And I guess if the answer is no, has anyone ever tried to create this?I guess we'll have to wait and see what shape these technologies take. Apple already provides more-than-transparent 16-bit AAC files (256k bps), so if they release more-than-transparent 24-bit lossy files we'll probably be left without a source file to encode ourselves. Yet it'd be good to know if there are any alternatives or if anyone has ever taken a look at this before.
Can we emulate this technology at all? Are there codecs available that can handle this?
A 24-bit FLAC or MP3 or Vorbis?
Apple already provides more-than-transparent 16-bit AAC files (256k bps), so if they release more-than-transparent 24-bit lossy files we'll probably be left without a source file to encode ourselves.
It seemed like, from what I could tell on the wiki at least, that these regular audio formats were limited to a certain Hz range -- below the 24-bit range, anyway.
Many models of Mac computers can play 24-bit sound, and the iTunes program is capable of handling such files.
Oh, cool. Does that mean we get to buy all our music over again? Let me see:Vinyl, CD, Remastered CD, 24bit HD Download. Genius!C.
I could really care less about 24-bit lossy audio as my own listening tests and experiences show that I am perfectly happy with the 16-bit lossy audio that I have now.
practically 24 bits source is preferable as it guarantees that there were less stages where some quality degradation can have place.
I do not need or want lossy files encoded at a larger resolution.
I do love that irony, though - 24-bit audio files to distribute music with literally a few dB of dynamic range
How would you know if you did or didn't? Why would you care? Assuming that the first 15 significant bits are the same between 16 and 24 bit source files, how do you think their lossy counterparts will differ? Have you tested this?
Hz and bits are different things. Hz is a unit of frequency, the number of bits determines the resolution of amplitude. 16 bits provide more than enough resolution for the vast majority of tracks Apple has to offer. Of the tracks that may (I said "may", not "will") benefit, this benefit may only be realized in only an extremely quiet listening environment.EDIT: Garf was faster.
How do you know if 16 bits is enough for most tracks offered by Apple? Have you listened to all of the music that Apple offers through the iTunes Store? Have you tested their 24-bit solution to determine that the benefit is only realized in an extremely quiet listening environment? Have you done that with the majority of the tracks they are offering at the new resolution?
I think there is still no one on HA who has shown through ABX testing that 24bit bitdepth is distinguishable from 16bit when converted properly.
The main use case for 24bit data is processing, not end user consumption.