[starman]

I've been a big CD collector since I got my first player in 1986. I'm having a VERY hard time believing that the AAC versions are better than buying a CD in the store.

So now they're starting to offer exclusive tracks. This is what kills me - I'm considering buying Sheryl Crow's new album from the ITMS because of it, and I keep thinking that I'm going to regret it for sound quality alone.

Am I wrong? Any audiophiles or CD snobs want to jump in here?

Mike

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by starman

Am I wrong? Any audiophiles or CD snobs want to jump in here?

I'm sure they will.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, for the average consumer, it probably doesn't make a big difference. If you are an audiophile, well, yeah, you have a problem with iTunes exclusive content...

-t

[Eug Wanker]

The exclusive tracks for the music I listen to almost always show up a few weeks or months later on CD. Sometimes I might just buy the exclusive tracks off iTunes for 99¢ and then get the extras CD or whatever later.

BTW, I encode AAC at 192 Kbps. At that point it becomes extremely difficult to differentiate it from CD, even on a home stereo system with good speakers. However, depending on the material, it's not as hard to differentiate 128 Kbps AAC from CD. For iPods and computers the quality differences between 128 and 192 Kbps are irrelevant however.

I think I'd be happier if Apple sold the songs at 160 Kbps. That's an excellent compromise between quality and space. 128 Kbps is just a tad low IMO, but I can understand Apple's rationale for selecting that bitrate, considering they have to deal with all the bandwidth (and in truth, 128 Kbps is pretty good overall).

[Stradlater]

Different people will argue differently, but these purported audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between 256kbps MP3 and the CD on $12,500 equipment. If you plan on listening on an average stereo or iPod, 128kbps AAC should be more than enough. If you're listening on tens of thousands of dollars worth of speakers, amps, cables, etc., the difference will be there, but probably small.

At any rate, Sheryl Crow isn't exactly classical music, and the way most pop and rock is mastered these days, there may be no noticeable difference at all.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Sometimes I might just buy the exclusive tracks off iTunes for 99¢

Most of the exclusive tracks, I've noticed, are tacked on as "Album-Only" parts of the download.

[jcadam]

I wish apple would sell tracks in Apple Lossless format. They could charge a little extra for it. I would be willing to pay $1.30 for the same track in Lossless format. No problem.

[lavar78]

Really, it depends on how you intend to listen to the music and how much difference you can tell. Why don't you buy a track for $0.99 and compare?

[starman]

Well I wrote a long response to this only to have IE lock up on me :grr:

Lavar: you're right, I should. I don't have my iPod connected to my big setup only because there's no need since everything on my iPod (short of a few singles and a handful of albums) are on CD.

It's quality vs. content. Back in the day, CDs had the exclusive tracks vs. album or cassette. That was a no-brainer since CDs had better quality than cassette (album was arguable, not going there).

I'm just not convinced that an AAC version could sound as good as the original CD. Yeah, if Apple offered AAC Lossless, this wouldn't be an issue, especially since I'm literally out of room and I can't hold any more CDs.

How do I listen to my CDs? Mostly in the car. Same with the iPod, but I have a cassette adapter for the stereo. There's an obvious quality difference because of that.

I might bite the bullet and just get the iTMS versions. It's hard when you spent all these years with one format.

I still think that there should be downloadable DVD quality audio for some of these albums.

Mike

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Different people will argue differently, but these purported audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between 256kbps MP3 and the CD on $12,500 equipment. If you plan on listening on an average stereo or iPod, 128kbps AAC should be more than enough.

That's why I encoded my CDs at 256 Kbps MP3 (iTunes Fraunhofer). I consider 192 Kbps AAC (iTunes again) basically equivalent, but only started using AAC in the last couple of years, once iTunes/iPods got much more prevalent.

If you're listening on tens of thousands of dollars worth of speakers, amps, cables, etc., the difference will be there, but probably small.

You don't need tens of thousands of dollars worth of stuff to notice the difference. All you need is a good set of headphones and a clean source. In other words, if you're listening for differences from CD and say 128 Kbps MP3 (and sometimes 128 Kbps AAC) you can hear them (even blinded) with less than $1000 worth of equipment.

At any rate, Sheryl Crow isn't exactly classical music, and the way most pop and rock is mastered these days, there may be no noticeable difference at all.

Not true at all. I've noticed obvious differences (in my MP3 days) even on Janet Jackson CDs with 128 vs 192 Kbps encoded material.

Eug's VERY rough guide:

192 Kbps AAC ~ 224-256 Kbps Fraunhofer MP3 <-- The rates at which Eug encodes.
160 Kbps AAC ~ 192 Kbps Fraunhofer MP3 <-- Probably the best compromise between quality and space.
128 Kbps AAC ~ 160 Kbps Fraunhofer MP3 <-- Still very good, and good enough for most people actually.

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Most of the exclusive tracks, I've noticed, are tacked on as "Album-Only" parts of the download.

Yeah, I've noticed that with some. But I was also thinking of iTunes-exclusive singles and stuff.

[ReggieX]

Originally Posted by starman

I've been a big CD collector since I got my first player in 1986. I'm having a VERY hard time believing that the AAC versions are better than buying a CD in the store.

I don't think they are either, but IMO if I'm buying something, it's to play on my stereo.

Real media are for the stereo system, MP3s are for the iPod, and rarely if ever do the two cross paths.

[lavar78]

Personally, I'm willing to accept a small (and possibly imperceptible) loss in quality in exchange for convenience. Besides, I was practically drowning in CDs; I love having everything digital now. The only CDs I usually buy now are from yourmusic.com.

[production_coordinator]

The quality is lower. And a trained ear will be able to tell the difference... (when the conditions are right). I have a hard time distinguishing from the original and the AAC file in most cases, but I would say that when I'm in a silent room with headphones... 1 in 20 songs sounds off IMHO.

I'm a big fan of simply buying CDs... as who knows when the next killer compression scheme may come out that offers higher quality, more openness and smaller files.

I simply buy the CD and acquire the bonus songs.

[dav]

i always try and get the best source of my favorite music, but the music comes first. i'd get the itunes exclusive and not think twice.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by ReggieX

Real media are for the stereo system, MP3s are for the iPod, and rarely if ever do the two cross paths.

Yeah, but the beauty of CDs as you know is that you always have a hardcopy with the best quality available, you can encode whatever MP3/AAC quality you want with them.

I just iTunes my CDs whenever I get a new one.

[DeathMan]

I buy cds too. Not so much for quality, but for availability, and convienience. I dislike Apple's DRM. I didn't think it would be a problem, but it turns out I really hate it. I use several computers, and I hate the feeling that I'm going to run out of computers I can play my music on, and have to call Apple, I'm not even sure what you do, as I've had two computers that I've reformatted without de-authorizing them first. Don't really know how to get rid of those.

I also like the packaging, because someone puts a lot of time into creating a visual that goes along with the music, and I've always enjoyed that part of the music buying experience.

I very much dislike these album only tracks. What is the point of a per song download system, if all the ones you don't have aren't available. Why would I buy this stuff twice?

[lavar78]

You can de-authorize all of your computers at once (click your account name) and then authorize the ones you want.

[MacNStein]

I'd probably buy more music from Apple if 192K or 256K AAC options were available for a slightly higher price, but they aren't. As it is, most music I buy these days is on SACD (sometimes DVD-A), and an occasional CD.

[Doofy]

Aside from the audio quality issues, there's something else to consider...

If everyone starts buying from iTMS (etc), your local record store will go bump. Once all the local record stores have gone bump and CDs are no longer made, you're at the mercy of the large providers who may then hit you with some sort of ultra-horrible DRM.

CDs are the gold standard. Let's keep 'em that way and keep buying them.

[Stradlater]

You don't need tens of thousands of dollars worth of stuff to notice the difference. All you need is a good set of headphones and a clean source. In other words, if you're listening for differences from CD and say 128 Kbps MP3 (and sometimes 128 Kbps AAC) you can hear them (even blinded) with less than $1000 worth of equipment.

128kbps MP3 is one story, but 128kbps AAC is quite another. 128kbps MP3 is sometimes noticeable with even computer speakers, and almost always quite noticeable on my Grados. The differences, however, are only subtly noticeable with some music on my headphones with 128kbps AAC. With 160kbps AAC, I can rarely tell the difference, and at this point it could just be placebo.

Not true at all. I've noticed obvious differences (in my MP3 days) even on Janet Jackson CDs with 128 vs 192 Kbps encoded material.

With MP3, I'm not surprised, but with AAC I think it's a different story.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

The differences, however, are only subtly noticeable with some music on my headphones with 128kbps AAC. With 160kbps AAC, I can rarely tell the difference, and at this point it could just be placebo.

I would agree with that. And given the choices, at what bitrate would you encode your files?

Like I said, based on the above, 192 is what I have chosen. I can almost never tell the difference at that bitrate, whereas at 128 I can sometimes. ie. I don't like it that Apple has chosen 128.

[Salty]

I do all my files at 128kbps AAC, I don't even listen to the CD. The only reason I buy a CD is because I can't get it on iTunes. I only have so much money and iTunes is a lot cheaper than most CDs in most stores up here. As well it's instant, and I have it on my iPod right away.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I think I'd be happier if Apple sold the songs at 160 Kbps. That's an excellent compromise between quality and space. 128 Kbps is just a tad low IMO, but I can understand Apple's rationale for selecting that bitrate, considering they have to deal with all the bandwidth (and in truth, 128 Kbps is pretty good overall).

192 would be a nice sweet spot. Then you can reencode to a different format and still have acceptable quality. In terms of future-proofing my music, my ears aren't getting any better, but music formats come and go.

[Salty]

You're not supposed to re-encode Apple's Audio files. Yes I know you're thinking JHymn but when you make the DRM you use it's kind of dumb to look at your customer base see the ones that'll break it and want to serve them. That said I just De-DRMed most of my iTunes music because I was having trouble using it on a computer that is authorized for my account but apparently not for a few songs from the same account. Why they don't make it a tag or something on the DRM itself that is tied to just one log in or something like that I don't know. So anyway I used JHymn, removed the DRM, fixed the library and it's fine. That said it's still my computer and what not so I don't care. And this is Canada so it's not as if I'm out of my legal fair use rights.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Different people will argue differently, but these purported audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between 256kbps MP3 and the CD on $12,500 equipment. If you plan on listening on an average stereo or iPod, 128kbps AAC should be more than enough.

Are you equivilating 256 kbps MP3 to 128 kbps AAC? It's not surprising that audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between the former and CDs, because 256 kbps in any format is way above most people's threshold for transparency. But 128 kbps AAC is a much different story. As Eug pointed out, it's more equivilent to 160 kbps MP3, which is most definitely not transparent in audiophile circles.

Anyway, back on topic: I buy from the iTMS when I just want one particular song from a CD that I already know I won't buy. Everything else, I get on CD and rip to Apple Lossless.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

equivilating

Please tell me that's not a real word.

"equating"

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by lavar78

Please tell me that's not a real word.

"equating"

Ha. Yeah, I knew that seemed wrong when I typed it. Brain fart.

[lavar78]

Hey, I got a kick out of it. I love made-up words like that. Reminds me of a NewsRadio episode...

[starman]

Here, I'll make up a word...supposebly

[DeathMan]

That's pretendous!

[B Gallagher]

Originally Posted by starman

Well I wrote a long response to this only to have IE lock up on me :grr:
....
I still think that there should be downloadable DVD quality audio for some of these albums.

Firstly, get Firefox. It's MUCH better than IE.

More to the point, yes, DVD quality audio would be fantastic, but DVD quality audio takes up a lot more space than CD audio does, given its much higer bitrate.

Unless you're on broadband (and even then, really), I doubt how much time you'd want to spend downloading DVD quailty audio when you could just go out and buy the DVD.