Are iTMS's 128kbps Songs Worth Collecting?

pinchhazard writes "Randall Stross of the New York Times offers his opinion on iTunes Music Store's decision to offer downloads at only 128 kbps, and that decision's potential to affect collectibility of the songs. The article says that Apple makes the claim on its web site that "you'll get the full quality of uncompressed CD audio using about half the storage space." Rhapsody, which offers encoding at 192 kbps, is compared."

Comments

Re:128kbps MP3s

[Trillan]

p>Apple does not use 128 bit MP3s, but 128 bit AACs. That's fact.

I'd expect them to be roughly equal to 160 bit MP3s, but I'd expect 192 bit MP3s to be superior. That's just opinion, though.

AAC encodes better than MP3

[hattig]

(although I'm unsure what Rhapsody uses, maybe it uses MP3Pro which is pretty good).

I think that 128kbps is a little shortsighted from Apple, there will be losses in the audio at that rate. 192 kbps AAC would be preferable of course.

Then again, most people listen to music on cheap headphones, speakers, etc, or just want music in the background. In that respect 128 kbps AAC is way more than necessary, and beats a cheap FM radio totally (if only in that you don't have a retard DJ wittering on between tracks).

Music is just part of life these days.

Re:AAC encodes better than MP3

[Raindance]

It's also important to note that Apple's AAC files are encoded at 48khz (from the original DAT tapes, in many cases) instead of the normal 44.1khz cd-mix, which potentially significantly improves the quality. In some rare cases it might even produce something that's "better" than cd-quality.

Yes, it's still a tradeoff, but going from the original DATs means no frequency aliasing, which is a Good Thing.

RD

Re:AAC encodes better than MP3

[hattig]

From www.listen.com: "Rhapsody currently delivers audio encoded with Windows Media 8 using a proprietary streaming mechanism."

So the article is incorrect. They are comparing 128kbps AAC to 196kbps WMA. WMA isn't that bad quality wise, but it certainly isn't "the same software standard for compression".

I was also looking at the FAQ for Rhapsody. You can't burn lots of tracks, you can only burn if you pay extra per track and you are subscribing to their service. It is a DRM nightmare compared to Apple's reasonable DRM.

Re:AAC encodes better than MP3

[daBass]

Mastering to DAT is done at 44.1KHz. Yes, DATs can be recorded at 44.1 and this is desirable because ecoding once at 44.1 gives a vastly superior sound than downsampling to 44.1 to fit it on a CD.

If you find iTunes store tracks at 48KHz, my bet is that it was from a master much higher than 48, like 96/24 or even higher, which is not uncommon these days. Because of the vastly higher bitrates, downsampling to 44.1 for CD is possilble without degradation but 48 could arguably even be better.

That said, no matter how it's sampled, my 256Kbit MP3s (Fraunhofer "Pro" codec) from my own CDs will blow away any AAC at 128, not matter if they came straight from the master or not.

For many people, they cannot tell the difference.

[karmatic]

I've ran a number of informal listening tests, and many of the people I tested cannot tell the difference between a 128kbps MP3 (LAME) and a 256kbps MP3 (LAME) consistently, even on good equipment. (Too much loud music as a teenager, perhaps)?

However, there most definatly are people who can tell the difference, and I am one of them. Personally, I like 200+ mpc (MusePack) files - MusePack seems to do a good job preserving the crispness, and "body" (don't know a better term for it) of the audio.

Meh..

[kunudo]

I allways encode my stuff in 320kbps variable bitrate, since HD space is cheap, and if I lose a CD, I can be sure that I have a nice quality copy of the song. Recently, I've tried using FLAC too. Even better (lossless), but takes 2.5 times more space or so...

I would only buy 128 kpbs songs from itunes if they had some kind of system where I could download FLAC versions later, when I have more HD space. You've paid for 'mechanical rights', just like with full quality CS's, so why not?

Apple is smart

[mst76]

In a few years, when everyone is on broad band and storage costs half of what it does now, they will upgrade to "premium" 256 kbps songs. Lots of people will buy their collection again, just like they did with their record collection.

Allofmp3... :)

[Jugalator]

Allofmp3 suppots on-the-fly encoding to let you have 192 kbps Ogg's or whatever. Even FLAC or raw CD Audio is available, but only for some songs.

I have no idea how legal the site is where I live, but it's definitely legal in Russia. :-P

MP3 != AAC

[foobybletch]

So that article is basically saying that as the iTunes files are encoded at 128 kbps, they are intrinsically worse than files encoded at 192 kpbs. However, he's comparing an AAC coded file with an MP3 encoded file!

In my experience in using my iPod, I'm more than happy with 128kbps AAC encoded rips of my CDs and am very happy with the audio quality of the stuff I've bought off iTunes.

Let's not go down this path

[pedantic bore]

Let's not permit the music download stores to get into a pissing match over who's downloads are smaller/faster. They should compete on quality. Otherwise, today it's 128k, tomorrow it's 96k, and before we know it the stuff we download will sound like it's being played over a cell phone.

I say boycott any format that is any worse than the modern 192k (preferably better). If they can really do 128k without sounding any worse, that's fine. But based on the reviews I've seen, they haven't, so it's not.

320 mp3 is what it takes

[kazem]

Call me crazy, but I was listening to this one song over and over again. I kept switching between 128 mp3, 192 mp3, 320 mp3, and I'd listen to 128 AAC sometimes too.

I cannot tell the difference between CD and 320 mp3. There is a very subtle difference between CD and 192. 128 is a joke.

For AAC, I've found that importing the song at 192 is about the same as 320 mp3.

Give it a shot. Take some song that has some subtle sounds, like accoustic guitar, and listen to it. Import it from the original CD and listen to all the formats. It's surprising. I used the song "Battery" from Metallica because it has a mix of sounds. Specifically at the beginning where they're using 1 or 2 accoustic guitars.

No! No compressed music is worth purchasing...

[DrRobert]

Let's Look at the benefits of purchasing compressed online music:

1. Immediate gratification. ... uh, that's it.

Now, let's look at the disadavatages of purchasing compressed online music:

1. Lower sound quality. Everyone I have compared them for has asked "What's wrong with it?" after listening to the CD and then the AAC verison.

2. Codecs are changing very rapidly. You are investing a a fleeting software phenomenon that depends on the current and rapidily changing technology and the marketing whims of the computer and music industries. Soon there could be much better quality or with increased bandwidth CD quality. SOme sights now sell 24 bit flacs which you can burn using you regualr old DVDs and burner into DVD-A for BETTER THAN CD QUALITY.

3. Commercial CDs are inherently more stable than CD-Rs.

4. It is extremely difficult and time concuming to archive digital files for very long periods of time.

5. In most cases you get no liner notes or cover art.

6. You invite DRM.

7. For all the above, at a lot of stores, particularly iTMS, you PAY MORE for all these problems than a fine sounding CD, or a much better sounding DVD-A or SACD.

Frequency Myths!

[Venner]

Human ears listen up to about 16kHz.

Maybe for older folks whose hearing has degraded somewhat. People usually cite an upper limit of around 20kHz. I can certainly hear a tone at 20kHz, from a good tone generator (not a cheap one with harmonic interference.) That alone puts the Nyquist rate at 40kHz.

What's more, although people may not consciously perceive higher frequencies, work has shown that people do subconsciously perceive them.

To quote (from the article I'm linking):

Oohashi and his colleagues recorded gamelan to a bandwidth of 60 kHz, and played back the recording to listeners through a speaker system with an extra tweeter for the range above 26 kHz. This tweeter was driven by its own amplifier, and the 26 kHz electronic crossover before the amplifier used steep filters. The experimenters found that the listeners' EEGs and their subjective ratings of the sound quality were affected by whether this "ultra-tweeter" was on or off, even though the listeners explicitly denied that the reproduced sound was affected by the ultra-tweeter, and also denied, when presented with the ultrasonics alone, that any sound at all was being played.

The author also notes such facts as that 40% of a set of cymbal's audio energy is above 20kHz. So a 96kHz audio recording (range=48kHz) is not unreasonable. But good luck finding equipment to really play it back on correctly :-)

Article: There's Life Above 20kHz!

Re:Frequency Myths!

[Venner]

Re-read that again. Although the listeners didn't hear the extra frequencies by themselves, they basically rated the reproduced sound higher when those frequencies were included.

The conlcusions I read in another paper were that the ear isn't the only receptor of sonic energy. Did you read the article a few months back regarding how extremely low frequencies (inaudible) produced a sense of paranoia and was pointed at as a possible explanation for people experiencing paranormal phenomena? It's the same sort of deal. We can't hear those higher frequencies, but we 'sense' them, most likely through the skin or some other as-yet-unknown process.

Apple encodes from the master tapes

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been posted over and over again, but people keeps forgetting. Apple's AAC is not the same AAC that you get when you buy a CD and rip it to AAC. Apple's AAC is encoded from master tapes, therefore, eliminating the master tapes -> PCM (CD) -> CCA process. The result is better than what you get at the same bitrate. However, it is debatable at which point the bitrate defeats the source.

Re:Have you ever tried AAC at 128?

[bussdriver]

Since the last update the Apple AAC encoder pulled way ahead of the others. just google for it.

I'd say 128 AAC WAS like 160 mp3, which is FINE for me, I can't tell on most music; HOWEVER, since the update, I'd say 128 AAC is more like 192 mp3. I can no longer hear the stuff I used to be able to hear at 128. Not that I have perfect hearing, but there was a very noticable change when the updated the encoder...

More importantly, would be to ask if Apple re-encodes their music store music when they get encoder upgrades...

All that said, I now encode at 160 for good measure; because my audio freak friends can't tell between 160 and uncompressed.

Re:Are iTMS's 128kbps Songs Worth Collecting?

[kannibal_klown]

Sure, if you want a whole CD.

I have bought about 30 songs since iTunes started. They were all singles.

I usually only like 1-3 songs per CD. So, in reality, I'm spending .99 - 2.97 USD for the 1-3 songs I want, instead of 12 - 17 USD for the privelege of ripping those same 3 songs from a CD (assuming they're on the same CD).

Personally, I find the codec and bit rate fine, except for oldies. Some of those songs sound rather tinny. But more modern songs are good enough to warrant the .99 USD price tag.

Re:Are iTMS's 128kbps Songs Worth Collecting?

[BishopBerkeley]

This IS the case. What the article and few people on /. have failed to mention is that the problem is more a matter of the output quality of the iPod than the bit rate of the compression.

When I got my iPod, I was hoping to replace my CD player by hooking it up to my receiver. This was trivial to do technically, but the sound quality was always poor. I experimented with many, many different sampling schemes (i.e., AAC and mp3 at various bit rates). I finally settled on AAC at 224 kbps, but the output from my iPod was still inferior to what I got from CDs. Then, one day I plugged in my Powerbook to my receiver via the exact same cables that I use to connect my iPod to my receiver. Low and behold, the sounds coming out were PERFECT. (FWIW, I have a Harmon/Kardan receiver with JBL speakers. Good shit.) That's when I realized that the iPod was not designed to be connected to high fidelity equipment. It's output was designed for earphones.

So, I complained and complained to Apple, and sure enough, one of the improvements in the last iPod update was "improved playback." And, I heard the difference as soon as I installed the update. It's still not quite hi-fi, but it makes my trips in my car much more pleasant. At home, I still use either CDs or my Powerbook, but I think complaining some more will get more results from Apple.

I have complained to Apple about the bitrate, also, but for $0.99, one does get a good bargain.