What is Digg?113 Comments
- dotlizard, on 10/15/2007, -34/+116let me get this straight -- for $0.30 more (per song), i get an almost-noticeable increase in quality, and the rights to my own music? wow, for only 30% more i can own something that i ... already own! yay me!
- Priaptor, on 10/28/2007, -9/+37Try listening with a pair of SE530s before all of you claim there is no sound difference. Comparing "Sticky Fingers" was night and day. This is a tremendous upgrade to those of us who invested $ in our earphones.
- ChrisWickenscom, on 10/11/2007, -2/+28And stupid opinions still sound stupid. Especially when they're not backed up with any proof.
- loki440, on 10/11/2007, -4/+30@ mushishi
You should try decaf, it might help to take some of the edge off. . . - yutt, on 11/11/2007, -6/+30Why would you want "trained hearing" if it just makes you pretentious and anal?
Personally, I prefer to simply enjoy music. - BlackOp, on 10/15/2007, -1/+24Don't forget the non-oxidising £500 per foot cables either..
- ArthurSucks, on 10/11/2007, -5/+28@mushishi
Got some anger issues, there? Need a hug? - redmaxx, on 10/15/2007, -3/+24@mushishi
Once again you're mistaken. Go pick up any audio CD and find me a license to use listen to that CD. Go ahead...I'll wait...
Oh you couldn't find one? Because it's not there. The *right* to listen to the audio CD is granted in the law. I did not sign any agreement at any point when opening or listening to any music CDs. - BlackOp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20Umm.. The article doesn't mention the mp3 format.
- redmaxx, on 10/11/2007, -9/+25@mushishi
You have mistaken ownership for rights. When you purchase a CD or a song from iTunes, you OWN that song and the author grants you rights to listen to it. Take even the briefest look at copyright law and you'll see this quite plainly. - ArthurSucks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14@rockyrowks
AACS is the HD-DVD/Blue Ray thing
You're thinking of aac from Dolby audio, and the successor to Mp3. - fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15@ dotlizard - you're not getting any more rights. Just because they removed DRM doesn't mean you've got a "do what you want" license with the music.
- totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14"You cannot rip it to a CD without _illegally_ breaking the terms of conditions and you certainly can't "multiply" the song for you other computers or media players.""
Wow, you got all three completely ***** wrong there dude.
1) You can rip the .99 cent protected AACs to CD
2) You can listen to the .99 cent protected AACs on other computers (5)
3) You can listen to the .99 cent protected AACs on as many iPods as you have associated with that account. (if by other media players you mean non-iPods, then yeah)
I mean..damn, dude. - totorototoro, on 10/15/2007, -2/+14how is it a "stealth" price increase, if its sitting right there in the iTunes Store?
0.99 cents for 128k/DRM music
1.29 for 256/non-DRMed music
I think just about everyone else gets it :p - redmaxx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13"dotlizard, are you saying you owned the $0.99 version? If so then you are a fool. You just gave all of the ownership rights to Apple when clicking on the buy it button. You cannot rip it to a CD without _illegally_ breaking the terms of conditions and you certainly can't "multiply" the song for you other computers or media players."
Wrong...Apple specifically allows burning copies of songs purchased from the iTunes store. - chrisgeleven, on 10/15/2007, -1/+12I have definitely noticed a difference with certain songs (especially music with heavy distorted guitars). Proved it by a double-blind test too.
128kbps AAC has come a long way from the old 128kbps MP3 encodes you find on P2P. 256kbps AAC is very very good too, only LAME encoded MP3's can match the quality. - venson, on 10/11/2007, -9/+20"almost noticeable"?
I think it is clearly noticeable. Especially if you listen with decent equipment/headphones. - gwinerreniwg, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Would have been a better article if they had also ripped the same tune with their own system and codec, and compared to that, as well as the CD version. I suspect you can still rip a better copy yourself at your own chosen bitrate, and for cheaper. Apple is still missing the point, it's not DRM that's the problem, it's consumer choice.
- GreatDrok, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I've encoded all my CD rips in iTunes using 256Kbps variable bitrate AAC for the last couple of years after doing a number of listening tests at various rates. There is no question that they sound better than rips made at 128Kbps. I could have gone up to 320Kbps but the improvement in fidelity was nothing like as marked as when going from 128 to 256. I haven't had a chance to upgrade my EMI iTunes purchases but I am very pleased that they have made the change. Not particularly because I want to be able to play the tracks on non-iPod devices although that is nice. Mainly because 256Kbps is much closer to transparent compared with the uncompressed source than 128Kbps is. I generally listen through my Sennheiser earbuds where the difference isn't massive, but through decent speakers (and the review linked didn't use any such thing) there is a very obvious improvement. 256K just sounds smoother and richer whereas 128K sounds a little harsh and clipped. It should be noted though that 128Kbps AAC is definitely an improvement over 128Kbps MP3 VBR encodes. You have to go up to 192Kbps+ for MP3 to sound as good.
- renegadeafk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Well a 128 kbps iTunes AAC file is much better quality then a 128 kbps mp3
- redmaxx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8It doesn't even take a pair of expensive earphones to hear the difference. Highs and lows sound muddier at 128 than 256 and some jazz and classical music just sounds awful at 128.
- psykiv, on 10/15/2007, -6/+12I'd really like to know what kind of equipment was in these "Dolby 5.1 reference system" and "kick-ass car stereo".
Makes and Models please. Where were the speakers located? Where were YOU located when you were listening (obviously we'd want the best imaging possible)? How big was the enclosure for the speakers? What kind of enclosure was it, and at what frequency was it tuned to? I'd like to see some WinISD charts with the proper t/s parameters on it. How big is the room/car? What is the exact shape of the room/car? What was the room temperature (a little extreme). How was the system equalized? Was it properly compensated for the resonant frequency? I'd like to see some real-time audio analyzer charts. What type of connections were used? Exactly how was the music played (streamed from a computer or burned to CD?) Where the gains on the amplifiers properly set using a DMM? At what frequency were they set? Where were the tweeters located in reference to the midrange and midbass drivers? What was the crossover point, Highpass, bandpass, and lowpass, for all drivers? What was the volume level in reference to the max volume level (we'd want to avoid clipping, obviously)?
Buried, this is in no way even remotely scientific. I was expecting something a bit more than "a friend and I listened to a few songs in both 128 and 256 and we thought they sounded the same". There are more things I can ask, but my head hurts :( - PigThief, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11$500 earphones? Maybe I'm just not an audiophile, but I can never tell the difference between transcoded music on moderate speakers and CDs on expensive speakers or headphones. I can't tell if people are just trying to be sophisticated or if there actually is such a large difference that the trained ear can really be disgusted by bad quality. I believe it, though; I've just never been able to hear it.
- aywwts4, on 11/11/2007, -2/+8There really is a big difference to be heard when you upgrade to high quality headphones, I never really noticed anything wrong on my home stereo or car stereo before, but once I got new headphones it just blew me away, the music was so much prettier, every note was more enjoyable to listen to.
The best part was putting them on my girlfriends head and playing some of her favorite songs, she started hearing instruments playing in the background she never heard before, like an entire group of violins. Or be able to clearly distinguish the main vocalist and all the backup vocalists from each other.
The only problem is when I put on some of my old mp3s (like the other day I put on some beatles) the quality is so noticeably bad I had to go and download a new copy of it to listen to. (Which sounded much better)
If you want to hear the difference firsthand on a budget pick up a pair of these, if you have good hearing at all you will thank me for it. Basically good headphones make all of your old music new again, and so much more enjoyable to listen to, you will find all sorts of stuff you never heard before. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000G3HEXW/ref=nosim/?tag=mysimon-ce00-20&creative=380333&creativeASIN=B000G3HEXW&linkCode=asn - mastercheif, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5What about lossless codecs such as FLAC, APE, ALAC, WAVpack etc? They are compressed, but are 100% the same as WAV or AIFF.
- superkendall, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Because we like paying artists?
At least I do. - superkendall, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6No, we're paying $9.99 for an album that would cost $16 on CD.
DRM free albums don't cost anymore. It's just the singles. And if you buy anything but discount classical music, CD's are still kind of expensive. - reddoggie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I completely agree -- 256Kbps blows 128Kbps out of the water if your listening to your tunes through good cans. (My personal perspective is through a pair of Beyerdynamic DT 770's.) I think I have a good ear, but I know I don't have a golden one. Rights to use my music on all my devices *and* 256Kbps for $.30 extra... "yes, I'll take extra cheese with that".
- bieber, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Yes, because I'm sure the RIAA will be more than willing to help me set up my garage-based, DRM free, high quality music marketplace...
- orp2000, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4These Gizmodo guys are idiots if they think that using a 5.1 "reference" set up is an appropriate way to test for audio quality of music that is produced to be played on a 2.0 system. 5.1 is not necessarily a higher quality system for listening to music than a 2.0 system. The two are qualitatively different, not quantitatively. Music will not sound right on a 5.1 system unless it is designed to be played on a 5.1 system. Music from iTunes should be played on a 2.0 system for optimal listening. No credibility once again for Gizmodo.
And, yes there is a noticeable quality difference in the two sampling rates, though I would be more excited if Apple would offer their "lossless" format - then I would be all over iTunes (I'd pay $1.75 a song for that for sure, in case you're listening Apple ;-) - jarvolt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I wish they went the route of lossless instead. 128kbps AAC is generally considered nearly transparent to the source, so to "double" it doesn't mean the sound quality is double to the human ear. With lossless though, you're safe to transcode to any format without having to worry about quality loss. Transcoding between lossy sources is never a good idea, even at higher bitrates.
- Yage2006, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4People who have a hard time telling the difference are not the right type of people to be writing this article. Its very easy to tell if you pay attention to certain things. the singing and crash symbols for example .
- ArthurSucks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4iTunes can accept credit cards right now.
- loki440, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7oh I get it now, mushishi must have just been laid off from a prominent position (probably a copyright attorney) in the recording industry. Now of course he's bitter.
I want to assure you mushishi that even though the economy is a little soft, you can always find work similar to the position you just lost. In your case I guess that would be sucking ***** at bus stations... - johnpaul191, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4i think there is a major communication issue here.
when you buy a CD, for example, you do NOT "own" that song. you bought some paper and plastic as a vehicle for you to take home that song so you can listen. if you "owned" the song in the traditional sense of owning anything, you could sell it or use it in any way you see fit. you can not use that song in a (non-student) film, tv commercial, podcast or even in restaurant/bar. any of those things require licensing yes, even restaurants have to pay ASCAP etc fees because they are using those songs in a commercial environment. like radio stations, they pay some form of annual fee to use that publishing companies songs. the non-commercial student radio station i work at even has to pay those fees. even though it is promotion, we still have to legally pay them for the right to use the songs on the CDs that those labels mailed us in the first place. we also have to pay a separate fee to have a web stream of our programming. if we offered downloadable shows we would have to negotiate a 3rd fee because it's not the same as live streaming, and would basically fall into the same rough category as music podcasts.
THAT is why the dugg-down poster was trying to say "you don't own those songs". read the fine print on the back of your CDs. technically you just have a personal use license that you bought. that's the angle that the record labels kind of tried to use to close up used CD stores. i'm not kidding, they kicked that idea around because they don't make 1¢ off a used CD sale (hmmm, arguably just like filesharing). back in the day they have always had an issue about people making a cassette copy of their records/CDs. they really think you should buy both formats. just remember that is the logic you are dealing with. that kind of personal use copying is the kind of use that the US government has declared "Fair Use". note that Fire Use for trademark is not the same as Fair Use for copyright stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
the DRM argument is not really about ownership of music, but how you can use it.
*i'm not saying i agree with any of this, but that is how the law is. - combustion8, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4is that a joke? the difference is plain as day... I mostly use 128 only to save room on my hd but I can tell a huge dif esp at high levels.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@catalysis: Or it could be like the cable company charging you more for HD programming, which most, if not all, do.
Although at the end of the day, I agree with your point. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4sorry, added an s but anyways its aac and not mp3, my apologies, sorry again
- cynicist, on 11/11/2007, -0/+3No, lossless means every bit can be reconstructed from the compressed source. You aren't losing any quality with lossless codecs.
- wonderchemist, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9Apple offers a product. If you do not like the product, then you can chose to buy from someone else who does. It is *not* Apple's fault if they don't offer the product you desire. If no one offers your product, and you believe there is a market for it, pitch your idea around and start your own company. Apple, Inc. was started in a garage and initially funded by the sale of a HP calculator and a VW bus, today it's worth $100 billion (pretty good ROI), there's no reason Gwinerreniwg's Mega Online Music Store can't be either.
- totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3how about your other two "facts", dude? Come on, let's hear it, "dUH moron." :p
- combustion8, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5iPod stock earbuds? may as well use a dixie cup and yarn.
- daddsy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I think 30 cents is worth it for drm-free music. But then again, going to the shop and buying a cd, at full quality, is surely better value for money that a track off itunes anyway?
- SteveCUBE, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Yeah this doesn't make much sense to me. Just a way for Apple to make money. I mean if you already own the song, they should let you download the "Plus" for free. That's why it's silly to download from iTunes. I'm happy with all my perfect CD quality FLAC songs that I ripped from my CDs.
- Juaquin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's cool that Apple is leaning towards DRM-free. As far as encoding, there isn't a huge difference in the AAC format between 128Kbps and 256. I rip all my music in FLAC anyways, usually over 1Mbps. Maybe it isn't entirely necessary, but storage is cheap nowadays, and it is an exact copy of the music should you ever lose the CD.
- kag9000, on 11/11/2007, -1/+3'Trained musicians ears' and he can't tell the difference between the two bitrates? Whilst AAC lower bitrate performance is better than the MP3 format at 128k/bit, there is a significant difference in quality with both formats at higher bitrates and both perform relatively the same.
Makes me wonder if this is just a thinly veiled advertisement with stupid comments like that. Why buy from Itunes anyway? Surely a CD is just as cheap, no DRM and you can rip it in any audio format you fancy. - FLAESHAL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They didn't mention the use of an amp, which is necessary for high end headphones to work to their potential, I'm sure if they did they would have spotted the difference if they really did use their high end headphones.
- s1mph0ny, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Uh, BOSE = buy other sound equipment.
- Snorglorf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Yeah, this makes no sense to me. I can DEFINITELY hear the difference. You must either have really bad ears or sound equipment (Mine's not even that great, but I can still tell the difference)
- phytonix, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2allofmp3 has some problem with their acc encoder
the sound is slightly unstably shaking. compared with the lastest iTunes+ -
Show 51 - 100 of 113 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is