CD's vs download formats

[DavidW]

Oh, are they? Sorry. I guess I forgot. I have Apple everything, so I don't notice. 

S'all right.

[drogulus]

Well the algorithms haven't changed, and bit rates are bit rates.  There are ways of artificially enhancing mp3's, but most are very unnatural sounding. 

     Could you provide us with an unnatural sounding mp3 so we can hear what you're talking about? In return I'll provide some mp3s I made myself which you won't be able to distinguish from the uncompressed files they were made from. I'll provide them, too.

Alright I immediately ran into a road block that I did not realize Dave.  Their plus tracks are aac, not mp3.  Not portable, I doubt my players support that format.  And since they are lossy, transcoding to mp3 would reduce the sound quality to mush.

    I know some phones will play AAC or M4A. Incidentally, I've transcoded from mp3 to AAC and couldn't hear anything, but I wouldn't advise anyone doing this except as a test. Also, I was using the highest rates.

[Bunny]

Buying an mp3 is not worth it because it's lossy.  The difference between lossy and lossless is audible.  With a lossless source you can always make an mp3 from it, but you never can go backwards (without loss of information).

Also itunes (but not amazon) is guilty of DRM.  You want to make copies everywhere, that way if a harddrive fails (as what happened with me) you have backups.  You have to be careful where you buy from if you want that feature.

Plus tagging in classical music is a mess.  It was designed for pop music.

Plus gapless playback with mp3?

And what if you want to sell or trade your music?  You can't with an mp3, you can with a cd.

I think cd is still the king.  I'll change my mind if they go to lossless audio downloads and better pricing, but for now you still can't beat cd.

DRM are no longer an issue.  Amazon's downloads never had them, and Itunes is phasing them out. Lossy formats are, however to be avoided like plague.  You can hear the difference, more so over large speakers than over computer speakers or on an ipod. 

The best downloads are the master quality file downloads that are available from certain companies.  Linn Records, for example sells drm free master quality file downloads (in FLAC or WMA lossless), cd quality downloads, and high quality  (compressed) MP3 downloads as well as SACD/hybrids.  You can then download in pdf the cover art and program notes.  They advise that buyers of the master quality downloads burn the files to cd or dvd to back them up, so you are still left with a disc to store.  DG also has a few albums in lossless format, although most of their downloads are lossy.  I actually  hope that all music will be available in lossless downloads one of these days.  That way as soon as you hear the samples, you can have the music on your system.  (I hate delaying gratification.) 

Alright I immediately ran into a road block that I did not realize Dave.  Their plus tracks are aac, not mp3.  Not portable, I doubt my players support that format.  And since they are lossy, transcoding to mp3 would reduce the sound quality to mush.

All of the tracks at Itunes are AAC.  AAC is Apple's version of MP4, which is a less lossy format than mp3.  Itunes plus just uses larger files (encoded at 192 kbps AAC rather than their former standard of 128 kbps AAC). It's compatible with every ipod.  For me, the problem is that Itunes Plus is still a lossy format.  I'm waiting until the files are available in DRM free ALAC files (their lossless format).  Until then, I'm still buying cds and ripping them myself.

Btw, despite the fact that I am not an Apple fan, I do have to admit that so far the Ipod is the best portable music player, and Itunes the easiest software to use.  I know, there are other daps that have better sound quality, but for ease of use and convenience, nothing beats the ipod.  It's also much prettier than the other daps. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

     Could you provide us with an unnatural sounding mp3 so we can hear what you're talking about? In return I'll provide some mp3s I made myself which you won't be able to distinguish from the uncompressed files they were made from. I'll provide them, too.

I didn't realize there were still folks around who felt there WEREN'T differences in lossy/lossless.

Seems to me you're fighting a losing battle by repeatedly trying to convince everyone (at least the folks on this board) their ears are lying to them.

Degradation certainly exists else why the constant flap over the issue? When I burn CDRs in anything other than lossless and compare them to the original CD I easily hear the difference. I suspect many others do too since this issue keeps cropping up. The fact you, yourself, don't hear differences doesn't negate the mounting evidence to the contrary.

So if you feel alone in the wilderness with your contentions I can't see flogging this here dead horse just to provide you with company (mixed metaphors be darned).

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Lossy formats are, however to be avoided like plague.  You can hear the difference, more so over large speakers than over computer speakers or on an ipod. 

Yes, my home stereo makes the discrepancies in audio quality (lossy) apparent. 

[Valentino]

I do not own a mp3 player, so you could say I'm old fashioned...

What I have is a Slimdevices Transporter. I've ripped all my CDs to lossless FLAC on harddisk with dBpoweramp. That program can also convert my files to mp3 and other formats if I need it.
As for sound quality I cannot hear any significant loss from CD to mp3@320kbps when using LAME. DG sells mp3@320kbps, but I still wouldn't buy it since it's lossy.

[RussellG]

Why join the 21st Century when sound quality is degrading, not improving?  CD Audio is low enough resolution as it is without making it worse with lossy compression!

[DavidW]

Bunny I think we're on the same page, once everything is in the form of lossless downloads I will not look back.  Though, I will still miss not being able to sell music when I want.


Anyway about the aac thing again:
The whole aac/ipod thing, even if aac is better than mp3 which I wouldn't doubt, seems like an attempt at vendor lock in.  I don't own an ipod, and since I have a player that supports flac, among other fine formats, I might never buy an ipod.  I'm fine with lossy compressed mp3s for listening on my player, but for the hifi I desire lossless.  It would be terrible to have to replace an ipod and realize that your entire music collection is in their format, and so your choices are limited to basically buying from apple again.  That's really why if I want to use a lossy format I want it to be mp3 because then I'm not locked in.

[Cato]

Wow!  This is what I was afraid of: "dap" "FLAC" "aac" "DRM" and I never knew that there was an "mp4" yet!   

Many thanks for the discussion: it is intriguing! 

[karlhenning]

Wow!  This is what I was afraid of: "dap" "FLAC" "aac" "DRM" and I never knew that there was an "mp4" yet!   

Many thanks for the discussion: it is intriguing! 

A couple of years ago, already, a chum of mine (in Ohio, incidentally) sent me an mp4.  My Windows Media Player couldn't figure it out 

[Dr. Dread]

Bunny I think we're on the same page, once everything is in the form of lossless downloads I will not look back.  Though, I will still miss not being able to sell music when I want.

You should buy vinyl. It sounds way better than that digital crap.

*chortle*

[Wanderer]

Why join the 21st Century when sound quality is degrading, not improving?  CD Audio is low enough resolution as it is without making it worse with lossy compression!

I agree with that. Definitely not worth it for serious listening.  However good lossy formats may be for convenience, for crappy computer speakers and earbuds, for lesser music when we're in the mood for it, for sampling reasons, for commute, it really is a compromised way to listen to music.

[Bunny]

Bunny I think we're on the same page, once everything is in the form of lossless downloads I will not look back.  Though, I will still miss not being able to sell music when I want.


Anyway about the aac thing again:
The whole aac/ipod thing, even if aac is better than mp3 which I wouldn't doubt, seems like an attempt at vendor lock in.  I don't own an ipod, and since I have a player that supports flac, among other fine formats, I might never buy an ipod.  I'm fine with lossy compressed mp3s for listening on my player, but for the hifi I desire lossless.  It would be terrible to have to replace an ipod and realize that your entire music collection is in their format, and so your choices are limited to basically buying from apple again.  That's really why if I want to use a lossy format I want it to be mp3 because then I'm not locked in.

AAC (MP4 part 2 or MP2 part 7) was originally exclusive to Apple.   It was designed as the successor to MP3 because it enabled better audio quality at the same bitrates.  MP3 andMP4, properly Mpeg4 (Motion picture experts group) were developed for digitally encoding motion pictures. 

If you already have your files in flac, it does become a trifle cumbersome to convert then to ALAC (apple lossless audio codec, which is actually done in an MP4 container), but it's easily done by reconverting the files to wave and then importing them into itunes.  I've done it whenever I get flac files.  There is no loss of information, and the ipod plays them perfectly.  Additionally, because the codec was developed for visual media, you can also store copies of the cd cover as well as lyrics on each track, which is handy for Lieder, et al.  In case you are unaware of this, if your collection is encoded in ALAC, whenever you burn a cd using Itunes, the files are automatically converted into AIFF (Audio Interchange File Format -- Apple's uncompressed format) which is playable on any audio equipment.  If you want to make backup cds or dvds, you burn a data file of the music which retains the ALAC format.  MP4, is btw, no longer exclusive to Apple, so you can expect to see more and more files being offered in that format, especially movies.  You will not find yourself locked into Apple by buying from Itunes anymore as the codec is becoming more and more standard now.  I know that Roxio encodes and decodes the files and I'm sure other player-ripper software also can handle it.  I don't buy music from Itunes because it's lossy and usually I can pick up a cd at or below the same price per album.  Then I rip it myself, and retain the cd for speaker playback.  Even if the cd is only "redbook" stereo, I still keep it because none of the file ripping formats can decode HD cd layers or SACD layers so that playback from cd is usually (especially newer cds) superior to playback from even "lossless" files.

Wow!  This is what I was afraid of: "dap" "FLAC" "aac" "DRM" and I never knew that there was an "mp4" yet!   

Many thanks for the discussion: it is intriguing! 

DAP = Digital Audio Player (eg. Zune or Ipod)
WAV = Waveform audio format (uncompressed digital audio format developed by microsoft and IBM -- it has become music industry standard)
AIFF = Audio Interchange File Format (Apple's version of WAV)
FLAC = Free Lossless Audio Codec (an open source compression codec)
ALAC = Apple Lossless Audio Codec
WMA = Windows Media Audio (compression codec developed by Microsoft to compete with RealAudio and MP3)
WMA Lossless = Microsoft's lossless codec
WMA Pro = Microsoft's codec developed for the windows media player; it supports multichannel and high resolution audio.*
AAC = Advanced Audio Coding (Compression codec originally exclusive to Apple)
DRM = Digital Rights Management (need I say more?)
MP4 = Mpeg4 (Motion Picture Experts Group 4: a codec developed to compress and store motion pictures which is the basis for ALAC.)
*WMA Pro was developed in cooperation with Toshiba's HDTV format which has been superseded by Blu-Ray.

You should buy vinyl. It sounds way better than that digital crap.

*chortle*

LPs only sounds better because the engineering distorts the sound to mask the artifacts of analog tape recording and vinyl playback.  These distortions which warm up and fill out the music are very pleasing to the brain.  LP is like a woman wearing cosmetics: the makeup base, eye makeup and lipstick hide flaws and enhance various features.  If your standard for music is live concerts, then Lp is not satisfactory.  Top quality digital music is much closer to the real thing.  In addition, every time you play an LP it degrades and the sound quality degrades correspondingly.  Eventually, your favorite LPs always need to be replaced no matter how expensive your equipment, or how well you care for them.  If you want to put cosmetics on the music, just go out and get a good tube amp and an equalizer and play around.

I agree with that. Definitely not worth it for serious listening.  However good lossy formats may be for convenience, for crappy computer speakers and earbuds, for lesser music when we're in the mood for it, for sampling reasons, for commute, it really is a compromised way to listen to music.

Because it is the 21st century, and with the advent of HDTV, who would consider going back to NTSC standards?  Reproduction of sound is improving as well, so why not look forward instead of lamenting the past?

[DavidW]

You should buy vinyl. It sounds way better than that digital crap.

*chortle*

I get your stance, but since you're the only one on this thread saying that mp3 is good enough, perhaps you should re-consider the points made on this thread, instead of stubbornly and falsely labeling me as an audiophool.

[drogulus]

I didn't realize there were still folks around who felt there WEREN'T differences in lossy/lossless.

    There are differences. I made it clear that the question is when they are audible, not do they exist.

     

Seems to me you're fighting a losing battle by repeatedly trying to convince everyone (at least the folks on this board) their ears are lying to them.

     You could be right. I don't think of it that way, though. Someone might actually understand what I'm trying to say, that mp3s at high rates sound like the source, not that there are no differences. Differences you can't hear don't matter. Differences that can only be heard with great difficulty under test conditions shouldn't prevent you from enjoying your music.

     

Degradation certainly exists else why the constant flap over the issue? When I burn CDRs in anything other than lossless and compare them to the original CD I easily hear the difference. I suspect many others do too since this issue keeps cropping up. The fact you, yourself, don't hear differences doesn't negate the mounting evidence to the contrary.

      If you can hear the difference then use lossless, or move up to a higher rate and test that. Right now I'm using M4A at ~350 kbps. That's higher than any mp3. I call that paranoid mode because I use it so I won't hear differences even though I wouldn't hear them even at a much lower rate.

     As for why there is a constant flap over mp3 quality, it must be because not everyone agrees about the "obvious" differences. And since the various codecs keep improving, the evidence isn't mounting, it's slowly eroding as the threshold of transparency goes lower.

     My archive is mostly Windows Lossless, ripped from my CDs. In addition I have some mp3s from Amazon. My iTunes library I take on the road is M4A made from the lossless library and copies of the mp3s that are not transcoded, of course. So I'm not locked in, and there's no need for anyone to be.

     

     
   

[Valentino]

Spot on, drogulus.

[drogulus]

Wow!  This is what I was afraid of: "dap" "FLAC" "aac" "DRM" and I never knew that there was an "mp4" yet!   

Many thanks for the discussion: it is intriguing! 

     I know it sounds confusing. It certainly was for me, so I took baby steps to get started. First I copied all my CDs onto my HD (I'm still not finished doing that, but I have most of them done). I used FLAC, which is lossless, so no issues of SQ intrude. This is my archive from which I can make copies for portable use. I started with FLAC because it's the first lossless format I learned about and one of the best. At some point I switched to Windows Lossless for essentially trivial reasons to do with album art. Anyway, that doesn't matter. The point is that you have exact copies of your collection that you can use for any purpose. When you transcode for portables you don't touch the archive copy. That you keep forever, or even longer if possible . If you become dissatisfied with the SQ of the working files you make you can redo them at a higher rate. You don't need to use all these confusing formats, just keep it simple at first: Archive in lossless, then make mp3s (for example) at the rate you choose to drop into your player software. Once you get the hang of it it won't seem at all difficult.

    Now you see why I find these pronouncements about what the SQ of compressed files must be so pointless. All of this is under your control, so it's best to start learning now what is or isn't good enough. The answer may be different for you than for me, so find out for yourself what it takes to get good sound. Also, doing all this is fun, and it might even be fun for you.

[Dr. Dread]

I get your stance, but since you're the only one on this thread saying that mp3 is good enough, perhaps you should re-consider the points made on this thread, instead of stubbornly and falsely labeling me as an audiophool.

I label you as nothing. And no one has made a point on this thread that helps me much.

[DavidW]

I label you as nothing. And no one has made a point on this thread that helps me much.

It's not about helping you, I'm asking you to try to understand and appreciate the other side of the coin.  There are many legitimate reasons for buying cds over mp3s, and it would be cool if you consider them instead of making sarcastic comments.  I'm not saying that your shopping preferences are "wrong".

[Bunny]

    There are differences. I made it clear that the question is when they are audible, not do they exist.

The better the playback equipment, the more apparent the differences are.  On my computer speakers, everything sounds the same starting from about 192kbps MP3.  On the speakers in my living room, anyone can tell the difference between 320kbps AAC and lossless.
     

You could be right. I don't think of it that way, though. Someone might actually understand what I'm trying to say, that mp3s at high rates sound like the source, not that there are no differences. Differences you can't hear don't matter. Differences that can only be heard with great difficulty under test conditions shouldn't prevent you from enjoying your music.

Again, this is very dependent on the quality of the playback equipment.  The higher the quality of the playback equipment, the more apparent the differences between lossless and high bitrate compression become.
     
 

If you can hear the difference then use lossless, or move up to a higher rate and test that. Right now I'm using M4A at ~350 kbps. That's higher than any mp3. I call that paranoid mode because I use it so I won't hear differences even though I wouldn't hear them even at a much lower rate.

Is there such a thing as 350kbps?  The most I've ever seen is 320kpbs using Itunes.  Btw you can rip in mp3 format at the rate of 320 kbps too.  Doesn't DG sell their files in that format?

As for why there is a constant flap over mp3 quality, it must be because not everyone agrees about the "obvious" differences. And since the various codecs keep improving, the evidence isn't mounting, it's slowly eroding as the threshold of transparency goes lower.

The higher the bitrate, the less apparent the differences between codecs: there is a law of diminishing returns as the compressed files approach the size of the uncompressed files.  Better codecs will compress the same information in smaller file sizes, but even that has a limit.  The differences in the improving codecs is in the type of information they allow you compress and store in the capsules: multichannel sound, video information, graphics (artwork), subtitles, lyrics, etc.

My archive is mostly Windows Lossless, ripped from my CDs. In addition I have some mp3s from Amazon. My iTunes library I take on the road is M4A made from the lossless library and copies of the mp3s that are not transcoded, of course. So I'm not locked in, and there's no need for anyone to be.   

320 kbps AAC, I presume?  Itunes doesn't rip at a higher compressed bitrate than that.  I'm still wondering where the 350 came from.
     

It's not about helping you, I'm asking you to try to understand and appreciate the other side of the coin.  There are many legitimate reasons for buying cds over mp3s, and it would be cool if you consider them instead of making sarcastic comments.  I'm not saying that your shopping preferences are "wrong", I'm saying that you are being a jerk.

So far the best reason to buy cds is that none of the ripping software decodes more than the basic redbook stereo layer.  You can't rip the HD layer or the SACD layer, both of which are superior recording formats, and both of which sound much better on larger speakers.  And, although AAC supports multichannel playback, the software only rips in stereo.  2 channels is more than adequate for headphones, but I really love the way well engineered multichannel recordings sound.  You can't get that from any digital archive that you rip yourself yet.