iTunes 'not CD-quality'

[woem]

If Apple had just coughed up the licensing fees and used WMA instead, things would be much better. WMA is the industry standard for audio on all sorts of copy-protected audio CDs. Microsoft spent its millions of dollars working to make WMA the best audio codec available, and claims that 64kbps WMA is sufficiently close to CD quality. I, for one, believe them. If you're really anal, you can even compress the music losslessly using WMA, so it'll be like a specialized version of .ZIP for music.

Apple's trying to buck the trends and come up with a different, non-compatible format to beat out Microsoft. As this article clearly shows, it's not working. Durrrr....

[Schwa83]

I personally think that Itunes should offer a wide variety of formats when you purchase a song. LIke, i want to be able to choose the bitrate (from 128kbps up to lossless), 44, 48, or 92khz, as well as 16 or 24 bit. I think that even if they offered some variety, if not all , they would definitly increase their sales. Consumers want a variety, they don't want to be constrained to one type of format in one type of quality.

[cal2002]

If Apple had just coughed up the licensing fees and used WMA instead, things would be much better. WMA is the industry standard for audio on all sorts of copy-protected audio CDs. Microsoft spent its millions of dollars working to make WMA the best audio codec available, and claims that 64kbps WMA is sufficiently close to CD quality. I, for one, believe them. If you're really anal, you can even compress the music losslessly using WMA, so it'll be like a specialized version of .ZIP for music.

Apple's trying to buck the trends and come up with a different, non-compatible format to beat out Microsoft. As this article clearly shows, it's not working. Durrrr....

WMA std. sucks. If we could get some players that support WMA Pro then that's a better claim. In most tests WMA Pro ranks even or better then AAC in blind tests.

[giga Veteran]

OGG > *

[MipScript]

I agree WMA sucks nothing plays it and the number 1 MP3 Player (the iPod) Does not support WMA would be silly and stupid if Apple went with WMA its Windows Media Audio (I think lol) and why would they have anyhting windows connected to them (not Microsoft connected but Directly WINDOWS) would not happen.

[the evn show]

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"

A lossy codec can not encode a CD-Audio disc without losing information, if you start with a higher-than-CD-quality source (like the DAT-tapes that the CD would be mastered from, or higher quality masters for older music) and then through out information it's not only possible to have a CD-Quality encoding, but to have better than CD-Quality encoding.

I'm not saying that this is what Apple is doing all the time, nor that it guarantees "cd-quality" sound but it is certainly possible for a lossy codec to produce output that sounds as good or better than an audio CD if it is applied to a high-enough quality source.

Apple's trying to buck the trends and come up with a different

That's good

non-compatible format to beat out Microsoft.

AAC uses MPEG-4 for compression - the same stuff used on the up coming HD-DVDs - it's also an open and well documented standard. The fairplay DRM that they use to manage their copy-restrictions is another matter but Apple didn't invent that - they licensed it from another company.

As this article clearly shows, it's not working. Durrrr....

70% of all legal downloads after entering markets with entrenched competition, selling 100,000,000 million tracks 3x faster than rival music stores are scheduled to sell half that number...when I grow up I hope that things "don't work" that well for me.

Edited July 6, 2004 by the evn show

[Joseph Zollo]

I personally think that Itunes should offer a wide variety of formats when you purchase a song. LIke, i want to be able to choose the bitrate (from 128kbps up to lossless), 44, 48, or 92khz, as well as 16 or 24 bit. I think that even if they offered some variety, if not all , they would definitly increase their sales. Consumers want a variety, they don't want to be constrained to one type of format in one type of quality.

That is a GREAT idea! Though it would take a very long time to re-encode everything...

[[moribundi]]

How many players support .aac?

[Joseph Zollo]

,Jul 5 2004, 22:10] How many players support .aac?

Just the iPod

[MipScript]

How many support WMA that are succesful?

[Redestium]

When people say CD quality they are generally talking about discernable quality relative to the original CD. Apple had ?professionals? test the AAC codec at 128Kbps and they couldn?t tell the difference between it and the CD (blind listening test). Obviously this will vary from person to person, but I wouldn?t call the quality crap by a long shot, it?s very good as far as I can tell and anyone who listens to my music collection. Speakers and headphones play a large part in ranking quality as well.

[[moribundi]]

How many support WMA that are succesful?

You're right, choice is bad. Whatever was I thinking?

[pogz]

OGG > *

Indeed :D

[Redestium]

How many support WMA that are succesful?

Quite a few actually.

[MipScript]

Quite a few actually.

Like what - None near as good as the iPod as you could'nt name any off the top of your head.

[cal2002]

Lets see everything by iriver, a number of stb DVD players, car CD players. 500+ devices. Doesn't change anything about any of the online services though.

[Schwa83]

That is a GREAT idea! Though it would take a very long time to re-encode everything...

I'm sure apple has enough people working for them to get everything re-encoded and caught up in not too much longer. It's not me doing it lol. But i'd pay for it.

[pogz]

Like what - None near as good as the iPod as you could'nt name any off the top of your head.

iriver's mp3 player products support WMA, as does creative's nomad line, rio karma, etc.

[Redestium]

Like what - None near as good as the iPod as you could'nt name any off the top of your head.

I just didn't feel like typing. :laugh:

Creative players (Zen, Muvo, Jukebox)

Many of the Rio players (Karma, etc.)

iRiver players

I own an iPod by the way, but I am still aware of the other players in the market.

[theyarecomingforyou]

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.

Hmmm... the word idiot springs to mind. Some people won't know that the Apple store is highly compressed - a lot of people won't even consider it, so it's good that this person is informing the public. Sprouting his own opinion? What, by saying that if you play them side-by-side you will clearly notice the difference? How is that opinion? Also, surprisingly enough there is a definition of CD quality - what you mean is transparency with the original; that is usually around 256vbr with MP3, though MPC is far better at keeping all the detail.

For all the good that AAC is, it is most certainly not CD quality and loses a *lot* of detail. 128kps is very low, and even though it is better compression than MP3 it is still very low - you simply just can't get enough quality into that size with current technology.

I love the way people try and convince themselves that these highly compressed formats like AAC are CD quality. I mean, honestly, the difference from CD to DVD-Audio is very noticable because of the dynamic range and fine detail and your here saying that iTunes is great because it sounds like a CD? CD quality isn't great - AAC is fine if you want to listen on ?10 PC speakers, but if you slap it through an even average hi-fi then the difference will become very obvious.

For casual listening it is great... but, if you're paying for the tracks then you should be *able* to get them in high quality (read: lossless), but the default be 128kps. Currently it just isn't worth the money downloading poor quality tracks, with no physical material, for a high cost and with strict anti-copying protection. Sorry, but where is the incentive to buy it? I honestly don't know how it has caught on.

PS - Sorry for my rant, but I am fed up with people ignorantly arguing a point with NO logic, and not a HAIR to back it up. Just accept it is not great quality, but that it has a purpose - however limited at this time.

[the evn show]

Apple's in the business of selling iPods as we've already seen a dozen times in threads like this: Apple is running the iTMS to sell iPods at $100s profit each not in the business of selling songs at $0.08c profit each. How does selling music that doesn't require an iPod (and won't play on a Macintosh either) further that goal?

When the iPod has 70% of the high-end MP3 player market, and the lions share of the global MP3-player market it's the responsibility of "3rd parties" that make their living selling music to get their wares compatible with their clients hardware. It's a lot like the way Macintosh users have to take steps to play nicely with Windows users.

[woem]

How many support WMA that are succesful?

Pretty much everything that isn't the iPod and was released in the last few years supports WMA. If it doesn't support WMA, it'd be ATRAC.

Anyhow, you don't see articles knocking the new Napster's audio quality or anything. Nearly every major audio retailer except for Apple sells WMA files. Every copy protection scheme that provides external audio files provides WMA files. If WMA is so bad, why is the industry using it? Ultimately the industry has to be concerned about audio quality; they're selling audio. I trust the industry's technological know-how much more than I trust some greasy-haired open-source-zealot 16-year-old who claims that "Sogg Hornbis" or whatever is better than the format they're using.

Remember, these are guys who get paid to be knowledgeable about audio.

[aristotle-dude]

You're right, it's not CD quality. It's sometimes better. :D A CD is PCM at 44Khz 16bit whereas the original master is probably 24bit at 96khz or better. From what I understand, Apple get's access to the studio master when encoding to 128kps ACC for the music store and this codec they use is better than the one they include in iTunes. If you rip a CD to 128kps, you will not get anywhere near the quality of the same single from the music store even though it is the same bitrate because your source is of lower quality.

[imtoomuch]

Apple's in the business of selling iPods as we've already seen a dozen times in threads like this: Apple is running the iTMS to sell iPods at $100s profit each not in the business of selling songs at $0.08c profit each. How does selling music that doesn't require an iPod (and won't play on a Macintosh either) further that goal?

When the iPod has 70% of the high-end MP3 player market, and the lions share of the global MP3-player market it's the responsibility of "3rd parties" that make their living selling music to get their wares compatible with their clients hardware. It's a lot like the way Macintosh users have to take steps to play nicely with Windows users.

The iPod has 70% of the market? Does it really? You got proof to back this up?

[aristotle-dude]

The iPod has 70 percent of revenues of the MP3 player market and over 50 percent of the total market of players so I think it is safe to say that 70 of the high end market is reasonable.

Also, iTMS has 70 percent of the legal download market.