Lossless downloads coming to iTunes?

A recent upgrade to the iTunes Producer software used by studios to encode tracks for iTMS distribution may be a good sign for the discriminating audiophile community, as Apple has included the necessary tools to create lossless AAC content that could presumably be uploaded to the online store. While the simple availability of this option certainly doesn't mean that higher-quality downloads are on the way -- for one thing, the so-called Apple Lossless Encoder still lacks the required FairPlay support -- Ars Technica points out that Cupertino and Hollywood could both potentially benefit from a less lossy option. Since tracks encoded in this format can be almost ten times as big as equivalent MP3s, widespread availability of lossless music may convince consumers to step up to higher capacity iPods, which would seem to be in Apple's best interest. As for the music studios, these high-fidelity tracks could presumably fetch more than the 99 cents that 128Kbps files go for, opening a door for the tiered pricing structures that content providers so desire. For now, though, these crystal-clear downloads are still merely speculation, so hardcore audio snobs enthusiasts will have to continue buying and ripping their own CDs for the foreseeable future.

[Via Ars Technica]

[Jake @ Jun 23rd 2006 3:58PM]

The 128kbps AAC files are why I don't buy tracks off of iTunes. This would make me reconsider.

[DG @ Jun 23rd 2006 4:01PM]

For 99 cents, sure. Three to four dollars a track? Nah, makes more sense to have the CD and artwork.

[Trae @ Jun 23rd 2006 4:01PM]

Depends on the price of the lossless tunes.

[Caleb @ Jun 23rd 2006 4:01PM]

I can verify this story to be true. We are an authorized digital distributor to stores such as iTunes. The latest version of their iTunes producer software converts the audio into lossless .AACs which are then uploaded into their store (there isn't an option not to use lossless - it's automatic). Good for the audiophile, but it takes us about 4 times longer now to upload it. :)

[Caleb @ Jun 23rd 2006 4:04PM]

Oh yeah...and this only effects newly uploaded content into iTunes. All the music that is currently in there now I assume will have to be re-encoded and resent to iTunes if the customer/artist wants a higher quality file.

[Bob @ Jun 23rd 2006 4:16PM]

I like the idea, and I'm willing to pay a little for lossless quality. In the meantime, I'll use la la and rip lossless (or any other bit rate I want) for a buck.

[Jake @ Jun 23rd 2006 4:27PM]

You can bet this was Apple's plan the whole time. there have over 1 billion downloads of 128K AAC (≈192K Mp3).

Apple and the RIAA expect you repurchase your songs again using Apple Lossless. Don't expect that you can re-download your songs for free. If you think you should be able to then you deserve to be bitch slapped.

But when will this happen?
There are many competitors to ITMS cropping up and Apple is selling less iPods now as copy-cat alternatives are providing a similar integrated function. I reckon Apple will release the full quality when the Apple sales start to trail off a bit. The cost will be either .99, 1.24, or 1.49 per track, at most. Convenience is worth something to most people, but getting too much past the cost of an Amazon.com purchased CD would be counterintuitive.


I've been copying my CDs into iTunes as Loseless for over a year now. They do take up 10x the space on average. That means 10x the bandwidth requirements. How will this effect Apple's bottom line?

[John Iburg @ Jun 23rd 2006 4:28PM]

I don't think apple wants to sell more higher capicity products, there making a shit load on those flash nanos.

[Josh Warner @ Jun 23rd 2006 4:33PM]

I'd actually consider 99c for a lossless track with NO DRM WHATSOEVER instead of dismissing it out of hand. I know that won't happen though, so I'm preemptively dismissing this one.

[Pablo @ Jun 23rd 2006 4:39PM]

Josh Warner said, "NO DRM"

Can someone wake Josh up, please? I think he's dreaming. :-D

[Scabies @ Jun 23rd 2006 4:49PM]

re: Jake
Umm.. I bought an album on iTunes, because I didnt have a warehouse music or best buy nearby, but it sounded funny. Telltale signs of compression, like airy sounding silence and watery sounding cymbols. Then I got the CD shipped to me, and ripped that at 192Kbps MP3. (128AAC=192MP3)=100BS

Lossless might finally turn my head, but you better believe that im burning, deleting and ripping with something else to overcome the DRM the moment I download anything.

[Nick @ Jun 23rd 2006 4:49PM]

Josh: But just think. You could download that lossless track, burn it to a cd, import it again as lossless, and have a DRM-free lossless track. :P

[www.macproguide.com @ Jun 23rd 2006 4:52PM]

This is great news for all. I for one never cared for the lousy sound quality 128K AAC files.
I actually think the MS variable bit rate files sound much better myself.

Like the switch from VHS to DVD !!! I guess we can never keep up.

[Bryan @ Jun 23rd 2006 4:54PM]

Lossless or not, these are not yours in the end. Apple controls your collection and that's unacceptable. I would love to buy movies or music online without hesitation but I know in the end what I'm missing not only in quality but in privacy. These are my media and I don't need someone watching me because they don't trust my intentions. I don't pay Apple or anyone to do that.

[Pablo @ Jun 23rd 2006 4:59PM]

Jake is right, Scabies. aac is much newer --yet less ubiquitous than mp3-- compression format. 128aac is approximately 192mp3 in relation to file size to overall quality. However, with any lossy format certain compressions work better for certain types of files. For instance, AAC isn't the best option when it comes to spoken word. Using one personal example really isn't good research or very logical. There are plenty of websites that break it down. check 'em out.

[Chris @ Jun 23rd 2006 5:06PM]

Bryan said: "Apple controls your collection and that's unacceptable. "

How does Apple control my music collection?

[Lawrence @ Jun 23rd 2006 5:23PM]

Apple controls your collection because after you buy it, you can't do with it what you want. You can only copy/burn it so many times, you can't easily move it to another computer, you're limited to the number of different ipods you have it on, etc.

[Subliminal Fusion @ Jun 23rd 2006 5:30PM]

Chris - I think what Bryan means is that you can't resell your tracks purchased from the iTMS like you can with CDs that you buy.

Frankly, that doesn't concern me very much (I regret selling the few CDs that I have sold), so if this does happen a lot more of my music purchases will be from the iTMS (currently I'll buy CDs even though they're a couple bucks more than albums on the iTMS).

[Jeff @ Jun 23rd 2006 5:32PM]

"128aac is approximately 192mp3 in relation to file size to overall quality."

BS.

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html

Apple's marketing may try to convince you otherwise but that was a double-blind test. 128kbps aac is equivalent to 128kbps mp3 (the difference is not statistically significant).

As always, though, different encoders can do better or worse, and iTunes isn't the only aac encoder. Neither is LAME the only mp3 encoder. But I think that test pretty well demonstrates that there is no clear difference between the sound quality of these two codecs in general, as you wouldn't expect there to be a dramatic improvement over iTunes for aac, or over LAME for mp3.

[Chris @ Jun 23rd 2006 5:38PM]

Lawrence,
The RIAA says you not allowed to a) copy your CD to another media HDD, iPOD) and b) you can't change the format (AIFF to MP3).

The next argument is that they can't stop you from doing it. My counter-argument is that Apple and the RIAA can't stop me from removing the protection from the AAC.

[Russ @ Jun 23rd 2006 5:45PM]

While most people can't tell the difference between 192kbps audio and lossless, there is an obvious reason to maintain a lossless audio format. At some point in the future, of course, the AAC format will be obsolete. That means I'd have to convert my music to some other kind of format. I'd run into trouble with FairPlay and run into quality problems (converting from one lossy format to another really destroys the quality). Therefore, I'd rather encode my own CDs onto my computer (FLAC lossless) and skip the DRM altogether. It's worth it.

[Mark @ Jun 23rd 2006 5:54PM]

"But just think. You could download that lossless track, burn it to a cd, import it again as lossless, and have a DRM-free lossless track. :P"

I think this comment is right-on. Loss-less DRM effectively allows you to circumvent DRM, so it's a non-starter, unless you don't have burn rights.

My guess as to why apple is doing this is just to standardize quality. Transcoding lossy formats leads to crappy sound.

[Jough Dempsey @ Jun 23rd 2006 5:56PM]

Lossless as compared to what? It's not like CDs have infinite fidelity.

Studio masters are often far far higher quality than CD tracks. But then Apple lossless pretty much equals "CD quality with no compression artifacts."

DRM is completely moot when it comes to lossless audio - you can always burn it to a CD and then re-rip - voila. No DRM.

So they'd be better off just not putting DRM on them.

I've never bought a track from iTMS, mostly because of the crappy quality but also because of the DRM. I do listen to music on my iPod nano when I'm out and about. I just tend to rip everything to MP3.

But if Apple offered 99cent lossless downloads I may consider buying stuff from them. I most likely definitely would if it didn't have any DRM hassle. I want to be able to listen to my music on any future MP3 player that I buy too. I don't want to be locked in to the iPod, because it may not be the best choice for me forever.

But of course Apple is in the business of selling iPods and use the DRM to lock you in. If you have a huge iTunes music collection you'll be less likely to switch away from the iPod.

That's why this rumour is likely just that. I'd be very much surprised if Apple allowed lossless or non-DRM track downloads.

In the meantime, AllOfMp3.com is wonderful.

[SR @ Jun 23rd 2006 6:13PM]

If this is true - I am in. I will buy my first iTunes download.

[SR @ Jun 23rd 2006 6:43PM]

AllOFMp3 is bullshit IMHO. They claim that they have lossless files But they simply do not sound right. I have compared the "lossless" file with a EAC rip and they don't sound the same.

A waveform analysis also showed differences between the two. So I stopped buying from them.

[zip22 @ Jun 23rd 2006 6:55PM]

"Apple controls your collection because after you buy it, you can't do with it what you want. You can only copy/burn it so many times, you can't easily move it to another computer, you're limited to the number of different ipods you have it on, etc."

wrong, wrong, wrong, and whats the etc?
fairplay DRM:
-authorized to play on up to 5 computers at one time
-any number of ipods
-can copy the files anywhere you please
-unlimited burning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay

[StooMonster @ Jun 23rd 2006 7:31PM]

Yep, lossless would make me an iTunes store customer -- so long as the price is same or less than CD.

I've emailed Apple a couple of times to say that I won't every buy any tunes from them so long as they are lossy formats. Perhaps others have done the same and they are listening to customer feedback? But until this happens, I'll continue buying CDs and ripping them as Apple Lossless.

[PMX @ Jun 23rd 2006 11:06PM]

For people claiming that lossless takes 10x the space, no they don't. They take 10x the space if you import as AIFF or WAV, but the Apple Lossless audio codec, much like FLAC, compresses the audio to about half the size the uncompressed audio file takes, while maintaining every last bit intact. So, this files will take about 5x as much space as 128AACs, but maintain 100% of the audio data contained on the original, uncompressed audio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless

[HighResolutionPlease!!!! @ Jun 23rd 2006 11:50PM]

CD's still suck. Period. They are cold, tinny, completly lacking in depth, and unable to resolve any nuances or details. MP3, AAC or any other compression method is A BILLION TIMES WORSE.

Furthermore, I am insulted that the author of this blog would assume that audiophiles enjoy or desire CDs. We don't, so there is no point to this article.

If they gave access to studio quality digital downloads, I would start buying. Oh, and I would need a way to burn SACD or DVD-audio disks. Until then, long live my wonderful collection of Vinyl, SACDs, and DVD-audio.

[threEchelon @ Jun 24th 2006 12:54AM]

^^ Actually my ALAC files range from 7xx to 11xx kbps and are generally around 1 mbps, over 7.8 times greater in size than a 128 kbps AAC file.

[doc @ Jun 24th 2006 2:19AM]

What zip22, and others, leave out when they defend the Apple DRM is that it's not a set in stone thing. They reserve the right to make changes, and those changes will apply to all of your previous purchases, no matter what the rules were when you made those purchases. They've done it before and I wager they will do it again. THAT is how Apple controls your music. And if you think fuzzy teddy bear Steve has your best interest at heart, ask anyone who used to stream their iTunes purchases over the internet to their work computer how that is working out for them. Or maybe look into the rules about streaming your songs on your local lan. They didn't change it to let you add 'more' connections.

If you buy in to the Apple DRM system you are trusting that Apple and the RIAA are never going to decide that now you can't burn any protected songs, or who knows what else. I for one don't trust either of them to make that decision.

And for everyone that always brings up that you can just burn a CD and rerip it without DRM I would first point out that while possible, that is against Apple's TOS. And even if it wasn't, it's just stupid. Why would I want to buy music from them so I could burn a cd and rerip it instead of just getting a freaking cd? That's convenience?

[Julian Bond @ Jun 24th 2006 3:13AM]

Let's say Apple wanted to follow AllOfMp3's lead and offer different bit rates at dfferent prices. It would make sense for them to store a lossless version and then encode on the fly and/or cache popular encoding levels. That would mean asking the suppliers for a lossless version for them to start with. That may be all that's going on here.

Now look at the pricing. 99c is only slightly less than CD prices. If they sold lossless at a premium it would have to be higher than CD prices. And then what's the point? 99c seems completely reasonable to me for a lossless DRM-Free version. It's directly equivalent to the CD without the packaging. But then that means that 128Kb + DRM ought to be much less. More like 25c or so.

Which just reminds me again. Anyone who buys low quality, over-priced, DRM infected music from iTMS must be stupid.

Just Say Not To DRM.

[NewConcepts @ Jun 24th 2006 3:37AM]

How does this idea sound to add even more convenience with a lossless w/lossy audio file:

1) Buy a lossless song from iTunes, which also incorporates a 128kbps AAC version for your portable Apple iPod Nano if you want more songs fitted into your Nano. Otherwise always can choose to store lossless on Nano. But this is 1 file with both quality, easy to maintain your music collection!

2) Buy a 128-kbps AAC song from iTunes @0.99, pay a bit more to convert to lossless, while maintaining the current AAC version as well. For 1 file, you get the best of both worlds, a small 128kbps file, and a high fidelity lossless file!

Will this new concept be desirable for iTunes users? Of course, Apple DRM will remain .... :-(

[Galley @ Jun 24th 2006 9:52AM]

RealPlayer 10.5 can transcode audio files on the fly as they transfer to portable devices. Why can't iTunes add the same thing for non-shuffle iPods?

[audiophile4sure @ Jun 24th 2006 12:05PM]

www.yourmusic.com

[zip22 @ Jun 24th 2006 12:55PM]

doc, to the best of my knowledge, the itunes music store has never changed its terms of service for the worse. they do indeed reserve the right to (which is the same with any company selling content online), but they haven't. the streaming issue you are refering to has to do with the free software itunes and nothing to do with the itunes music store. in fact, the itunes music store INCREASED the number of computers that can be authorized for a song from 3 to 5.

it was a good try, though.

[o rly @ Jun 25th 2006 1:56PM]

great to see that zip22 slithered his way over from dapreview.

back on topic, lossless itunes downloads are decent enough too bad they'll be wasted on inferior sounding mp3 players (ipods except maybe a shuffle) and those stylish white earbuds.

[Rosemary @ Jul 21st 2006 4:25PM]

I purchased some music from iTunes, now I want to turn some of those songs to MP3s (to load on my MP3 player cell phone) I follow the directions and it tells me those songs can not be saved in different formats. It won't allow me to burn it to an MP3 disc.

I have an ipod, but I no longer carry it everywhere with me. I'd really like to be able to listen to a few of these songs on my phone when I'm stuck somewhere bored.

Am I just a noob that didn't realize that when I purchased the song, I wasn't really purchasing the song. I was purchasing it only to play on my (up to 5 computers) audio cd or ipod?

Is this something that is common knowledge and I just overlooked in iTunes? Is there a choice to pay slightly more for a version that I could use where I'd like. I'm not trying to sell or share, I want to move it to non-apple player.

Any advice is appreciated.

Rosie

[Aaron @ Aug 13th 2006 1:53PM]

To Rosie and others who want DRM-free music: Burn your purchased iTunes songs to a CD then re-rip the CD into the format you want. Voilá. No DRM.

[Jim @ Aug 13th 2006 2:10PM]

I would absolutely use the itunes music store if they offered Lossless quality. The fact that they don't has probably saved me from many impulse purchases. I Don't see it happening though because of the bandwith costs alone.

[one1step1 @ Aug 13th 2006 3:20PM]

Probably its more likely that Apple wants the songs uploaded into Apple Lossless, so then they can let you buy the compression you want on the fly, like Allofmp3.

Also, for example, they couldl up the bit rate for an extra .20 or something, to help pay the extra bandwidth, which seems fair to me.

I have a great stereo, and even when I do MP3, I use 192kbps, with my personal hearing, I don't notice the difference. Since AAC is more efficient, I think it does fine for the masses, but some options for higher fidelity would be nice.

[Cramidy @ Aug 13th 2006 3:41PM]

I may be suffering from momentary retardation, but i noticed that they mentioned the file type "can be almost ten times as big as equivalent MP3s, widespread availability of lossless music may convince consumers to step up to higher capacity iPods, which would seem to be in Apple's best interest. "
Now, if the file type is about 10 times as big, that would make it the same size as a PCM WAV file @ 16bit/44.1khz... point being, why go with this lossles technology if you can just get the original WAV?
Dunno. if i misunderstood somthing, please point it out and call me a flippin retard.

[Uchendu Nwachukwu @ Aug 13th 2006 3:49PM]

When Napster upped its audio bitrate from 128kbps WMA7 to 192kbps WMA9, it let existing users re-download their purchased tracks at the higher bitrate for free.

Somehow, I doubt Apple will extend the same courtesy to its customers.

[Brad @ Aug 13th 2006 5:51PM]

To me personally lossless AAC would be great. If the music only cost a little less than list price, I would still do it, as long as I could burn it to CD. Once on CD, I can rerip with no conversion loss to any format I want, and I will have a CD with better quality than with the regular 192kbps iTunes tracks. That said, I currently have only bought one CD on iTunes.

[John @ Aug 13th 2006 6:54PM]

Nit-picking: Folks, it's not "lossless AAC," it's Apple Lossless Audio Codec (ALAC). They may call the files ".aac" files, but they're not AAC.

I don't believe ALAC is a part of any standard (MPEG or otherwise). It's Apple's own concoction. It has been reverse-engineered, and an open-source decoder is available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALAC

For long-term storage, you're probably better off with FLAC.

[Sam Johnston @ Aug 13th 2006 8:20PM]

People, just because Apple are soliciting files in lossless format doesn't mean they're going to be making them available lossless - they will almost certainly be transcoding them as necessary, most likely initially at 160 or 192kbps. That way as the pipes get bigger and so on they don't risk eroding their catalogue (remember you can always downsample but it doesn't work the other way!).

[Mr. B @ Aug 13th 2006 8:41PM]

I don't want to knock 'progress,' but do audiophiles shop iTunes... I seriously doubt it.

[jack @ Aug 13th 2006 11:13PM]

"For people claiming that lossless takes 10x the space, no they don't. They take 10x the space if you import as AIFF or WAV, but the Apple Lossless audio codec, much like FLAC, compresses the audio to about half the size the uncompressed audio file takes, while maintaining every last bit intact. So, this files will take about 5x as much space as 128AACs, but maintain 100% of the audio data contained on the original, uncompressed audio."

Wrong. No way in the world its 100% the same quality. More like 70% if that. Apple is a DRM nazi, they have to be called out on that. ITs not possible to use Fairplay to copy 1 song to multiple ipods. Its not possible to easily recoop music if your computer crashes or is damaged. Anyone remember Katrina victims totally S.O.L. after loosing their whole playlist?

As a music lover, I can't support any group who endorses any sort of DRM. DRM is the digital man holding you down, stopping you from getting the goods.

But here is the rub. Apple isn't actually going to re-aqquire the source audio from each individual record company or artist are they? No, they are simply going to decode their current catalogue and charge people more for the same thing. you can't decode an already compressed mp3/aac and expect to get anything near the quality your looking for.

VBR mp3's sound way better than 128AAC's

AND this whole notion of MP3@192=AAC@128 is bologna- anyone who'd bother with 192kbps would likely jump right to 320kbps or they'd be like me and download everything in SHN or FLAC and decode to wav. :)

Down with DRM!
Up with Open Source!

BTW- anyone tell me where you can get RAM for the new Macbook Pro? Oh yeah, only from Apple. ;)

jack

[VL-Tone @ Aug 15th 2006 4:36AM]

If Apple wasn't there to prevent WMA DRM ubiquity, you can bet that by now the RIAA and other music labels associations would've eliminated good old "Red-Book audio" uncompressed CDs from the market, replacing them with WMA DRM audio only discs.

"When Napster upped its audio bitrate from 128kbps WMA7 to 192kbps WMA9, it let existing users re-download their purchased tracks at the higher bitrate for free."

Napster is a company funded by interests try to shove us the WMA format down our throats. Sure they give tons of "free" stuff because they have very heavy competition from the iPod and iTMS and want to "buy" your interest in the WMA platform.

How much profit did Napster make recently? Last time I checked they were losing money. Do you seriously think they lose money to be charitable and give free songs?

It was easy for MS to create a licensee market for WMA+DRM. Remember that MS controls more than 90% of the desktop OS market? All MS had to say is: "Want to be sure that your digital player can plug into Windows? Get our license..."

If Apple came out of nowhere when unveiling the iTMS and offered a license for the FairPlay DRM to other companies, it would have been met with a cold reception. Why would companies get a license for Apple's proprietary DRM when they already have a license for another proprietary DRM that is the default in the dominating computer OS?

It wasn't clear that the iPod would become that successful, but now that it's clear you see some companies "bitching" about Apple's reluctance to license.

That doesn't mean these companies are sincere in their intentions to support and promote the format. MS is the greatest example, with the XBox 360, they made a fuss about not being able to provide support for iTMS tunes because of Apple. Yet MS has no intentions of abandoning WMA and use AAC as a standard. They just want a way for their users to migrate from the iPod to their players. It would become a one way street since the iPod doesn't support WMA, and Apple would be pressured to get a WMA license. And if they did, WMA wins and Fairplay becomes the weird format to be obsoleted. And we'd be back at what I was saying at the start of this post.

If not enough big players are interested in making AAC the next audio standard, Apple licensing could fail badly and everybody would fall back to the Windows defaults.

FairPlay's value seems to be proportional to the number of iPods and iTMS tunes sold. So its in Apple's interest to wait the longest time until they license.

Considering that Microsoft's formats have an overblown value thanks to their OS quasi-monopoly, Apple needs to sustain a very high market share for a long time to appear as a viable alternative and be strong enough to go head to head with the giant.

Anyhow, sorry for the long rant... I rarely find anyone bringing those points so I always over-explain :)

[ispsec @ Aug 17th 2006 6:47PM]

Jack Wrote, "BTW- anyone tell me where you can get RAM for the new Macbook Pro? Oh yeah, only from Apple. ;)"

Jack this is wrong. You can get Macbook Pro RAM from any major memory on-line store for about $109-$149 1GB.

Must suck to go all that way with your argument and then come out looking like a horses ass in the end!!?!?!!!???