CD's vs download formats

[drogulus]

First, if you want to use an article as the authority for your opinions and conclusions, it would be nice if you could provide a link to it so that excerpt can be read in context.  It's too easy to use quotations out of context to support any argument, which is why professionals provide footnotes.  It's also very apparent that this article is a number of years old. 

     In the case of the thread I linked to, it has the best information on iPod quality you will find anywhere, in fact better than many tests you might have seen. Check out the posts by Yuriv on his findings using the Rightmark Analyzer and a high end sound card. They are very interesting.

     In general I don't use articles or links as authorities but as information. I don't care what Atkinson says, only why he says it. When he performs tests that surprise him and go against his prejudices he is credible, but only because 1) He tested and 2) his tests support what other tests have revealed. I also appreciate the irony of a genuinely subjectivist tester seeing the value of not heeding his usual "my ears never lie" spiel.

     

Second, before you dismiss the swipe at compressed files, only consider that when this was probably written 128 kbps AAC was the standard of Itunes, and considered cd quality there.  Similarly, 128 kbps mp3 was considered cd quality at Napster -- the other great source for downloaded music.  The vast majority of ipod users still rip their cds at the Itunes default settings (128kbps) because they can fit more music on them and get better battery life.  In any event, Atkinson clearly doesn't like the sound of compressed files and wouldn't listen to them if given any choice.  I would also prefer to be able to put uncompressed or lossless files on my ipod, which is impossible in settings where I need maximum battery life.

 

    That is a valid point if you think of it as an opinion he has had ample time to correct. And the point is not that there is absolutely no difference between high bit rate lossy files and lossless ones. It's that many of the people with very fixed opinions on the matter have not tried to test their ability to tell the difference. What is their opinion worth?

Third, you should consider exactly what Atkinson was using as a comparison to the Ipod when he says "most cd players." I'm sure that he was referring to things like a Sony Walkman rather than a high end, non portable player.  I'll also bet that the reason he talked about listening to uncompressed files is because he can't hear the difference between files ripped at 320 and 350kbps whereas he can hear the difference between music ripped at 320 or 350 kpbs and uncompressed and lossless files (which I can hear as well).  You haven't proved anything, or supported your thesis that 350 AAC is better than 320 AAC.  The only thing you have proved is that you think you hear a difference, which I doubt you would hear in a true blind test with a large number of unfamiliar files to sample conducted by someone using scientifically rigorous testing procedures. 

    It was a test of the iPod, not a comparison with a CD player. He found what others have found, that the iPod compares with CD players. Since portables differ mainly in their analog output (typically 1 volt or less) the distinction is not an important one.

     I never said I could hear the difference between 320 kbps CBR and ~350 kbps VBR AAC files. I'm running in paranoid mode so I won't ever get the chance to hear a difference. Though it might show up in a torture test file or harpsichord music for someone with very good high frequency hearing.

[Bunny]

     In the case of the thread I linked to, it has the best information on iPod quality you will find anywhere, in fact better than many tests you might have seen. Check out the posts by Yuriv on his findings using the Rightmark Analyzer and a high end sound card. They are very interesting.

You are using Atkinson as the authority on the sound quality of ipods.  I'd like to see how he supported his conclusion.  I don't care what someone else has to say because you didn't use someone else to support your thesis.  A link to a broad, ongoing discussion of the Ipod sound quality with many differing opinions isn't helpful in supporting your thesis.

In general I don't use articles or links as authorities but as information. I don't care what Atkinson says, only why he says it. When he performs tests that surprise him and go against his prejudices he is credible, but only because 1) He tested and 2) his tests support what other tests have revealed. I also appreciate the irony of a genuinely subjectivist tester seeing the value of not heeding his usual "my ears never lie" spiel.

If you do not respect Atkinson, then why are you quoting him?  If he is being used as a source of information then the article does need more context so that one can see the testing parameters.  Link even more necessary!
    

That is a valid point if you think of it as an opinion he has had ample time to correct. And the point is not that there is absolutely no difference between high bit rate lossy files and lossless ones. It's that many of the people with very fixed opinions on the matter have not tried to test their ability to tell the difference. What is their opinion worth?

If he has corrected his opinion, or more properly stated, revised his opinion why don't you quote that?  Why don't you do some searching to see if this is true?  By the way, anyone coming into my house can hear the difference between high bit rate lossy files and lossless files when played on my sound system just as they can hear the difference in sound between a tube amp and a solid state amp. 

The better the system the more apparent the differences between lossy and lossless files become.  You have assumed that because you cannot hear such differences on your rig that the differences are inaudible to the human ear.  Try telling that to the numerous people who can hear differences between SACD stereo and Redbook stereo!  If they hear those differences, then you can bet they can hear the differences between lossy and lossless files. 

Btw, on an ipod using the stock earbuds, I can barely discern the differences between 128 kbps and 192kbps.  It is all a matter of the equipment. This might not be true if you had the Ipod amped and hooked up to a set of Sennheiser audiophile headphones (515 or higher).  I'll bet you would hear the differences between high bitrate lossy and lossless files then!

It was a test of the iPod, not a comparison with a CD player. He found what others have found, that the iPod compares with CD players. Since portables differ mainly in their analog output (typically 1 volt or less) the distinction is not an important one.

How do I know this without context?  He actually states,

"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players..."

and he doesn't talk about whether those CD players are high end or low end.  There are many, many more lower end than higher end CD players, so I suspect he was thinking of the lower end CD players rather than an audiophile CD player.  I really can't tell more because the quote is not in context and I can't refer to the whole article.  A link should have been furnished.

I never said I could hear the difference between 320 kbps CBR and ~350 kbps VBR AAC files. I'm running in paranoid mode so I won't ever get the chance to hear a difference. Though it might show up in a torture test file or harpsichord music for someone with very good high frequency hearing.

Well then, why bother to rip at the higher, custom bitrates at all if you can't hear a difference?  The file size is just about the same, no the 320 kbps files are going to be smaller.  And stop being paranoid, no one using your rig could hear the differences.  The differences might become discernible on the highest end equipment, but I doubt it.  There is a law of diminishing returns that applies here.  There are definite limitations on the Ipod and the headphones you are using. I'm sure the sound quality is better than average and I don't doubt that it is very likely very acceptable.  Fyi, I never encode at bitrates over 320 kbps AAC for the Ipod because I can't hear the difference between high bitrate lossy files and lossless files using the Ipod as source with my iems (Westone 3, Superfi Pro, Shure E500 and Sensaphonic Prophonic 2x) or my portable dock (Logitech). 

However, differences between high bitrate lossy and lossless files do become discernible on higher end equipment.  Why not go to a good audio equipment shop and test out the higher end headphones using your ipod as a source for high bitrate files and a CD of the same music on one of their players as a source for comparison?  You might hear something that could change your opinion.

[Todd]

Speaking of Bavouzet, I just bought vol. 1 of what looks like another new set of Beethoven sonatas.

I have that and FFG's second volume carted.  I only buy CDs still as MP3s sound crappy.

I think the CD price is low.  In the 90s, a new, premium priced three disc set would have been around $45-$48.  Now it starts at $38, and will probably be available for $20-$25 from third party sellers.  That's bargain price for new recordings.  Prices for recorded music have never been lower, adjusted for inflation.  Think of the 78s era and how much those recordings cost.

[Opus106]

I only buy CDs still as MP3s sound crappy.

If price is not a concern, you can download studio-quality [their words] files through Chandos' website (and along with that you may also download other formats free of charge).

[Todd]

If price is not a concern, you can download studio-quality [their words] files through Chandos' website (and along with that you may also download other formats free of charge).

But then I'd have to be able to play the recordings in my main system, which is restricted to CD player, turntable, and tuner for sources.  Networked music is a ways off for me.

three 3-CD volumes of Bavouzet's at ~ $40 per would make his come in at around $120.  Not what I'd call a bargain.

That's list price; actual price will probably be around $75, which is cheap for a new issue.  I'm not certain that every new recording should be a bargain.

I defnitely don't get the 256 sounds like CD thing.  I've only ever listened to 320 MP3s, and they all sound awful, with the highs mangled.  I can even tell sometimes when local radio stations play lower res MP3s, as some do.  Blech.

[Leon]

I defnitely don't get the 256 sounds like CD thing.  I've only ever listened to 320 MP3s, and they all sound awful, with the highs mangled.  I can even tell sometimes when local radio stations play lower res MP3s, as some do.  Blech.

Thankfully, I am not blessed with your discriminating ear      and I can easily be happy with paying $6 for a d/l of the first three discs of Bavouzet's Beethoven, instead of almost $40.  I also appreciate (and my wife too) not adding more physical clutter to my already over filled CD shelves.

[Todd]

Thankfully, I am not blessed with your discriminating ear

Not everyone is, even audiophiles.

(See about a third of the way down; I posted the same 'review' he refers to on the prior incarnation of GMG at the same time.  Oh, and I do not listen loud; measured peaks are usually in the 83-85 dB range.)

[Leon]

Same here. All of the digital file formats (lossless or not) just are not suited for classical music. You get a clearer image with CDs.

Get 'em while you can - "See Ya, CDs: Digital Music Sales Overtake Physical Media"

It won't be long before CDs are simply no longer offered.  For me, it can't happen quickly enough.

[Todd]

It won't be long before CDs are simply no longer offered.

Or not.  CDs will probably maintain a small following like LPs have.  Manufacturing CDs is cheap.

[Leon]

Or not.  CDs will probably maintain a small following like LPs have.  Manufacturing CDs is cheap.

You're probably right about CDs having a small following, here is a quote from a different article about how some folks just like them.  The odd thing is, it's not for better sound quality:

In our rapidly changing world, it is perhaps odd to suppose that a physical medium would still resonate with people. However, Crupnick said, there are still plenty of Baby Boomers and other listeners who just enjoy the CD experience in the car, and there remains a core contingent of consumers who find CDs to be the best way to enjoy the album format, which offers an assortment of songs from a favorite artist, tied to a unifying theme.

Interestingly, one of the most logical arguments for the CD – its superior, uncompressed sound quality compared to the 256 kilobyte-per-second or 320 kbps download – plays "a very minor role" in its popularity, Crupnick said. "It doesn't generally show up on the radar screen as an issue."

As long as all music is offered as a download I'll be happy and won't begudge you of your CDs.  It does bother me when a recording is only offered as a CD, but I expect that to change in the near future.

[Todd]

As long as all music is offered as a download I'll be happy

You realize that will never happen.  A good chunk of music issued on 78s never made it to any other format.  There are a lot of recordings from the LP era that have never been digitized, and never will be.  There are some digital recordings available on CDs that will never be available as downloads.  In theory, this last step should be pretty easy to accomplish, but it will not happen in all cases.  And of course, not all digital files will be permanently playable; software and harware will move on, and some current files will never be heard again.  This, too, should be easy to remedy, but it probably will not be.

The great irony of progress in recordings is that digital files will have the shortest life span.  Metal masters used for 78s will have the longest.

[Leon]

You realize that will never happen.  A good chunk of music issued on 78s never made it to any other format.  There are a lot of recordings from the LP era that have never been digitized, and never will be.  There are some digital recordings available on CDs that will never be available as downloads.  In theory, this last step should be pretty easy to accomplish, but it will not happen in all cases.  And of course, not all digital files will be permanently playable; software and harware will move on, and some current files will never be heard again.  This, too, should be easy to remedy, but it probably will not be.

The great irony of progress in recordings is that digital files will have the shortest life span.  Metal masters used for 78s will have the longest.

What I meant was all newly released music.  I have been converting my LPs to CDs and then scanning them into iTunes for the last two years.   It would be great if ALL music were available as a download, but I know that won't happen.

However, digital preservation is a topic I know something about, seeing as it is a large part of my profession.  There is plenty of research, thought, time and resources being put into this, bit migration, cloud storage, etc., since eventually most, if not all, information will eventually be available primarily in digital format. 

I am not concerned about the longevity of digital music - I am sure my library will outlast me.

[Todd]

What I meant was all newly released music.

Oh, well, that will mostly happen.  Some hipsters might get the idea to release something as an LP only, but who even wants to hear that.

Do be prepared to convert music files to a new format in the future.  It should be easy, unless content owners go all crazy with rights management.

[Todd]

It would seem logical to me that at some point,  we'll be able to download CD-quality sound files.

Agreed, and I'll happily pay the premium.

I think their Canada connection may have something to do with it.

Must be.  Can't wait for the FFG 2.  May have to switch to Arkiv for this one.  Volume 1 is one of my purchases of the year so far.  (Literally listening to it as I type.)

[Opus106]

Agreed, and I'll happily pay the premium.

But what about "networked music is a ways off for me"?

[Todd]

But what about "networked music is a ways off for me"?

When I switch to networked music, of course.  My CD players (standard an backup) both need to die first.  Naim players tend to work for quite a while fortunately.