The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Listening Test Compares iTunes Plus to iTunes 128kbps
gizmodo.com — Comparing these two compression rates was tough, even when using a pair of state-of-the-art Ultrasone headphones. In our decidedly unscientific comparison, we listened to all the tunes at both compression rates in A/B comparisons with those phones, with iPod stock earbuds, on our kick-ass car stereo, and on our reference Dolby 5.1 system.
MrBabyMan- 970 diggs
- digg it
- 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!
- mushishi, on 10/11/2007, -93/+23You don't and never did own the production, idiot. If it isn't patently obvious enough to you: if you own the music, then what rights does the artist have in the production?
To digg: Please, quickly hit the digg down button. Don't let anyone who has even 5 minutes' understanding of law get in the way of a good circlejerk. - SPECOPS, on 10/11/2007, -35/+9@mushishi - it's a figure of speech. Get over it.
- mushishi, on 10/11/2007, -65/+10No it isn't, you moron. He genuinely thinks that he has the rights that are an incident of ownership/copyright, and is free to deal with the production as an owner or the holder of copyright can.
What do I care, though? It would take a minute at Google for you ***** chimps to see that I am right, and to understand the reasons why I am right and it must be this way, but digg has never been about being right; it is about ignorant losers stuck in deadend IT jobs, or progressing with mediocrity towards such lofty position in life, and the ability to just hit digg down to anything that conflicts with such a parochial understanding of the world. - 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. - venson, on 10/11/2007, -9/+20"almost noticeable"?
I think it is clearly noticeable. Especially if you listen with decent equipment/headphones. - loki440, on 10/11/2007, -4/+30@ mushishi
You should try decaf, it might help to take some of the edge off. . . - ArthurSucks, on 10/11/2007, -5/+28@mushishi
Got some anger issues, there? Need a hug? - mushishi, on 10/11/2007, -33/+5redmaxx:
The only ownership that dotlizard has of a CD is in the physical medium that the work came on. wtf is he going to do with a CD that he can't listen to without a licence? - 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.
- 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. - Scheissen, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5dotlizard, 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.
- 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.
- VaporBro, on 10/26/2007, -6/+5Yay for block button yaaaaaaay
- 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... - 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. - catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7It's insulting that they have pricing tiers for different quality music. This would be like a cable company saying "for $10 less per month, we'll give you TV with a little static. Sign up for our premiere service if you want a clear picture." I can't believe people put up with it.
- 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. - 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 :( - kritond, 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. - Scheissen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13) 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."
uh yeah dUH moron - totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3how about your other two "facts", dude? Come on, let's hear it, "dUH moron." :p
- 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.
- mushishi, on 10/11/2007, -93/+23You don't and never did own the production, idiot. If it isn't patently obvious enough to you: if you own the music, then what rights does the artist have in the production?
- caponumen, on 10/11/2007, -56/+5MP3 sounds like crap on any system.......
- ChrisWickenscom, on 10/11/2007, -2/+28And stupid opinions still sound stupid. Especially when they're not backed up with any proof.
- BlackOp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20Umm.. The article doesn't mention the mp3 format.
- Rockyrowks, on 10/11/2007, -16/+4uhmmm.....iTunes uses AACS not mp3
- 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. - Rockyrowks, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4sorry, added an s but anyways its aac and not mp3, my apologies, sorry again
- 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.
- BlackOp, on 10/15/2007, -1/+24Don't forget the non-oxidising £500 per foot cables either..
- 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.
- 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".
- 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. - 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.
- 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 - reddoggie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Some people just have "trained hearing"... and yes, commenting on certain things I've heard over the years has made me feel as though I were being "pretentious". I (personally) don't mean to be. As I grow older, I find myself limiting my comments in regards to sound/music so I don't sound so "pretentious". It's kind of like the sense of sight -- some are born different than others. I *wish* I could just listen to music that was slightly off-key or at a sub-standard sampling rate, but it just gives me pain to do so.
- fremeer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1it really depends what you listen to, its kinda pointless comparing a 256k sex pistols song to a lower bit rate one. also as an audiophile you probably wouldnt listen to mp3 anyway since its lossless by nature, why doesnt apple intro lossless aac as well?
- 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.
- meez, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@yutt (#6962888)
It's hard to enjoy music if it's poorly encoded and/or poorly mastered. For example I couldn't bear to listen through Stadium Arcadium until I got my hands on a FLAC vinyl rip.
And until an online music store becomes available which starts selling DRM-free "flac -v 8" rips I'm still gonna get my music on CD. Paying money for AAC/WMA rips is criminal. - kent1146, on 11/11/2007, -4/+2"Why would you want "trained hearing" if it just makes you pretentious and anal?
Personally, I prefer to simply enjoy music."
By the same logic... why would you want "to screw Scarlett Johannsen" if it just makes you pretentious and anal?
... because you're screwing Scarlett Johannsen, and it kicks ass. That is why.
You never hear people who ARE screwing a girl like Miss Johannsen complain that they can't just "simply enjoy the experience," do you? They KNOW it's good. They KNOW doing XYZ is better than not doing XYZ. - aywwts4, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1kent1146: Bonus points for an original analogy, I would give you an additional one if i could just because it wasn't a car analogy.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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...
- SPECOPS, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2QUOTE
it's not DRM that's the problem, it's consumer choice.
/QUOTE
I'll fix it for you.. it's not DRM that's the problem, it's the lack of consumer choice.
- 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.- s1mph0ny, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0Uh, try 256kbps VBR Ogg...
- cynicist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Actually q5 vorbis sounds better than both, although at a high enough bit rate it is harder to notice.
- 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.
- smoothmoniker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2If you're interested in hearing the differences between mp3 conversion rates, check out this file that my student put together. It's revealing. He recorded a classical trio (piano, violin, cello), so the audio quality of the conversion becomes very apparent with the clarity of the source material.
http://addisonrd.com/mp3test- troovis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I honestly couldn't notice a difference until a little more than half-way through it... tin ears, I guess. *shrug*
- reddoggie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0The mind is capable of a myriad of "calculations". Finishing two bars to their conclusion is an easy task for all but the tone deaf. It would be a much better example if 10-12 bars were played before each dip in audio quality. I did however enjoy one marked "dip" in there. Might have to look at it in a sound program to decide where I thought it completely went to Hell (sound-quality wise).
- ashwinashwin, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5doesnt anyone get it? its just a stealth price increase by the record companies because apple wouldnt agree to changing the prices w/o the record companies giving up something. now people who didnt know any better will supposedly feel more at ease buying digitally and the record companies can charge more.
- 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 - SenatorPenguin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Actually, it is beginning to get closer in price to CD's (from $12-$20).
Subtracting the money that goes to the distributor (Apple, record store), equal quality and control leads to (more) equal pricing. - s1mph0ny, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Yes, it is a stealth price increase. Maybe back in 1999 a 128kbps aac was worth paying for, not any more. Now the average bitrate is 192kbps even on bittorrent. Why would you even waste your time with a low quality recording?
- totorototoro, on 10/15/2007, -2/+14how is it a "stealth" price increase, if its sitting right there in the iTunes Store?
- ecalypso, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2EAC + Lame v0 FTW!
- 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.
- airj1012, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I'm not sure if I believe this write up or not. Personally I haven't done the upgrade to see the difference with Apple's Plus MP3s. However I do know from experience with my own rips that there is a big difference between 128kbps and 256kbps. I'm happy they made this move and I believe one of the huge reasons they did this is because Jobs likes quality. They could have just upped the price for allowing people to have DRM-Free music, but instead they made the quality better. I think anything over 192kbps is good and anything under that really isn't worth it. 256kbps is good but I think it would have been smarter to go with VBR where you can sit get small space but with higher bitrates. Just my opinion, but I like the move and encourage people to upgrade.
- xpose, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2Why would anyone use itunes to pay for music when you have http://www.allofmp3.com ? Please explain.
- qevlhma93, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Because 1) allofmp3.com does not have half of the things I listen to, 2) it is only semi legal
- superkendall, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Because we like paying artists?
At least I do. - ArthurSucks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4iTunes can accept credit cards right now.
- 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+ - stmiller, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2"Because we like paying artists?
At least I do."
If you like paying artists and not greedy RIAA, you shouldn't shop at iTunes. Use emusic, or other outlets where the artists actually get paid.
Disclaimer: I'm a licensed musician - kyelewis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Did you mean a "signed" musician? Because I don't think I know about the musicians license...
- TomT223, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I only illegally download rap music. I feel I'm doing the artist a favor by denying him more money. Less money to spend on drugs and ho's.
- Mithrander, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5I feel that my relationship with the Snorg t-shirt girl is beginning to decline...
At first I wanted to snorg her myself, but after seeing so many pictures of her with her mouth gaping open, she is beginning to terrify me.- venson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1mouth open = fap fap
- loki440, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I'm with you. I used to think she was hot, now I just want her to go away. . .
- Threlly, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Aaah,
So now, were paying $12.90 for a 10 track album that would cost $7 on CD.
No wonder Jobs is a billionaire....- 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.
- superkendall, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6No, we're paying $9.99 for an album that would cost $16 on CD.
- 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 .
- 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. - rickyuser, on 10/11/2007, -7/+0itunes blows.
buy the CD at a live show and then seed into torrents, then everyone benefits.
seed.seed.seed.seed.- orp2000, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Then you are ripping off the artist, and you're nothing but a punk who uses euphemisms to convince himself that he is something other than a thief. And you are disrespecting an artist that you apparently like, so you're pond scum, even if everybody else in you're little group thinks you're cool, you're still fundamentally a thief. Any questions? Hopefully karma will be more generous to you than you deserve, or else any good work that you do will be stolen from you.
- s1mph0ny, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Going to the show supports the artist more than anything else does. I'm not sure how many CD's its equivalent to, but it's a few.
- orp2000, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@s1mphony
While that may or may not be true, depending on the contracts the artist has with their label and concert promoter, it is certainly less supportive to take their product, which they have worked hard to create, for your entertainment or edification, and distribute it for free to people who should be paying for it. A thief is a thief, even if they are a part of some cyber community that calls them "seeders" or anything other euphemism. They rationalize, and they justify, and they couch in pretty terms, but they are taking for free something that someone else worked hard to create in order to sell. They are spoiled children with a sense of entitlement.
- orp2000, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Then you are ripping off the artist, and you're nothing but a punk who uses euphemisms to convince himself that he is something other than a thief. And you are disrespecting an artist that you apparently like, so you're pond scum, even if everybody else in you're little group thinks you're cool, you're still fundamentally a thief. Any questions? Hopefully karma will be more generous to you than you deserve, or else any good work that you do will be stolen from you.
- BrianSilver, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Even if the sound quality is better, that doesn't mean you need it to enjoy the music. The DRM free is a definite bonus though.
- Snorglorf, on 11/11/2007, -8/+2128kbps? I don't let anything below 320kbps MP3 touch these ears, if I have the choice.
- renegadeafk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Well a 128 kbps iTunes AAC file is much better quality then a 128 kbps mp3
- Snorglorf, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1I didn't know that, what would be the MP3 equivalent then? I haven't used iTunes for buying music. I'd rather either have something physical or illegal copies with no strings attached.
- Escamillo, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3The fact is that most people won't be able to tell the difference between 256k and 128k. Self-proclaimed "audophiles" might fool themselves into believing they can tell the difference, and such individuals should be subject to double-blind test to see if they can really identify 256k vs 128k audio clips.
The reason for the 256k is to "justify" the .30 markup, the real purpose of which is to cover the alleged increase in piracy. I'd rather tha Apple/EMI just removed DRM from the 128k songs and kept the price at 99 cents.
BTW, real audiophiles might be interested in MusicGiants.com, which sells lossless audio at 99 cents per song. But those songs do have DRM.- 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.
- 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)
- orp2000, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Escamillo
Thanks for the tip. I took a look at musicgiants.com. They don't support Firefox. Since it's not a difficult matter to be Firefox compatible there is only one conclusion that can be drawn; they are getting money from Microsoft to be IE exclusive. I will not be a pawn in MS's guerrilla marketing efforts - shame, really, looked like they had something to offer.
- combustion8, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5iPod stock earbuds? may as well use a dixie cup and yarn.
- supermanred, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2The iPod in-ear buds (50 bucks) are great, and dont "blow" when subjected to mega-lows (bass) and I would compare their quality to 200 dollar Bose ear buds. You should give those a try if you know anyone who owns them and is willing to share ear juice with you.
:) - s1mph0ny, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Uh, BOSE = buy other sound equipment.
- supermanred, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2The iPod in-ear buds (50 bucks) are great, and dont "blow" when subjected to mega-lows (bass) and I would compare their quality to 200 dollar Bose ear buds. You should give those a try if you know anyone who owns them and is willing to share ear juice with you.
- rrobster, on 11/11/2007, -2/+3Anything below 1411 Kbps WAV (the uncompressed CD bitrate) is compressed and if you listen to a comparison through a pair of Ultimate Ears or a good system, you will be able to hear a difference. Anything that's compressed to any degree has some amount of sonic quality removed from it.
- combustion8, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3exactly, I can hear each version drop off in quality as I increase the compession with my ety's.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 ;-)- s1mph0ny, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0You don't need a separate channel for the subwoofer when considering the source. It's a different frequency range, so 2.1 would be better than "2.0" (stereo). 5.1 usually sounds about as good, although not any better than a stereo with subwoofer.
- supermanred, on 11/11/2007, -2/+2You can tell a big difference Ive done my own comparisons here at home, on earbuds and in the car. The biggest difference is reflected sound, sounds not audible to the human ear are taken out of high compressed music, which sounds like a good idea until you realize that much of what we hear is REFLECTED sound, bouncing off objects or walls in our environment. This means that a 12" LP record sounds better than an MP3 because it retains all the sounds inaudible directly by a human ear, but that once reflected off objects BECOME AUDIBLE to us.
Yes, you can hear a difference.
And if the only thing iTunes had to do to get these IDIOT record companies onboard to some sort of DRM free music was charge 30 more cents for it, then good for iTunes! Everyone should go out and buy some of this ***** just to show the other record companies (anyone other than EMI) that they can ***** themselves in the ass with their DRM while EMI rakes in the profit of selling music in the classic DRM-free manner. - 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?
- supermanred, on 10/11/2007, -3/+41. Get in Car
2. Drive to HMV 10:00
3. Walk through Mall 16:00
4. Find the CD you want in the shop 19:00
5. Wait in line to pay 22:00
6. Pay 23:00
7. Walk back to car 29:00
8. Drive Home 39:00
9. Rip CD to MP3 and load to iPod 45:00
or
1. Search for Song on iTunes 00:15
2. Buy Song on iTunes and wait for it to download 02:15
3. load to iPod 03:00
I'll take the single song from iTunes for 1.30 rather than buying the Artists full CD for 20 bucks and taking 42 minutes longer ANY DAY. - joel8x, on 11/11/2007, -1/+1CD's are not full quality anyway, but vinyl is. If it's digital, it's compressed. Just pointing out the facts is all.
- daddsy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@joel8x: completely agree with you, however, after doing a massive vinyl ripping session so i could put them on my ipod its safe to say cds are much more convinient. And because of modern production alot of vinyl has had tracks (in the recording sense, like vocal tracks etc) compressed to avoid speaker distortion. It's only going to be compression free if you find a decent producer and it's recorded on a very decent setup.
- supermanred, on 10/11/2007, -3/+41. Get in Car
- Gustav, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"Consumer" audio gear is designed to enhance the quality and hide bad recording...this isn't the best platform for comparing such very similar formats. I've A/Bed these formats on Event studio monitors, which are designed _not_ to hide anything and to be as accurate and transparent as possible, and there is definitely a difference. Whether this makes much of a difference to non-audiophiles, though, is a different story...
- Enlightenment, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2
"Beavis, no matter how much you polish a turd, it is still a turd!".
It is well known the output of the iTunes MP3 encoders is one of the worst. Why? Likely to push customer towards Apple's AAC format which prevents the customer from moving to a competitors portable music players.
Whether AAC is better than MP3 isn't an issue to me, it is portability and fidelity. MP3 is supported by every portable music player, and AAC is not!
One of the best and most popular MP3 encoders is LAME. If have been using LAME with EAC since 1998, and extremely happy with the results. Back when I first started ripping my CD's in 1998, I encoded to VBR MP3's to have the best of both worlds, size and fidelity. A few years ago I changed to 320Kbps CBR because large hard drives have become dirt cheap. I have decided to plan towards the future where even larger drives will be available and so cheap that even the size of 320Kbps MP3 or Lossless files won't be a big deal. - bendedavis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Has anybody noticed they actually increased the bitrate on DRM'd music too? I downloaded a few EMI albums, but figured I'd get some other things cuz they'd be DRM-free soon. I wonder if it'll be cheaper to upgrade the newer DRM music, as it's already 256kbps you're not getting as much by "upgrading" to no DRM.
- rrobster, on 11/11/2007, -3/+1@Mastercheif-You are still losing overall tonal (however minutely) by using various "lossless" codecs which, while minimizing the overall loss in favor of smaller files, are not truly 100% lossless.
- 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.
- zakool21, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I've got an optical connection from my MBP to my stereo deck where I plug in my AKG K-271s head phones in. I can hear a noticeable and very pleasant increase in quality in all 14 tracks I upgraded today.
- moisie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1How exactly are you able to abandon itunes now that they're selling DRM free music? Sure you can play them on other devices, even manage them in another piece of software but to buy them you still need iTunes.
- BillyK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hilarious! Everyone's spent the last three years bashing Apple and the iTunes Store for for selling "low-quality" 128kbps tracks - and now that they're finally selling higher quality, Gizmodo (who did their share of whining) says they can't hear a difference.
These jokes write themselves. - craven320, on 11/11/2007, -0/+1I still remember the days when I couldn't tell the difference between 128 kbps and 192. Then I was forced to use 192 because the place I was downloading from didn't encode any lower. After a while of listening to the 192 encoded files, and going back to the 128 stuff once in a while... I was shocked.
I have found through personal experience that you really have to know what to listen for to hear the difference. Since I'm a sound engineer, and do alot of recording and mixing, I notice right away stuff that alot of people wouldn't hear if you told them exactly what to listen for.
If these guys couldn't hear a noticeable difference, I'm willing to bet it's because they didn't know what to listen for. "Does it sound better?". Better is relative. Clearer and cleaner are not, and yes, there's a noticeable difference in clean/clear when you boost the bitrate, because you're increasing the sample rate (for those of you who don't know what that means, it's the same thing as different framerates, the less frames you have to capture something, the slower/choppier it appears, but if you have a whole bunch of frames, it seems alot more fluid and smooth)- daddsy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Mostly true, but when you compress audio using mp3/m4a/wma/aac codecs the sample rate never changes compared to the bit-rate...mostly they'll be at 44000 and they stay at 44000.
All the bit-rate changes is how much information is removed using the psychoacoustic model.
- daddsy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Mostly true, but when you compress audio using mp3/m4a/wma/aac codecs the sample rate never changes compared to the bit-rate...mostly they'll be at 44000 and they stay at 44000.
- badapplestudio, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Buy used CD's off Amazon. Problem solved.
- simplejoe79, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Need an audiophile to tell the difference.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is