There is Nothing "High-Res" About Apple's iTunes

[MacCurry]

If you play it through a different DAC, sure. But that's not a failing of the CODEC, which is the picture you're trying to paint. Rip a CD to Apple Lossless, re-burn it to Audio CD, and play it in the same CD player, and you'll not hear a whit of difference. What's more, if you play an Apple Lossless file through the Apple TV's digital output over HDMI or S/PDIF into your receiver, you won't be able to tell the difference because it's going straight digital (the same as a CD's output) into your receiver's DAC.

Fair enough. But if I take my iPod and connect it to my processor/receiver there is a difference and also connecting my iPod to my car stereo and playing the CD in the car stereo. What I gain with my iPod is convenience and portability. I don't have an Apple TV yet and will get one when iTunes supports DVD-Audio and SACD.

What the original article is saying or asking, is for a better high-res CODEC to be developed where people would pay more for the music. Is this unreasonable since many people already have good music systems in their homes with home theater?

 

[MacCurry]

But for audio? I just stream my downloads over my airport (which is connected to my theatre system via optical). For what I need, it sounds great. I probably do not have the trained ears that you do, but I would say that you are definitely above average when it comes to that.

I'm not above average. In the last couple of years, I've listened to the same album from vinyl on a high-end system, to the CD released in the 1980s and then the down-load from iTunes. Its unfortunate that DVD-A of great albums from Cream, The Who, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and others aren't available.

 

[MacAnkka]

I agree and thats why its upsetting that EMI is working with Apple and not announcing the albums to also be sold in SACD and DVD-A formats.

Are they mutually exclusive or something? What does EMI releasing tracks on iTunes without DRM and with a higher bitrate have to do with EMI not releasing their music on SACD or DVD-A?

There's nothing upsetting about EMI is working with Apple and releasing tracks with better quality and no DRM on iTunes.

Personally, I think this is a very good thing. The sound quality from 128kbps->256kbps is very noticeable, even with equipment that doesn't cost fortunes. The step to Lossless/SACD/DVD-A is a lot less noticable, especially if the main purpose is to be used on the go with inexpensive gear.

 

[VoodooDaddy]

ROFL. I love how this guy thinks that "many users" would appreciate a lossless offering from Apple. The percentage of people who want lossless, high-res audio downloads is a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

Earth to idiot: most people can't tell the difference between 128kbps AAC and a CD, much less 256. Yeah, maybe you can, and if you can, you can still go out and buy DVD Audio or SACD discs.

Such nonsense.

Absolutely, 100% totally agree. I see SOOOOO many people saying that even 192kbps mp3s are garbage quality, they only want lossless, blah blah blah. Id wager a good amount of money that less than 1% of ppl could even tell the difference between 128 and 192.

 

[Scarlet Fever]

When I copy music onto iTunes, I rip it at 256kb/s AAC. I found that at this bitrate, I couldn't distingush between a ripped song file and a lossless encoding from the CD without straining to listen for differences.

If I used a lossless format on my iPod, the battery life would suffer, because the HDD has to spin up more to get song data, I would only be able to store 200 of my 2000 songs, because lossless songs usually take up about 10MB/min while my encodings usually are about 1MB/min, and it would all be for no real gain, because i'm listening to it through the standard iPod earbuds, while on a footpath next to cars, or talking to my mates, etc.

I think the best thing for MacCurry to do is not whine about how the iTunes music isn't high-def enough for him, and just buy the CD. It's only a few dollars more, and if he can hear the difference, that would be money well spent.

 

[iJon]

Oh how I wish every song in my library was comparable to DVD-A. I've collected quite a few high quality albums and they sound amazing compared to the MP3's. Unfortunately it requires good sound equipment which most people and cars don't have.

jon

 

[Cabbit]

most people who will even plug a apple tv into the HD tv using HDMI will still use the TV's very poor quality build in speakers, most of them arnt "allowed" to fill the living room with surround sound and better external speakers so i dont think going form 128 Kb/s AAC to 256 Kb/s AAC with make jack of a difference to them. And if you want better than what itunes has go and order the CD, SACD, or DVD. No way will anyone sell audio @ 10MB per minute when they can send 3 songs for the same and with little noticeable difference.

 

[Tom B.]

MacCurry, admit it, you have lost the argument.

 

[worriedmac]

Incredible post. I somehow was transfixed and read all of this thread while striptease was on the TV. Then I had a keen urge to listen to itunes bought music.

A long time ago I compared 128kb to the cd I ripped it from. Basically no difference that I could discern. A far cry from mp3 when I tried that. What I have noted over time cd quality seems to have gone down in resolution in favour of bassy unbalanced music. Sounds alright. Point being I don't think your gonna benefit from a lossless format when most music isn't recorded or offered to the public at a standard to take advantage of this.

Buy your special recordings in the way they are meant to be bought from the shop, an object to hold in your hands. I make DVD's for a living and you should see the difference between DVD's and original footage.

 

[localoid]

1. How many people have the money to be able to hear differences at 256kbps?
2. How many people have the money to be able to hear differences at CD level?
3. How many people have the money to be able to hear differences at SACD level?

I can hear differences with some B&W 800 speakers and a Mark Levinson amp too, but seriously how many people have the money to afford sth. like this?

Doesn't really require a small fortune... For portable use, I use a firewire device with decent D/As, monitoring the sound via a pair of Sony V7000 headphones driven from the device's Class A headphone preamp. For only a few hundred bucks, it beats lugging a pair of Altec Voice of the Theaters around.

Regardless... I can live with the limitations of iTunes. I can always go other routes, if I want better fidelity.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I make DVD's for a living and you should see the difference between DVD's and original footage.

This is pretty much why I don't go ga-ga over consumer HD setups. Yeah, they can be sweet and all, but after spending a lot of time watching high end HD straight from the set there's nothing on the consumer side that can even come close. Plus, a good movie, or song, is a good movie or song regardless of whether you are using high end equipment or something from Wal-mart.


Lethal

 

[Diatribe]

Doesn't really require a small fortune... For portable use, I use a firewire device with decent D/As, monitoring the sound via a pair of Sony V7000 headphones driven from the device's Class A headphone preamp. For only a few hundred bucks, it beats lugging a pair of Altec Voice of the Theaters around.

Regardless... I can live with the limitations of iTunes. I can always go other routes, if I want better fidelity.

Headphone fanatics don't count.

 

[[G5]Hydra]

http://www.avrev.com/news/0407/19.appleemi052.shtml
At this level, Apple – a company known for unabashedly selling $1,799 video monitors when for $299 you can buy a pretty big non-Apple LCD brand monitor

Um, that line alone seems to postulate that smaller low quality products are equivalent to high quality larger ones so why all the fuss about the quality of silly audio files when low bitrate ones are $0.30 less than double the quality!

-Jerry C.

 

[pseudobrit]

If anyone plugs Monster Cable I swear I'll blow up the whole world.

 

[Evangelion]

Has anyone working with music at Apple heard of Moore’s Law?

Wikipedia sez:

"Moore's Law is the empirical observation made in 1965 that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit for minimum component cost doubles every 24 months."

Products, software and overall applications are supposed to double in speed ever 18 months

Moores law was about integrated circuits. And now you are extending it to cover "products" and "software"? And digital music has less to do with Moores Law, they might be related to evolution of hard-drive space. And that has nothing to do with Moores Law. It seems to me that you have exactly zero clue what you are talking about.

yet they are selling audio at less than 1982 standards as high-resolution?

Like it or not, that "1982 stanard" is practically the best we can get these days. ANd 256kbit AAC is virtually identical to it. Yes, some audiophiles with 20.000 dollar systems and golden ears might cringe, but for the rest of us, it's good enough

Anyone who has heard the audio goodness of a high-res format like DVD-Audio

DVD-audio is dead and it offer very little benefit when compared to normal CD's.

In short: quit your whining

Apple's lossless encoding is actually very good for portable music. However, if the original CD was excellent (and there are very few of these, but the 'Love' album is an excellent example), then there will be noticeable differences between the original CD and Apple's Lossless encoding.

By definition lossless encoding does NOT lose ANY of the data in the content. Not one bit is dropped. So how exactly can you hear any difference between the two? I bet that anyone who makes that kind of claim is one of those who says stuff like "I can hear a clear difference between these normal speaker-cables when compared to these $20.000 cables".

I agree and thats why its upsetting that EMI is working with Apple and not announcing the albums to also be sold in SACD and DVD-A formats.

Maybe they realize that market for SACD and DVD-A is composed of just two guys? And one of them is right now trying to desperately get some page-hits on his crummy website.

"The problem is the fact that in their press release dated April 2, 2007 Apple states that their 256 kbps AAC encoding results in audio quality that is “indistinguishable from the original recording.”

So that is you problem? That some guy with uber hi-end system and golden ears MIGHT hear a difference between the original master and 256KB AAC? Well, you are just splitting hairs. Noi-one cares what the audiophiles think. Rest of the world already knows that they are idiots.

 

[kuebby]

Good call Evangelion, except for one thing; I've previously heard Moore's Law used to evaluate the evolution of current processors and other components. Though it wasn't originally worded that way the entire market has evolved like that.

 

[solidfox]

Fair enough. But if I take my iPod and connect it to my processor/receiver there is a difference and also connecting my iPod to my car stereo and playing the CD in the car stereo.

If you really want it you can also have your iPod output a digital signal through the dock connector. That's why, for instance, you want a Volvo with the all-digital audio system and an iPod dock-connector to really enjoy lossless audio from your iPod in the car. 'course you'd also have to rip CDs in lossless and not download them from iTMS.

​

 

[beg_ne]

At this level, Apple – a company known for unabashedly selling $1,799 video monitors when for $299 you can buy a pretty big non-Apple LCD brand monitor – is killing the high-end audio business with its pushing of truly low-resolution audio.

WTF kind of brainless argument is that? Unless you're really suggesting there are $299 30" LCD displays out there this kind of "argument" is completely moot.

 

[Xeem]

I would wager that FAR less than 1% of the population can tell the difference between 256KB AACs and Lossless tracks; as others have suggested, if you don't think 256KB AAC is good enough, just buy the CD. The iTunes Store was meant to cater to everyday consumers, not studio professionals.

 

[beatzfreak]

The problem is the fact that in their press release dated April 2, 2007 Apple states that their 256 kbps AAC encoding results in audio quality that is “indistinguishable from the original recording.”

Here's the press release from Apple:

“EMI and iTunes are once again teaming up to move the digital music industry forward by giving music fans higher quality audio that is virtually indistinguishable from the original recordings, with no usage restrictions on the music they love from their favorite artists,” said Eric Nicoli, CEO of EMI Group."

The author seems to have left out a word.

This article is more misleading than Apple's press release on many levels.

Everything the author "expects" from Apple isn't viable unless the labels are on board, first. Don't they have a hand in determining prices? This guy needs to do a little more research on the business of selling music before calling only Apple out on this one.

 

[Evangelion]

Good call Evangelion, except for one thing; I've previously heard Moore's Law used to evaluate the evolution of current processors and other components. Though it wasn't originally worded that way the entire market has evolved like that.

Moores law is about IC's and number of transistor in 'em. Later it has been expanded to cover the performance of CPU's as well. But that sill has very little to do with various compression-methods and their sound-quality.

 

[0098386]

My uncle is one of them people who says vinyl hold the best sound. What decade are they from?
The way I see it, music quality has been in decline since the 60's. My Beatles LP's sound better than my Beatles CD's, and chances are iTunes Beatles MP3's will sound worse than them all.

But you know what? Even with my high end speakers and middle end amplifier I don't really care. I play MP3/AAC files as low as 96kbps from time to time. Does it bother me? No. Will I break down and buy super high quality file? No. And I've got the equipment to run all this. So I guess I don't fit in with your little theory.

Plus, $50 on games? If that's the max you guys pay in the US then I don't spend anywhere near the max here in the UK

 

[MacAnkka]

If you really want it you can also have your iPod output a digital signal through the dock connector. That's why, for instance, you want a Volvo with the all-digital audio system and an iPod dock-connector to really enjoy lossless audio from your iPod in the car. 'course you'd also have to rip CDs in lossless and not download them from iTMS.

​

You can't get a digital audio signal from an iPod dock connector. You can only get Analog Line-out out of it. Not that it's bad or anything, it sure beats the headphone out and most audiophiles consider the line-out to be pretty decent. If audiophiles think it's okay, I'm sure it's enough for the general public. Still not digital, though.

Just a small nitpick.

 

[semicharmed]

Absolutely, 100% totally agree. I see SOOOOO many people saying that even 192kbps mp3s are garbage quality, they only want lossless, blah blah blah. Id wager a good amount of money that less than 1% of ppl could even tell the difference between 128 and 192.

I can't tell the difference between .mp3 and AAC at 128 kbps. And 90% of the time I can't tell the difference between the CD and the music on my computer.
I'm tone-deaf though and completely musically retarded; I can't differentiate between instruments on CDs and such. Almost like being color blind, but with sounds.
So the big deal with the EMI-Apple announcement is no DRM. Great, it's higher quality- I won't be able to tell and the songs will take up more space- but this also means me and my roommates can share music on iTunes without having to authorize/deauthorize everytime someone else wants to play music.

 

[Evangelion]

The way I see it, music quality has been in decline since the 60's. My Beatles LP's sound better than my Beatles CD's, and chances are iTunes Beatles MP3's will sound worse than them all

i wouldn't be so sure. i mean, isn't the reason for the crappy sound in beatles-cd's due to crappy mastering, and not due to the medium (cd as opposed to vinyl) as such?