Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's Lead in U.S. Music Sales Continues to Increase as iTunes Gains and Wal-Mart Falls

i'll take a second to address the question of whether MP3/AAC compression is noticeable when compared to the lossless original:

on a decent quality playback system, compression (even at the highest possible bit rate) IS noticeable with musical content that contains subtle details such as the bowing of a stringed instrument in symphonic music, or the hiss of a ride cymbal in jazz. most people simply don't know that they're missing something because they've never heard a comparison, or they aren't intimately familiar with the instruments in the recording.

lossy audio compression is great for certain things, but it fails to accurately capture music as it's intended to be heard.
 
sgtCaspian said:
yuck. this means most people buying music today are purchasing butchered compressed versions of what they'd be getting with a real CD.

dear apple,

START SELLING LOSSLESS MUSIC!
Click to expand...

All recorded music is somehow a compressed version of the real deal (live music). Let anyone decide what it's acceptable to him/her.
 
j-traxx said:
what kind of speakers do you have? does it really make a huge difference on your ipod? unless your headphones cost as much as an ipad then it isnt going to make the gods of audio end the world. lossless for home consumption is a cool idea but with everything going mobile, that isnt where the smart money is.
Click to expand...

storage drives are getting bigger everyday. and processors are getting faster. mark my words, we will see lossless compression formats start to take hold in the years to come.

i have 2 pairs of headphones under $200 and i notice the difference between FLAC and MP3s at 320 kbps in blind tests.

all i'm saying is that we shouldn't accept a step down in quality from physical CDs.
 
sgtCaspian said:
the first step in letting the general public make a decision is presenting them with an option. i'm just a music enthusiast who wishes more people knew about lossless audio compression.
Click to expand...

But there are not lossless audio recording. For some music enthusiast the quality of CDs is unacceptable. For others is just fine. Same for AAC or mp3. Convenience plays a big role in determining what format one choose. I do agree however that in an AAC or mp3 file the quality of music is noticeable inferior compared to a CD. But for casual listening it may be just fine.

Generally speaking when music is reproduced the more kb per second the audio stream delivers the better the music. For example Apple sells music at 256kbs, CDs have 1,411.2kbs, and 96/24 tracks have 4608kbs. You may be interest in www.hdtracks.com to try the 96/24 format and see if you notice the difference.
 
fifthworld said:
But there are not lossless audio recording. For some music enthusiast the quality of CDs is unacceptable. For others is just fine. Same for AAC or mp3. Convenience plays a big role in determining what format one choose. I do agree however that in an AAC or mp3 file the quality of music is noticeable inferior compared to a CD. But for casual listening it may be just fine.

Generally speaking when music is reproduced the more kb per second the audio stream delivers the better the music. For example Apple sells music at 256kbs, CDs have 1,411.2kbs, and 96/24 tracks have 4608kbs. You may be interest in www.hdtracks.com to try the 96/24 format and see if you notice the difference.
Click to expand...

i think we're mostly in agreement here. humor me for a moment though.

the hierarchy of music quality:

live music
analogue (well-preserved vinyl/tape)
*high resolution digital (blu ray, SACD)
*CD quality digital (all lossless formats including FLAC, WAV, etc.)
compressed digital (MP3, AAC)

*these digital formats are within the realm of possibility for a service like iTunes. as network speeds and drive sizes increase, they'll become more practical.

i just think Apple should get the ball rolling on lossless files for labels that choose to supply them. this way both the consumer and supplier have more options.

thanks for the link to hdtracks. i'm actually already a customer.
 
sgtCaspian said:
the first step in letting the general public make a decision is presenting them with an option. i'm just a music enthusiast who wishes more people knew about lossless audio compression.
Click to expand...

alot do know but of you really want the only solution is vinyl and a diamond tipped needle. cd's are a massive step down from the studio master. until they rediculously expand storage options then it wont even be a big deal.
 
sgtCaspian said:
the hierarchy of music quality:

live music
analogue (well-preserved vinyl/tape)
*high resolution digital (blu ray, SACD)
*CD quality digital (all lossless formats including FLAC, WAV, etc.)
compressed digital (MP3, AAC)

*these digital formats are within the realm of possibility for a service like iTunes. as network speeds and drive sizes increase, they'll become more practical.

i just think Apple should get the ball rolling on lossless files for labels that choose to supply them. this way both the consumer and supplier have more options.
Click to expand...

j-traxx said:
alot do know but of you really want the only solution is vinyl and a diamond tipped needle. cd's are a massive step down from the studio master. until they rediculously expand storage options then it wont even be a big deal.
Click to expand...

Agree:

this means most people buying music today are purchasing butchered compressed versions (mp3 file) of what they'd be getting with a real Apple AAC file >

this means most people buying music today are purchasing butchered compressed versions (AAC file) of what they'd be getting with a real CD >

this means most people buying music today are purchasing butchered compressed versions (CD) of what they'd be getting with a real BR/SACD >

this means most people buying music today are purchasing butchered compressed versions (BR/SACD) of what they'd be getting with a real vinyl/tape >

this means most people buying music today are purchasing butchered compressed versions (vinyl/tape) of what they'd be getting with a real 45 or 78rpm vinyl >

this means most people buying music today are purchasing butchered compressed versions (45 or 78rpm vinyl) of what they'd be getting with a real <enter here any "superior" technology>

...but at the end, and at the beginning, is only the music that count.
 
sgtCaspian said:
on a decent quality playback system, compression (even at the highest possible bit rate) IS noticeable with musical content that contains subtle details such as the bowing of a stringed instrument in symphonic music, or the hiss of a ride cymbal in jazz.
Click to expand...
Proof it with an ABX test, and come back.
 
Seriously...

I mean come on. Look, I'm a huge apple fan in fact I've even worked for the company for sometime. But if people only knew what they were doing. 8 times out of 10 you'll find amazon selling the same music at the same bit rate but much cheaper. i.e I was preparing to download all of the MOH soundtracks on itunes-each album at $9.99. However something told me to check amazon to see if they were selling it cheaper. Guess what, they were-$6 cheaper. I bought Michael Buble's most recent full album from Amazon, as a promotion, for $0.99. I bought Spoon's most recent album for $4.99 from Amazon. Keep in mind though, apple was selling these albums for $9.99. More often than not, Amazon sells the same music at the same bit rate but for cheaper. Many don't know that but................SERIOUSLY....
 
rickspel said:
Really sad (and really surprising)to see that Hot Topic is listed at #20
Click to expand...
Indeed. How does that happen?

Interesting that 7 of the stores on that list are digital-dist only. Amazon of course does both, and I'm sure if you split the mail-order CD and MP3 stores into two entries it would mean 8 of the top ones were digital (AND Hot Topic would fall off the bottom).

While for most of the hardware I own (and what 99% of people in the US own) 256K AAC is good enough to be indistinguishable from lossless for me, and certainly good enough that a higher-def format wouldn't do any good, it would really be nice to see online sources start offering 96kHz/24-bit audio (or better) as a more expensive option.

Heck, even with modest compression at a high bitrate it'd probably be a noticeable improvement--I say based on the fact that even with my relatively modest HTIAB system the music on a TruHD soundtrack I just watched (96/24, not even 192/24) was perceptibly better than a CD.

As a couple of people have already commented, what I REALLY want to see is an online store--I don't care if it's iTunes, Amazon, or somebody else--that finally does away with the preposterous segregation of music by nation. I want to be able to buy ANYTHING recorded, EVER, RIGHT NOW. There is exactly zero technical reason for this not to be available, and frankly there's not even much economic incentive apart from entrenched ridiculous bureaucracy in the dying old-guard music industry.

Good riddance to them--they had their chance to adapt, and didn't. Too late now.
 
sgtCaspian said:
the hierarchy of music quality:

live music
analogue (well-preserved vinyl/tape)
*high resolution digital (blu ray, SACD)
*CD quality digital (all lossless formats including FLAC, WAV, etc.)
compressed digital (MP3, AAC)

*these digital formats are within the realm of possibility for a service like iTunes. as network speeds and drive sizes increase, they'll become more practical.
Click to expand...
If you believe that analog vinyl is superior to DVD-AUDIO/SACD or Blu-ray audio then you need to go to your nearest store and buy an ear syringe to clean out the brown wax in your ears. Vinyl deteriorates in quality with each play and even a new record has hiss and pops.

I remember vinyl. It was crap. You either have wax in your ears or you are tone deaf.

The reason why you think vinyl sounds better is because the low pass filter on the record player filters out a lot of the higher frequencies and causing it to sound "warmer". The player is trying to minimize the prominence of the hiss and pops that you get from vinyl.
 
mikefj2004 said:
I mean come on. Look, I'm a huge apple fan in fact I've even worked for the company for sometime. But if people only knew what they were doing. 8 times out of 10 you'll find amazon selling the same music at the same bit rate but much cheaper. i.e I was preparing to download all of the MOH soundtracks on itunes-each album at $9.99. However something told me to check amazon to see if they were selling it cheaper. Guess what, they were-$6 cheaper. I bought Michael Buble's most recent full album from Amazon, as a promotion, for $0.99. I bought Spoon's most recent album for $4.99 from Amazon. Keep in mind though, apple was selling these albums for $9.99. More often than not, Amazon sells the same music at the same bit rate but for cheaper. Many don't know that but................SERIOUSLY....
Click to expand...

Does the music Amazon sell iTunes compatible?
 
sgtCaspian said:
yuck. this means most people buying music today are purchasing butchered compressed versions of what they'd be getting with a real CD.

dear apple,

START SELLING LOSSLESS MUSIC!
Click to expand...

that would be great. i'm still buying on cd and on Vinyl (The Black Keys, Them Crooked Vultures... what a sound!)

@ Eric5h5 : lol :D
 
mikefj2004 said:
I mean come on. Look, I'm a huge apple fan in fact I've even worked for the company for sometime. But if people only knew what they were doing. 8 times out of 10 you'll find amazon selling the same music at the same bit rate but much cheaper. i.e I was preparing to download all of the MOH soundtracks on itunes-each album at $9.99. However something told me to check amazon to see if they were selling it cheaper. Guess what, they were-$6 cheaper. I bought Michael Buble's most recent full album from Amazon, as a promotion, for $0.99. I bought Spoon's most recent album for $4.99 from Amazon. Keep in mind though, apple was selling these albums for $9.99. More often than not, Amazon sells the same music at the same bit rate but for cheaper. Many don't know that but................SERIOUSLY....
Click to expand...

It sounds pretty that you have worked for APPS.You are right that amazon is quiet cheap than app but are u sure there quality is good?
 
Exactly how do user experience suck?

MrBlink said:
I know competition in the market is supposedly better for everyone and people sometimes get their stuff for $0.30 cheaper at Amazon or whatever, but the user experience totally sucks on those other sites and the only one I really want to see succeed is iTunes. :apple:
Click to expand...

I'd like an example, please? I go to the MP3 section of Amazon (can't fault them for having lots of other stuff too), then do a search and am presented with choices of songs or albums. I download what I buy, and it automatically appears in my iTunes library, exactly as if I bought a song from iTunes.

How is that a sucky experience? Is it because the web site doesn't look as pretty? After all I'm buying music not web art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back