Slashdot Mirror
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."
(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.
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.
Bookmark BugMeNot or get the BugMeNot Firefox plugin. Use it. Love it.
This article is full of so many distortions, it's mind-bending. First, they are revealing the secret -- which they assume none of us gullible rubes ever realized before -- that most digital music we get from the internet is stored with lossy compression. The article goes on to explain that all music with lossy compression sounds crummy (comparing it with 8-track tapes), and the only measure of digital sound quality that matters is the bit-rate.
Music from the iTunes Store, they say, sounds extra-crummy since it's compressed to only 128 kbps. (The distinction between AAC and MP3 is never even mentioned.) The implication is that consumers will rebel someday when they discover they've bought a bunch of music that isn't "true CD quality". Clutching torches and pitchforks, they'll storm the ramparts at Cupertino.
Maybe I'm just a tin-eared old goat, but the difference between a CD and a 128 kbps MP3 track doesn't leap out at me in casual listening. When it comes to 128 kbps AAC or 192 kbps MP3 tracks, they sound like CDs to me -- even when I listen closely, with headphones. Maybe if I had audiophile speakers or better headphones (or younger ears) it would make more difference, but honestly. . . This is not a distinction that keeps me up laying awake at night, wondering if my music collection is subtly flawed.
At the other extreme, the true golden-eared stereophiles of our world have complained since CDs first appeared about *their* low sampling rate. What, only 44,000 samples per second? You can't capture sonic detail at the high frequencies that way! But given the difference in sales between iPods on the one hand, and SACD or DVD-Audio players on the other hand, I think anyone can see which way the wind is blowing.
I'm doubting the majority's ability to discern or even care about the quality differences. However, anyone into serious collecting will definitely very much be concerned with this. Probably won't hurt Apple's business significantly though, and I'm sure they know it.
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.
Line eater? What lin
Let's Look at the benefits of purchasing compressed online music:
... uh, that's it.
1. Immediate gratification.
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.
the NYT article quotes the idiots at Stereophile. When your magazine recommends that people buy 200$ power cords for their reciever to "filter" out the bad power that your outlet gets, thats trouble.
Stereophile is also well known for shunning proper ABX sound listening tests because with such a test they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a $5000 amp and a $200 amp. link
The fact that the article doesn't even go into how AAC compression works, makes it pretty obvious that its a sham. This article seems to be written from a elitist, anti-logical stance. Sigh.
Sorry, Hit submit too soon. Between the author and the submitter, there's some miscommunication.
THe "Half the size" bit is about Apple Lossless, not about AAC, and is in the fanciful segment wherein the author envisions his own version of iTMS offerings. He has no understanding of the expensive nightmare that housing and providing CD-sized tracks over the Internet presents. I believe he twists Derick Mains words in the last paragraph of the first page; paraphrasing his "reasoning". He doesn't seem to realize that offered lossless compression would need to be more expensive.
The author of the article makes no mention of the different codecs used for the iTMS and Rhapsody, leaving the comparison to a linear scale of bit-rate between the two services and CD-quality, but neglects his own findings later. If the bit-rate were the only difference to him, the article would have been much shorter.
He refers to comments from Sterophile twice to bash Apple - but never Rhapsody - and refers to 128kbps as "the low end of the bit rate range", clearly unaware that smaller MP3 players compress music down to 96 or 64kbps. He refers to an "apples to Apple" comparison of 192 to 128kbps, saying, "the companies use the same software standard for compression" when, in fact, they don't.
He muses, "we should have the option to collect with true CD quality". Well, sir, you do. It's called a CD. If you don't wish to make use of the online music stores, don't. No one is forcing you to type in your credit card number.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Why would you buy the same songs on CDs you already have when you can just rip them yourself with iTunes, at a higher bitrate than 128kbs? I don't think they're trying to push people to buy songs on CDs they already own. Please support your assertion.
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):
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!
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
Whatever your opinions on AAC vs. MP3 vs. Ogg and so on, anybody reading this article should know that Randall Stross has an extreme bias against Steve Jobs. Stross is the author of "Steve Jobs and the Next Big Thing", a historical piece on NeXT Computer. You can't go two pages in that book without running across Stross editorializing (negatively) about Jobs' personality or intelligence. Not very professional for somebody calling himself a "historian".
So, aside from the fact that Stross is a completely non-technical writer, take his views on Apple strategy and products with a grain of salt the size of Gibraltar.
Sure, if you want a whole CD.
.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).
.99 USD price tag.
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
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
Well, let's see. I used to listen to albums, that were apparently far superior in sound quality than anything else in the world. They would get scratches that would cause them to make popping sounds and would add fuzz to the music. What the hell, it still sounds fine.
Next, I bought cassettes. Cassettes had an always present hiss in the background and after several plays, the music on the cheaply made cassettes would start to fade. What's worse, the tapes would eventually stretch and snap after overuse. That was fine too. I could listen to my music.
Then I bought CDs. These were okay too. They were bulkier than cassettes--sort of. They were also prone to scratches, but far less so than records. The problem was that they were digital and not analog, which meant that I wasn't getting to hear all the sound that was being played by the artists (as we obviously were with LPs and cassettes since they had infinite information storage capabilities). Oh dear. Where's my tape hiss? Where's the fullness of my phonograph? Well, whatever. I can still hear the music.
Now I have lossless MP3s and AACs. The horror. They don't scratch. They don't add tape hiss. They don't wear out at all and are incredibly portable. However, they don't store all the information that our CDs do. They even distort some of that sound. Oh no! Oh, wait, I can still hear the music. That's okay.
So, my point is, what the hell does it matter? There's no perfect recording medium. If there were no choices we'd be happy with whatever we had. Now that the common consumer has a choice, she frets day and night over how many bits she's losing. Talk about a waste of time. Freedom of choice isn't always a blessing. It can distract you from those other freedoms that are slipping away.
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.
"...who search the reason of things
Are those who bring the most sorrow on themselves." --Euripides, The Medea
The scary thing is that to the uninitiated you will sound like you know what you are talking about even though you haven't the slightest clue.
First you say that 320 kbps is lossless because the waveform is "pretty much the same". Then you demonstrate your extreme ignorance of the very process you try to sound knowledgeable about by implying that all 256 kbps compression does is filter frequencies above 20Khz. This is wrong. Completely wrong. Not even close to how it works.
Your assertions about what people can hear or not hear are just that: assertions. It's totally meaningless. Just because audiophiles have not bothered to produce some kind of test to your satisfaction that proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that they can hear the difference does not mean that they cannot hear the difference.
I have done so called abx testing of my own using the software from hydrogenaudio, and I was not only able to correctly distinguish which tracks were compressed, but also which tracks were encoded with which codec (although not as accurately).
I am confident that I could personally pass any legitimate test you could come up with comparing 256 kbps material with the CDs. I will admit that 320 kbps would be more difficult, but given a sufficient amount of time and high enough quality source material, I could blindly identify those as well. So much for your 320 kbps is lossless theory.
There is one codec that I am not completely confident I can identify though: MPC. At a high vbr this codec tends to sound really good, even to me. The author of that proggy really did his homework when it came to psycho-acoustic compression. I haven't done a lot of testing with it. Maybe it really is transparent. I don't know.
I am poor and I can assure you that I do not buy CDs out of the goodness of my heart or because I feel sorry for the rich record company executives and "artists". I buy CDs because I can hear a very significant (varies based on source quality and bitrate) difference.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.