True, but this can work in your favor at times. I’m an eMusic subscriber as well; I’m grandfathered in on my old plan, which means I get 40 tracks/month for $10/month. (They don’t rollover, though.) The great thing about this is that if you’re into classical music, as I am, the tracks can be BIG. A symphony will be four or five tracks, which cost the same as four or five songs.
One great feature of eMusic is that you can create playlists that other members can see; I’ve come across a playlist called “Classical music by the yard,” which consisted entirely of tracks that run 25 minutes or longer. It’s hard to beat DRM-free music that costs about $0.01 per minute.
First of all, I think we should define “CD quality”. Generally, when people use that phrase, they are referring to the Red Book CD Standard which is two channel audio, 16 bits / 44.1 khz. So, 44.1 khz × 16 bits per sample × 2 channels = 1411.2 kbps.
AIFF and WAV are typically uncompressed audio so they would be CD quality and contain all 1411.2 kps. Apple Lossless (along with other lossless formats like WAVPAK, FLAC, APE, etc) average around 2/3’s compression and could be anywhere from 900 kbps to 1000 kbps. However, no audio information is thrown away so they, too, could be considered CD quality. Think of them as ZIP files for audio.
MP3, AAC and MPEG-4 (they’re essentially the same), OGG, etc. are all lossy formats in that they throw away varying amounts of audio info. Typically, the user specifies the bitrate when they rip a CD. MP3 is the oldest and most common format. AAC and OGG are more recent and have more efficient compression algorithms and, hence, sound better than MP3 at lower bitrates.
This is all academic, however, as the only format available for purchase at the iTunes music store is encrypted AAC at 128 kbps. All of the other listed formats would have to come from other sources, i.e., ripped CDs, file-sharing, etc.
The tests should take place on identical equipment. The biggest factor in sound quality is always the speakers, so of course a CD will sound much better on high-end Paradigm monitors than they will on cheap plastic computer speakers. However, when testing on the same equipment, generally, few people can distinguish 192 kbps from uncompressed CD audio. If you really wanted to play it safe, you could encode to 250 kbps MP3 and almost nobody could distinguish the difference.
Unfortunately, I can’t point to any specific listening tests to back up my claims(I’ll keep looking, though). Most of what I’ve learned above has come from reading the Hydrogen Audio forums over a couple of years. They take a very rigorous, scientific approach to testing and don’t buy into any audiophile crap about golden ears and magic cables. Here’s a link to their double-blind test procedures.
So this does that many people will be able to tell the difference between a song downloaded on iTunes and played on a high end stereo, and that same song played from a commercially produced CD played on that same stereo, correct?
I would hazard guess that it depends on how much you like the music being played. The more you are able to immerse yourself in the music the more the subtleties become apparent.
Also the type of instruments being recorded. Acoustic instruments have a very complex sound which is more likely to be damaged by compression than synthesized electronica.
You objected to copy protections. What I’m asking is what you would have instead of the system you cited to which you object. Yes, it’s the same thread.
I object to the fact that my music loses its portability when I download something with DRM. With a CD, I can play it wherever the hell I want. With DRM music, I cannot. I’m not here to offer a suggestion of how to solve this problem. I don’t care what the answer is, since I end up buying CDs whenever I can and don’t like digital music just for this reason.
This is not the same as saying I don’t want musicians to be paid for their music or that music should be public domain and free. That’s a hell of a strawman if I’ve ever seen one and, frankly, I’m insulted, especially given the fact that I have friends who are career musicians and I have recorded and been played on radio stations myself.
Well I apologize for insulting you, but my point was that this is an incidental problem that has developed with advances in technology. It is much easier to control the bootlegging of physical copies of CDs, because they must be physically distributed somehow. So it is still possible to have CDs be “portable” without destroying the music industry. But unless you know of a way to have downloaded sound files to be “portable” in the sense that they can be shared with other users on a network without those users also having the ability to copy them without the artist making any money, then what choice do they have? If all music becomes free for the taking, would it not logically follow that all musicians would have to be volunteers, at least those who record? How can you complain about a situation without offering an alternative to it?
I understand your criticism that I have constructed a strawman, but I didn’t mean to imply you said that; I meant that it would be the logical result of getting rid of the copy-protections to which you object.
Except for the higher quality, DRM-free “iTunes Plus” tracks see link at bottom.
Interestingly enough, tracks sell for $1.29 and are 256 kbps AAC. This is probably something of a compromise - give more money to the record companies, without necessarily making it seem like DRM-free is something consumers ought to pay for.
personal single point of data:
If you really want to detect the differences in sound quality, you may want to use headphones. I used a piece of software that would run ABX testing, and found that with my hearing (not remarkable, in fact likely slightly damaged from playing brass instruments), I generally couldn’t tell the difference between 256 kbps AAC and a lossless file.
128 kbps AAC, or most mp3, I can tell apart quite commonly on most equipment (and usually had ~80% on headphone tests), though it’s not enough to bother me. I still prefer not to buy at the low quality, but I’m much happier with the new iTunes Plus tracks (not that I’ve bought anything there yet).
Nifty. Link? I’ve got 5 downloads left this month and I’ve been looking to maximize value.
Probably. Chances are that a decent percentage could. However, I doubt many of them do such critical listening with digital audio files. Afterall, their appeal is convenience and portability, not fidelity.
The best approach is to determine your own threshold by doing your own tests. The HA forum contains links to ABX testing software. Basically, it all comes down to subjective experience. Maybe you’ve got highly sensitive hearing and can tell 256 kbps from CD but I certainly can’t. My own hit rate is something like 70% for 160 kbps MP3 files (damaged hearing from too many hardcore-punk shows in the '80s).
BTW, my first choice for formats is still CDs because I like owning a physical object c/w artwork, liner notes, etc. They’re also a great backup as I found out this past January when my hard drive crashed, forcing me to re-rip my entire CD collection.
Ah, yes. I’d forgotten about that development. It’s a step in the right direction, although I don’t like the price increase. I’m happy sticking with emusic and used CD stores.
I’m not sure that is the logical result. We’re already in a world where the music is out there and shared and free for the taking. I don’t think getting rid of DRM will change much. People who want to get music for free already know how and are. People who want to buy music are using services such as iTunes. Other services already offer DRM-free subscription plans, and, as has been mentioned, iTunes Plus will be the same way–you’ll pay a premium for the portability. So apparently people are working on the problem.
How do you explain the success of emusic.com (which legally sells music in plain .mp3 format with no copy-protection) and the movement by Apple to sell DRM-free tracks, albeit at a higher price? THEY want musicians to work for free and all music to be public domain too?
Nope. Just assuming that easily and cheaply downloadable music is a big part of the desirability of the ipod. And that Apple knows this and keeps the price low with that in mind.
Well I asked what the alternative should be - so maybe the alternative is charging more for the music initially and writing off the inevitable bootlegging as an acceptable loss. I know that people are getting music for free, but I don’t think everyone knows how to do that. If there were no impediment at all to getting music for free, do you think anyone would willingly pay for it?
Except for a very large chunk of that $15 for a real CD is made up of the costs of creating an actual physical product and getting it into stores for people to buy. When you cut out that middle man, as you do with digital files, the price should drop significantly - it should be more like $1 or $2 per album.
THEN take into account that you’re not actually getting little chunks of the real album (the original wav files directly off of the disc) but compressed, lower-resolution versions and the pricing structure should drop even more.