iTunes 'not CD-quality'

[session]

The iPod's low bit-rate has come under fire ? as are Apple claims that iTunes Music Store customers get "true CD audio".

The New York Times advises: "Love the iPod, but don't jump too hastily to fill it with thousands of dollars of iTunes. The tracks are not carbon copies of the CD originals, but compressed versions.

"The smaller files are handy for speedy downloads, space-saving for storage and perfectly serviceable for listening through ear buds when riding on the subway. Not what you will want, however, when your desktop computer becomes the home jukebox and wirelessly sends these simulacra to the entertainment centre in the living room."

In order to create a small file, Apple uses "an extreme form of compression that takes a sample of the sound at intervals," explains the report.

"The bit rate for iTunes, 128, is so low that when played side by side against the original, the difference is audible not only to audio enthusiasts, but also to mortals with ordinary hearing," reporter Randall Stross claims.

See what Apple has to say.

[KeR]

I honestly can't tell the difference and trust me i have tried.

[sebaz]

well the reporter who wrote that article has just discovered warm water. Of course they are going to be compressed version of the Cd tracks, who wants to download 100mbs+ per track? "Let me buy this CD, ill just let it download through the day..." Cmon, we all know that we are bound to loose quality as soon as you use a compression method. The New York times should give this guy the "Captian Obvious and his Retard Squad" award.

[session]

Well, someone is gonna write a "G5 is not the fastest computer in the world" in the world :)

and "the new 30' cinema HD display isn't really 30' "

[MipScript]

Did you know the Apple logo is not actually a full Apple? seriously its not !! :woot: ITS GOT A BITE OUT OMFG!! CHECK IT!! and if im not mistaken the leaf on top of the Apple logo PERFECTLY!! fits the bite mark OMFG someone get me a type writer I gotta get this to the people!!!

[threetonesun]

I actually just downloaded some songs from iTunes finally, and I wasn't too dissapointed. For 128 tracks, they sound really good, and I'm more than happy getting singles from them.

[sebaz]

MipScript: you can get the mistress obvious award there.. ;)

lol

[benthebear]

Did you know the Apple logo is not actually a full Apple? seriously its not !! :woot: ITS GOT A BITE OUT OMFG!! CHECK IT!! and if im not mistaken the leaf on top of the Apple logo PERFECTLY!! fits the bite mark OMFG someone get me a type writer I gotta get this to the people!!!

GET OUT!

[pdog]

I thought all cd quality was ≈ 96 kbps

[cal2002]

No lossy codec can prduce "CD Quality" sound, doesn't matter what bit rate.

[pogz]

All of the online stores use high compression and claim it's 'CD quality.' That's why I'm sticking with CDs; the poor quality of iTunes (and other online stores') music is extremely noticable and annoying.

[Asmo]

Stick to downloading lossless files off usenet or other places

portable audio is never meant to be near as good as home audio, complaining that ipod is compressed is stupid though. I'd rather buy the CD, and rip it to the ipod then BUY their stupid compressed songs, I can compress it myself, and still have the original cd.

I guess for singles, eh, could just download it ;)

[salterbomb]

the guy forgets to mention that AAC quality tracks at 128kpbs is a better audio experience than having 128kpbs MP3's.

[username]

the guy forgets to mention that AAC quality tracks at 128kpbs is a better audio experience than having 128kpbs MP3's.

its still CBR lossy

[[moribundi]]

"128 provides good sound quality, especially when used in iPods. The majority of people have absolutely no idea what a bit rate is. If Apple offered music encoded at a bit rate higher than 128, customers would select it without realizing that it would fill up their hard drive and portable player quickly."

Then show the different filesizes for different compression rates. Put up a chart. But when I read that, I see "This is what we have, because people are ignorant about all this, so we save them the trouble of thinking".

[cal2002]

AAC vs <Insert codec here> still doesn't matter. The point stands that Apple (and others) say (or imply) that the music is "CD quality", which it is not.

[[moribundi]]

AAC vs <Insert codec here> still doesn't matter. The point stands that Apple (and others) say (or imply) that the music is "CD quality", which it is not.

Isn't that based on personal opinion? Or is there an actual in-stone standard of what "CD Quality" is?

[giga Veteran]

GET OUT!

:laugh:

Anyway, this guy is really missing the point here though. Almost all the popular codecs out there are extremely compressed...(mp3, aac, ogg) And of course it isnt perfect quality. The only way you can achieve that is throuhg lossless encoders (FLAC, monkeys audio, apple lossless, etc etc) which also compress them also. The writer of this article is pretty dumb if he doesnt include all the facts. Most normal people CANT tell the difference between a 128kbps AAC versus a 192kbps MP3. :rolleyes:

[imtoomuch]

This is the whole problem with online music services - the quality of the files suck. Pair that with the fact that you don't get a "hard" copy in the form of a CD or the CD liners, inserts, and pamphlets and buying albums off of these music services just doesn't make sense to me.

[tkyoshi]

I guess they should change it to "near cd quality" then.

It's so hard to define i guess since there are so many types of hardware. Even CD players, they all sound different, so how would you catagorize that? In that case you are playing the original media.

[[moribundi]]

This is the whole problem with online music services - the quality of the files suck. Pair that with the fact that you don't get a "hard" copy in the form of a CD or the CD liners, inserts, and pamphlets and buying albums off of these music services just doesn't make sense to me.

That depends on how much you value your music. I agree with your point, and I typically purchase the artists that I enjoy, because I want to physically "own" the CD...but when there is muck out like that Milkshake song and crap like that, most popular music has become disposable. Easier to delete a few files than toss the whole CD in the trash in a month or so.

[moeburn]

well the reporter who wrote that article has just discovered warm water. Of course they are going to be compressed version of the Cd tracks, who wants to download 100mbs+ per track? "Let me buy this CD, ill just let it download through the day..." Cmon, we all know that we are bound to loose quality as soon as you use a compression method. The New York times should give this guy the "Captian Obvious and his Retard Squad" award.

Who wants to pay for something they could get for free? Nobody is benifiting from the money you spend on iTunes. I can honestly tell the difference between 128kb and 320kb, thats why I ripped my favorite audio tracks at 320kb or raw WAV (15-25mb).

If i'm going to pay for something i can get for free, I had damn well better be getting a better quality version of it. I thought this was the whole point of paying for mp3s! People would say "hmm, I really like this single song, so I'm going to pay to get the real deal".

[MipScript]

Well to me it sounds CD quality I burn all my tunes to CD and they sound great? its all personal opinion you cant define CD quality because every CD is recorded different doesnt live music being recorded to CD sound bad? lets all define CD quality as 'good' but then the normal AAC and MP3's sound 'good also' the guy is just sprouting his own personal opinun but is pretending to use his own opinion as everyones.

Remember 70% of newspaper is bull - His just making a news story ;)

[moeburn]

Well to me it sounds CD quality I burn all my tunes to CD and they sound great? its all personal opinion you cant define CD quality because every CD is recorded different doesnt live music being recorded to CD sound bad? lets all define CD quality as 'good' but then the normal AAC and MP3's sound 'good also' the guy is just sprouting his own personal opinun but is pretending to use his own opinion as everyones.

Remember 70% of newspaper is bull - His just making a news story ;)

go download a nice bass/range test, 20hz to 20khz is good. And make sure its a high quality one, not a recompressed one. Now recompress it to 128kb, and notice how either the top and bottom ranges are distorted, or you lose no filesize at all.

I guess the CD quality doesn't really matter if you can't tell the difference, but I apparently have sensitive ears, so I can :)

[cal2002]

,Jul 5 2004, 20:43] Isn't that based on personal opinion? Or is there an actual in-stone standard of what "CD Quality" is?

No, that's fact. A lossy codec can not encode music at "CD Quality", doesn't matter that encoder (like Lame and others) have presents for. Lossy codec=loss of data. Loss of data=can't be true "cd quality"