Am I missing something?

[jboy88]

I heard quite a few people on and off the furom labeling digital download tracks as inferior to that of CD quality. This just may be a "young" thing but i've downloaded many tracks old and new from iTunes and they're just as clear and crisp as the CD version. Perhaps, I may have missed something having not been around in the 60s, 70s, and most of the 80s.

[soulster]

The songs you download from places like iTunes, Napster, Amazon, and Rhapsody are inferior compared to the CD.

Although all vendors have upped the bit-rate of their files, there are still deficiencies in the sound. The average...er...non-audiophile will be hard-pressed to tell the difference, especially if they listen to the music on an iPod/mp3 player or the computer. An audiophile/sound engineer can hear the difference even in a moving car in most cases.

The higher you go in the bit-rate, the harder it is to tell the difference. 320 kbps mp3, the rate Amazon now uses, is fine, and quite difficult to tell the difference unless one did an A/B comparison between it and the CD.

iTunes uses AAC 256 kbps, which is better than a 256 kbps mp3 file.

And, yes, I can hear all of these differences, sometimes even in a moving car. It's all about knowing what to listen for, and once one does, it's hard to ignore it.

There are at least two companies that offer lossless and/or hi-rez downloads. One is Rhino Records. They offer lossless FLAC and AAC file formats. That means there is no difference between it and the CD. None. Zip. Nada. Nyet. It is, for all intents and purposes, the actual CD, and is likely ripped from one.

HD Tracks offers FLAC and hi-resolution files, meaning 24-bit/96kHz, and 24-bit/192kHz. The bit-rate in this case means the resolution, and the sampling rate is the frequency range. The resolution is important, but the importance of the sampling rate remains a point of debate among professional engineers. The CD is 44.1, which is double the frequency response of the CD [[22kHz for each channel).

The average adult human doesn't hear much past 16kHz, the CD cutoff is 20kHz, and redbook is filtered from 22kHz. Analog's frequency response is infinite, limited only by the electronics used to record the signal. It is said that higher sampling rates impart a warmer, smoother sound, and flatter frequency response. Most vintage analog recordings of pop/rock/R&B music tops out at around 15kHz. The standard professional sampling rate, until recently, was 48kHz, hence 96kHz, which is double of that professional standard. The new standard is 96kHz. DVD uses both 48 and 96kHz. Some pros insist that sampling at 88.2kHz is better for CD because it divides evenly to 16. However, the quality of today's sample rate converters eliminates that problem.

The CD is 16-bit, but better resolution comes at 24-bit. This is why most recordings are now made at 24-bit. To get to the CD standard of 16-bit, dither must be used. It's often used with noise shaping. The best two out there are the ones Waves uses, and MBIT+, marketed by iZotope. It's the one I use.

Anyway, back to the main issue of this thread: if you were to compare the CD, and an mp3 ripped from it, you would hear slightly less bass on the mp3, and thinner midrange, and a slightly crisper sound. In other words, the sound won't be as warm and as full as the uncompressed original. Although band compression wasn't used, the lower you go in bit rate, the more compressed the mp3 will sound. The same goes for AAC, but slightly less so. Thank God we no longer have to deal with horrible 128 and 160 kbps mps3 anymore. I can't believe those people who can't tell the difference between those and the CD. Gawd! If you have some good audio software, you can isolate the difference of an mp3 or AAC file and hear how the sound is degraded. On some musical material, you can hear space-alien type squeely noise. That's the sound being degraded! They are artifacts. They are especially audible on good stereo speakers and good headphones.

One more thing before I shut up: the mp3 encoder makes a difference. In the old days, Fraunhofer was the main encoder. Now, LAME is regarded as the better of the two. Oog Vorbis, unfortunately, didn't catch on, at least here in the U.S., but it is capable of even better sound, and is capable of an even higher bit-rate, although it means a larger file.

That's the thing: many average people think more about the files size than the sound quality. The bigger the file, the better the sound. But, with larger, cheaper hard drives and personal players, file size shouldn't be a problem. That's good for FLAC and lossless AAC and WMA users. Those file types are roughly half the size of an uncompressed .wav or .aif file.

BTW, I am not an audio snob. In addition to listing to CDs and vinyl, I do buy and listen to mp3s. I'll usually buy the CD, or LP, if I know they compressed the shyit out of the CD version, but I don't mind an mp3 if I have to.

HOpe this helps. Gotta go to sleep now.

[nomis]

fantastic post Soulster..thanks for sharing that..

[uptight]

Well said, Soulster.

In addition, jboy88, data compression and dynamic range compression are two different issues -- in case you were wondering.

[nomis]

twenty years ago when i worked in a cd shop we found cds pressed in Germany had the best sound..alot of cds in New Zealand at the time were pressed in Australia and the sound was awful..if I remember correctly my co workers swore that the German Polygram pressing factory was the best in the world..which I find interesting as Polygram distributed Motown at the time...

[theboyfromxtown]

So it is better to buy the CD and not a download.

.....that's made my day...thank you

[westgrandboulevard]

I think that's made my YEAR!

[uptight]

Right, Xtown. Downloaded mp3's [[and AAC's) sacrifice quality for convenience. Aside from the amount of drive space you save on your computer, you will have less clutter in your home with mp3 format than with physical CDs. Most people cannot readily hear the difference. We just have to weigh to pros and cons of both formats before purchasing.

While mp3 offers much bang for your buck, sometimes I would rather buy the CD of my favorite artists and make mp3's from that CD [[for playback on the road). And for "flavor of the month" artists, I might just purchase a download because it is more affordable. Still a win-win situation for me and the record company.

[soulster]

So it is better to buy the CD and not a download.

Some people think it's better to buy the vinyl record!

[paladin]

Uptight both you and Soulster are on point......

[phil]

Some people think it's better to buy the vinyl record!

Soulster, I'm one of them !

[jboy88]

Well, that explains alot. I don't really buy CD's anymore unless it's a special collection [[TCMS, Hip-o select items, etc) or it's unavailible on iTunes. I've have purchased LPs and had them converted to CD's at the media center on campus. Downloading really comes in handy for albums where there only a handful of tracks you really want. My roomate still buys CDs though. Not to mention, you don't have to worry about mp3 wearing out or getting scratched like Records, tapes and CDs. But I geuss something's got to give no matter what format.

[msmotown2]

Thanks so much Soulster.
Great information.

[soulster]

Man, don'r get me started on how the industry has ruined the sound of CDs over the last couple of decades! I posted about it quite a bit on the old forum, but all certain people did was complain about my complaining.

[tom_moulton]

Like I alway say when you own the mp3 you have a mp3. When you have the CD you have the Music. I believe that to Maximize to Pacify on CD's is just about over. More and More CD's are starting to sound like they are suppose to.

[theboyfromxtown]

Uptight-What is an AAC?


Soulster-I agree that vinyl can be better but it is really the downloads that I don't fully understand. I only listen to MP3's on computer speakers on low volume, and they seem ok.

[uptight]

Xtown, you may have Googled it already, but AAC is Advanced Audio Coding. Similar to mp3 but newer technology and a tiny bit better. It is also known as .m4a. All of your downloads from iTunes dot com are in this AAC format. Since more people can play mp3 files than can open AAC files, I still make mp3s sometimes.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Advanced Audio Coding [[AAC) is a standardized, lossy compression and encoding scheme for digital audio. Designed to be the successor of the MP3 format, AAC generally achieves better sound quality than MP3 at similar bit rates.

[arrr&bee]

some people think it's better to buy the vinyl record!

and record it onto a cassette...opps silly me,someone explain to the youngsters what a cassette is,hehehehehehehe!!

[theboyfromxtown]

Uptight

I didn't google it...cos I knew I wouldn't understand.

So if I was to buy a download, would it offer me a choice between and MP3 and an AAC. Now, should I go for an AAC or an MP3. And if I get an AAC, can I play it on my MP3 player or would I have to convert it to AAC..and how do I do that?

Why does all of this have to be so complicated. I really don't know how you guys keep up with it all.

Jai....Cassettes...fabulous....shove them in and press PLAY. Life was so easy in those days,

[uptight]

If you want a download, the popular sites like iTunes, Amazon, Walmart, etc only offer one of the two formats. If you can find the AAC version of an album, get it. AAC is supposed to be a tad bit better than mp3.

While you manage your playlists on your computer, I recommend using iTunes to convert music files into any other format you want [[if you need to). An Apple iPod will certainly play AAC and mp3, but a generic mp3 player might not play AAC.

[theboyfromxtown]

Thanks Uptight. All understood.

I gotta get a mate to tell me how to use the Apple Ipod I bought myself for Xmas. But meanwhile I got this 2GB MP3 player which is doing me ok at present. Well, providing I only want to hear Tammi Terrell and the Chic Box set...it's full up already

[jboy88]

I know what a cassette tape is. i've owned several in my time.

[stephanie]

Dumb question but do they still sell casette tapes?

[theboyfromxtown]

I aint seen them on sale in the UK for years

[soulster]

I believe that to Maximize to Pacify on CD's is just about over. More and More CD's are starting to sound like they are suppose to.

We're half way there, but there are still a lot of holdouts, backward thinkers, people who think louder is better. At it's most basic purpose, there's nothing wrong with a loud CD. What's wrong is the way it has to happen: with limiting/compression. Just as with analog, digital has it's limits, and when it's exceeded or tricked, the results are just as bad, if not worse than analog.

I believe that the loudness wars are what helped kill enthusiasm for the CD. Even if people don't recognize it, highly compressed CDs cause fatigue, and cause one to tune out of the music quickly. It makes listening to an entire album unbearable. Compression is also what makes digital files disposable. People get tired of hearing compressed sound, and they don't care if they lose it.

But, remember Tom, not all mp3s are the same. The bit-rate has everything to do with the sound, as does the encoder.

[soulster]

Uptight-What is an AAC?


Soulster-I agree that vinyl can be better but it is really the downloads that I don't fully understand. I only listen to MP3's on computer speakers on low volume, and they seem ok.

Computer speakers are incapable of reproducing the full frequency spectrum, and what they do produce is not anywhere near accurate. They will not reveal the determental effects of compression, or allow you to hear the full dynamic of the audio. And, since you also play them low, you aren't hearing all the damage. May I ask why you play them low? Can I also ask why you are not motivated to move up to better playback? If it's money, that's one thing. But, other than that, is there any reason? Just curious.

[soulster]

Dumb question but do they still sell casette tapes?

Blank ones. The only brand I still see in places like Target or best Buy is Sony. TDK quit making it years ago, and Maxell soon after they did. Other than cassettes and VHS tape, the only tape still being made today is for the professional reel-to-reel market for recording and mixing.

[soulster]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Advanced Audio Coding [[AAC) is a standardized, lossy compression and encoding scheme for digital audio. Designed to be the successor of the MP3 format, AAC generally achieves better sound quality than MP3 at similar bit rates.

However, mp3 is too entrenched to be replaced by AAC. And, for lossless, FLAC has become the unofficial standard. Most traders also use FLAC. It can be used to archive hi-rez formats, and requires very little compression and expansion overhead. A few use Monkey's Audio, and even fewer use Wavpack, although Wavpack provides many archival options. But, since so many people use iTunes, AAC lossless is popular, and some people just prefer to use uncompressed .wav or .aif files.

[soulster]

and record it onto a cassette...opps silly me,someone explain to the youngsters what a cassette is,hehehehehehehe!!

You know what's funny [[to me)? I'm still seeing people playing cassettes in their cars! I look to see what they are, and they are old homemade tapes, or pre-recorded tapes. Some people never moved on to CDs, and virtually every car made in the last decade has a factory CD player in it. Nowadays, cars come with USB ports, auxiliary inputs, and 40 GB internal hard drives. These are excellent options to CDs. Some even allow you to connect to a server! No physical product necessary! But, given a choice between a cassette tape and a high-bit mp3, i'll take the mp3 every time!

I have a friend who bought a Lexus just for the Mark Levinson sound system. He rigged up a netbook and mounted several hard drives in his trunk so he could play his entire music collection on the road in high quality. That's the way to drive!

[theboyfromxtown]

Computer speakers are incapable of reproducing the full frequency spectrum, and what they do produce is not anywhere near accurate. They will not reveal the determental effects of compression, or allow you to hear the full dynamic of the audio. And, since you also play them low, you aren't hearing all the damage. May I ask why you play them low? Can I also ask why you are not motivated to move up to better playback? If it's money, that's one thing. But, other than that, is there any reason? Just curious.

There is a good reason why I don't have my music loud on my computer speakers. I live in an apartment so I have neighbours, above, below and each side of me. They don't like it when it is too loud!

[soulster]

There is a good reason why I don't have my music loud on my computer speakers. I live in an apartment so I have neighbours, above, below and each side of me. They don't like it when it is too loud!

I know how you feel.

[chidrummer]

soulster what you've been saying is brilliant and right on target. After all the effort to better the performance of audio signals over the years, young folks have voted for convenience over clarity and in one generation set back consumer audio for at least a decade.

For those still interested in better sound AND the convenience of your iPod, check out this pre amp called the iQube V2. It's pricey, but it's definitely worth it.

http://www.i-qube.nl/index.php?id=24