only formatting issues and I have only seen it when using my Windoze desktop.