edit: and just to be clear, I've abx'd AAC samples against the source myself, in fact with certain combinations of bitrate, encoder and audio sample it's hard not to. So no-one is claiming that AAC is always 'CD quality' (whatever that means). But that doesn't translate to all digital audio, all AAC encoded music or even all ACC encoded music at a given bitrate sounding horrible. It's a numbers game and overall AAC does fine, even at 128kbps.
Ah, ok, I'm not arguing against that-- I've just been saying that it is possible to tell the diffenance.
I've never said that AAC sounded horrible. For most songs it doesn't sound quite as good as the original CD when listing on my headphones or studio monitors, but I would not be able to tell the difference in my car or from a boom box even doing a/b comparisons.
Whatever, who cares? I used to love listening to albums and I've recorded on both digital and analog and both have their advantages. But the thing I love most is that I now have 7000 songs that I can easily access from a searchable data base.
On another note, for whatever reason I've been noticing lately that when I listen to cd's I've burned from itunes which is all stuff I've ripped at 128 AAC I've been hearing details I've never heard before. Prolly because of the way certain frequencies are emphasized.
Lastly, the over compression of today's music in the mastering stage has more of a negative effect on the sound than the medium it is delivered in.
That's precious little to imagine making so big a difference in the sound of LPs, whereas the amplitudes of euphonic distortions are right up front and in your face, making them much better suspects for why LPs might sound "better" to some people.
First, I wouldn't suggest that the high end rolling down was the only reason people like LPs more than CDs. Second, I would guess that this sound does have a much greater impact than you're suggesting, like white noise.
I don't believe you. Any effect you think you heard is a placebo. Try having a friend give you a double-blind test at 192. I bet you'll fail.
And even if you can tell the difference, there are a few questions that need asking:
1. Is the CD version better, or just different?
2. At AAC 192, is your listening experience unenjoyable? If it is then I suggest that you're unbelievably spoiled.
3. (For Groverat who listens in his car: ) Can you hear the difference even when you take into account road noise?
4. Is it worth it?
120-192 is optimistic. I find you need at least 224 to make artifacts disappear on cheapy computer systems. When you play on a system that can play loud and clear (forgetting for a second coloration, which affects nearly all consumer audio equipment) you can definitely hear a big difference between CD and MP3, and lower bit rate AAC, and a small difference between high bit rate ACC.
However, points 1 and 2 do have merit. The listening is definitely low-fi, but is it unenjoyable? The differences are pretty easily apparent, but are they truly unpleasant?
On iPod earbuds, they aren't, nor on computer speakers, which are usually doing just as much to affect the sound.
But even stepping up to some entry level consumer audio (500-1000 USD) systems will easily show the difference between various sources.
I bet you I'll pass a double blind test 9 out of 10 times, at least.
First, I wouldn't suggest that the high end rolling down was the only reason people like LPs more than CDs. Second, I would guess that this sound does have a much greater impact than you're suggesting, like white noise.
I think you've misinterpreted what I'd said. First of all, I was referring to what many pro-vinyl people have said about the high frequencies on LPs, which is that in spite of the roll-off that there is at least some high-frequency information in LPs above 20 KHz, information that gets completely eliminated (hitting a digital brick wall at 22.05 KHz) from CDs. These vinyl enthusiasts are not crediting LPs high-frequency roll-off per se, but what some LPs can retain in the 20 KHz+ range that CDs filter out.
I was saying that I personally think this high-frequency content is very unlikely to be of great importance in preference for LP, especially because it is so rolled off and so small an effect compared to larger effects -- so I think we're in agreement here.
(I recently discovered a power brick at work going bad, tracking it down by the obnoxious high-frequency squealing it was emitting. A vinyl-loving tweak-o-phile friend of mine couldn't hear the noise the brick was making, even with the brick pressed right up against his ear.)
Euphonic distortion in LPs can include white noise, as you mention, but it also includes other effects such as reduced channel separation (yes, this can be a good thing psycho-acoustically, if not good for accuracy), an exaggerated L-R signal, inter-channel noise differences being heard as spatial effects, creating an illusion of a broader and more active sound stage, etc.
But I believe you're claiming you can always tell 192kbps from the original WAV so you'll probably need to create the files yourself. Let us know how you get on.
I heard more of a difference when I switched out my cheapo Akai receiver for a Yamaha pro power amp then I do going from AIFF to AAC. I also do a lot of listening on Beyer DT-100 studio headphones and the AAC encoded stuff holds up really well.
I find it amusing to see how badly ATRAC3 does in that multiformat test given it's at 132 kbps and Sony was claiming 48 kbps was fine for their media player.
Although I'm only a junior in college (which seems pretty old for this forum), I consider myself an audiophile. I've been listening to high-end audio systems my entire life (thanks to dad) and currently own a nice little system. The system includes:
McIntosh MC7300 power amp
McIntosh C40 preamp
McIntosh MCD7008 CD player
McIntosh MR7083 tuner
Apogee Mini-DAC w/ USB
Totem Acoustic Hawk loudspeakers
Powerbook G4
Now, for computer music files, it starts from the PowerBook, through the USB interface to the Apogee Mini-DAC and straight into my MC7300 power amp via a pair of balanced XLR cables.
Now, for those of you who are saying they can't tell the difference between a 128kbps AAC file and an AIFF file, I'd like to invite you to my apartment for a listening session. You can even do your little abx test and I guarantee you will get it right 95% unless you have a hearing disability. I bet you can even clearly tell the sonic difference between Apple's own interal PowerBook DAC and a quality external DAC playing the exact same file.
The problem with most people here (esp. Tonton and that other Stupidersomething one) is that you're using a pair of dinky $100 satelite speakers hooked up to your computer's headphone jack. If this is in fact your set up, I'm sure no one can tell the difference between the formats 100% of the time on your setup.
And if that is your setup and you can't tell the difference, I say encode at 128-192kbps AAC, save some hard drive space and enjoy your music. But you can't tell me to encode Beethoven Symphony No. 9 in D minor in AAC or any other codec and tell me that's as good as it gets.
On a good system the difference is smack-in-the-head clear. The clarity, imaging, depth of soundstage, feel of attack, the ambience noise is all affected when the music information is changed in any way.
With a master CD in my system, I can feel and tell where everyone's standing, the separation of each instruments in the symphony, the awesome deep soundstage in the concert hall. These all dissapear or significantly worsen when I listen to AAC files. The imaging isn't as focused, the attack of a piano key isn't as real etc etc...
So to sum up, if you have a regular little computer audio setup, which would consist of just a computer and maybe a $200 2.1 satelite/sub combo and can't tell the difference between different music formats, then just encode at the lowest bit acceptable to your ears.
But if you're crazy about music as I am, and are willing to get into this expensive hobby, get yourself a professional quality external DAC and a good system. I only encode CD music into my PowerBook in AIFF files w/ error correction in iTunes. I've heard good things about the Apple Lossless Encoder, but currently the space saving isn't worth it and I trust AIFF more.
Do yourselves a favor and walk into a high-end audio store and demo their reference system. And by high-end, I don't mean Sony or Bose. Any audiophile would laugh if you called Bose a high-end. Find yourselves a McIntosh, Mark Levinson, Linn, Martin Logan, Krell, etc stores around you and demo your favorite CDs on the system. If this is your first encounter w/ highend audio systems, you will be blown away by the sound.
Until then, please don't yell at other people trying to achieve good sound.
But if you're crazy about music as I am, and are willing to get into this expensive hobby, get yourself a professional quality external DAC and a good system. I only encode CD music into my PowerBook in AIFF files w/ error correction in iTunes. I've heard good things about the Apple Lossless Encoder, but currently the space saving isn't worth it and I trust AIFF more.
Apple's Lossless Codec is, well, lossless. So the output is exactly the same as AIFF. If there was any difference, Apple wouldn't be allowed to call it lossless.
Sweet setup, BTW. I can't vouch for your speakers because I haven't personally listened to them, but everything else you've got is really top-notch stuff.
I love hearing audiophiles complain. Its like their incredible hearing is a disease.
I enjoy music from the iTMS, and i think the convenience of it makes it worth the price. AAC is good enough for me because i'm not going to waste more money to buy the CD and compare the two.
Much of the music these days is sooo badly recorded it isnt funny, there is no dynamic range to it, (which was one of the original virtues touted by cds on release!), its all pumped up and slammed hard against the compressors killing any sound space the recording has. Blame the marketing guys, blame the producers, blame the record companies.. crafting a well recorded recording (cd, dvd, vinyl, etc) is almost a lost art....
Not that I would call a fair bit of the recordings these days "music" anyhoo but thats another thread topic..
Imergingenious, I'm not complaing, please read the post again.
I really don't appreciate when ignorant people, who really don't know what they're talking about, say that audiophiles are wasting our hard earned money on worthless stuff.
The issue is really not open for debate. On any decent audiophile grade equipment, you can CLEARLY hear the difference between a 192kbps encoded AAC file and the original CD. If you still think I'm just arrogant and silly, take my advice and test it yourself on a good system.
Also, audiophiles don't have better ears than any other people. We just love music and listen to it as much as we can. We all want to reproduce that awesome sound we just heard at a live concert in our living rooms. This is in fact a very hard goal to achieve and some audiophiles spend years and decades to achieve the sonic nervana.
If listening to AAC music file on your computer system is good for you, by all means, keep on listening and enjoy the music. But don't start calling us complainers and arrogant pricks before you really know what you're talking about.
I have a feeling I'm wasting my time trying to convince people online. If you still disagree with me, please go visit a high-end audiophile store around you and demo your favorite CDs on their reference system. Then, if you still don't think there's a difference between an encoded AAC file and the original CD playing through a quality system... well, i don't know what to say. Go have your ears checked at a hospital?
The important thing here is, no matter what level of audio system you currently have, keep on listening to music and enjoy it. That's all that really matters.
I didn't call anyone a prick. There are definitely plenty of complainers out there though. I have Sennheiser HD 590 headphones, and i notice that the biggest difference in quality comes from the reproduction equipment, whether it's a set of speakers or headphones. The difference you hear from encoded source is insignificant compared to the difference between a $200 speaker system (what the masses have) and a $2000+ system. So for most people, who have relatively cheap audio equipment, they should get better equipment before complaining about 128kps AAC. For those with excellent equipment, you should know by now that apple doesn't cater to niche markets.
There's one variable that hasn't been considered in this thread, which is the type of music. The sort of heavily compressed, close-mic'd popular music prevalent now, with its shallow and completely artificial sound stage, lends itself to compression much better than a recording of a symphony. Furthermore, the range and depth of so many acoustic instruments means that very little can be thrown out without the listener noticing.
Furthermore, I think the claims that you "can't tell it's not a CD" are intended to be generally true rather than absolutely true. Sure, on that sweet McIntosh system I could probably tell the difference in sound between the a CD played during one phase of the moon, and the same CD played during another, along with the effects of fluctuating power current on the amplifier. But how many people have that kind of system? And how many people listen to the sort of compressed, synthetic music that lossy compression algorithms excel at reproducing?
I listen to 128k AAC and 192k MP3 music almost exclusively now. I can tell the difference more on some songs than others, but by and large it's always been good enough for daily use. Now, when I get to set up my stereo system set up again again, and get my turntable back, I might notice a real difference. But I'm not sure it'll be a big enough difference to put up with the added bulk of lossless files. Those file sizes add up quickly.
Is it possible to store (at least) two versions of one song in iTunes (one lossless, the other one in a format you are comfortable with listening to on your iPod) without recording it twice and having two distinct entries? If not, this would be my wish for the next iTunes release.
P.S.: What kind of life concert are you talking about, Spacekadet? Most of them are reproduced via PA-equipment and performed in hugh (concert) halls.
Depending on where you are seated/standing, sound quality is worse than a really bad analog tape recording played back on a cheap ghettoblaster.
My last (and worst) experience was U2, we were sitting in the back of the hall straight facing the stage. Our position was elevated fairly hight but the PA-speakers should have made that up.
Except for "Uhhuu" ans "E-le-va-tion", I did not understand a single word off the lyrics! My luck, my girl-friend knew them all from memory.
Even classic concerts tend to be the same way. My last one (Carmen at the Opera in Vienna) was - sound-wise - better than U2, but far from perfect. Granted we had cheap leftover cards on the highest rank at almost the outer-left wing, but I am just a student, too, and I paid a fracture for my whole trip than you spent on your stereo (or are you quadrophonic - and although I am a little jealous, this is not to be understood as a personal insult ;-).
I love almost every genre of music with the exception of country (no offense to anyone) and I especially love live classical concerts. The most recent concert I went to is Yo-Yo Ma and the Singapore Symphony Orchestra at the awesome Esplanade Concert Hall in Singapore. I paid S$75 = about $45US for the closest "A" section seats pretty much smack in the middle. The experience was amazing and worth every single penny.
I mostly listen to classical on my McIntosh/Totem system and when I put on some of the music I've heard live reproduced almost to the same level, I can't stop but smile and find myself losing track of time until the CD's over.
Yes, I've been to a U2 concert as well as Eminem, Dave Matthews Band, Tool, Incubus, Phish, and many others and I enjoy those kinds of concerts not particularly for their sound, but more for the awesome environment and energy.
I personally find those type of artists/bands sound better on CD than in live concerts.
For your first question, I don't think that's possible unless you rip the music twice in different formats, but I may be wrong.
Comments
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
-snip-
edit: and just to be clear, I've abx'd AAC samples against the source myself, in fact with certain combinations of bitrate, encoder and audio sample it's hard not to. So no-one is claiming that AAC is always 'CD quality' (whatever that means). But that doesn't translate to all digital audio, all AAC encoded music or even all ACC encoded music at a given bitrate sounding horrible. It's a numbers game and overall AAC does fine, even at 128kbps.
Ah, ok, I'm not arguing against that-- I've just been saying that it is possible to tell the diffenance.
I've never said that AAC sounded horrible. For most songs it doesn't sound quite as good as the original CD when listing on my headphones or studio monitors, but I would not be able to tell the difference in my car or from a boom box even doing a/b comparisons.
On another note, for whatever reason I've been noticing lately that when I listen to cd's I've burned from itunes which is all stuff I've ripped at 128 AAC I've been hearing details I've never heard before. Prolly because of the way certain frequencies are emphasized.
Lastly, the over compression of today's music in the mastering stage has more of a negative effect on the sound than the medium it is delivered in.
Originally posted by trick fall
Lastly, the over compression of today's music in the mastering stage has more of a negative effect on the sound than the medium it is delivered in.
This is exactly what I often think while reading discussions like these.
Originally posted by shetline
That's precious little to imagine making so big a difference in the sound of LPs, whereas the amplitudes of euphonic distortions are right up front and in your face, making them much better suspects for why LPs might sound "better" to some people.
First, I wouldn't suggest that the high end rolling down was the only reason people like LPs more than CDs. Second, I would guess that this sound does have a much greater impact than you're suggesting, like white noise.
Originally posted by tonton
Riight...
I don't believe you. Any effect you think you heard is a placebo. Try having a friend give you a double-blind test at 192. I bet you'll fail.
And even if you can tell the difference, there are a few questions that need asking:
1. Is the CD version better, or just different?
2. At AAC 192, is your listening experience unenjoyable? If it is then I suggest that you're unbelievably spoiled.
3. (For Groverat who listens in his car: ) Can you hear the difference even when you take into account road noise?
4. Is it worth it?
120-192 is optimistic. I find you need at least 224 to make artifacts disappear on cheapy computer systems. When you play on a system that can play loud and clear (forgetting for a second coloration, which affects nearly all consumer audio equipment) you can definitely hear a big difference between CD and MP3, and lower bit rate AAC, and a small difference between high bit rate ACC.
However, points 1 and 2 do have merit. The listening is definitely low-fi, but is it unenjoyable? The differences are pretty easily apparent, but are they truly unpleasant?
On iPod earbuds, they aren't, nor on computer speakers, which are usually doing just as much to affect the sound.
But even stepping up to some entry level consumer audio (500-1000 USD) systems will easily show the difference between various sources.
I bet you I'll pass a double blind test 9 out of 10 times, at least.
Originally posted by bunge
First, I wouldn't suggest that the high end rolling down was the only reason people like LPs more than CDs. Second, I would guess that this sound does have a much greater impact than you're suggesting, like white noise.
I think you've misinterpreted what I'd said. First of all, I was referring to what many pro-vinyl people have said about the high frequencies on LPs, which is that in spite of the roll-off that there is at least some high-frequency information in LPs above 20 KHz, information that gets completely eliminated (hitting a digital brick wall at 22.05 KHz) from CDs. These vinyl enthusiasts are not crediting LPs high-frequency roll-off per se, but what some LPs can retain in the 20 KHz+ range that CDs filter out.
I was saying that I personally think this high-frequency content is very unlikely to be of great importance in preference for LP, especially because it is so rolled off and so small an effect compared to larger effects -- so I think we're in agreement here.
(I recently discovered a power brick at work going bad, tracking it down by the obnoxious high-frequency squealing it was emitting. A vinyl-loving tweak-o-phile friend of mine couldn't hear the noise the brick was making, even with the brick pressed right up against his ear.)
Euphonic distortion in LPs can include white noise, as you mention, but it also includes other effects such as reduced channel separation (yes, this can be a good thing psycho-acoustically, if not good for accuracy), an exaggerated L-R signal, inter-channel noise differences being heard as spatial effects, creating an illusion of a broader and more active sound stage, etc.
Originally posted by Matsu
I bet you I'll pass a double blind test 9 out of 10 times, at least.
Well why not do it then, you can find an ABX tool here (you probably want the Java one):
http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html
And there's a range of test samples you can try here:
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/index.html
VI. Multiformat at 128kbps is probably the most interesting (these samples were specially chosen to be problematic for psychoacoustic encoders):
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multifo...sentation.html
But I believe you're claiming you can always tell 192kbps from the original WAV so you'll probably need to create the files yourself. Let us know how you get on.
McIntosh MC7300 power amp
McIntosh C40 preamp
McIntosh MCD7008 CD player
McIntosh MR7083 tuner
Apogee Mini-DAC w/ USB
Totem Acoustic Hawk loudspeakers
Powerbook G4
Now, for computer music files, it starts from the PowerBook, through the USB interface to the Apogee Mini-DAC and straight into my MC7300 power amp via a pair of balanced XLR cables.
Now, for those of you who are saying they can't tell the difference between a 128kbps AAC file and an AIFF file, I'd like to invite you to my apartment for a listening session. You can even do your little abx test and I guarantee you will get it right 95% unless you have a hearing disability. I bet you can even clearly tell the sonic difference between Apple's own interal PowerBook DAC and a quality external DAC playing the exact same file.
The problem with most people here (esp. Tonton and that other Stupidersomething one) is that you're using a pair of dinky $100 satelite speakers hooked up to your computer's headphone jack. If this is in fact your set up, I'm sure no one can tell the difference between the formats 100% of the time on your setup.
And if that is your setup and you can't tell the difference, I say encode at 128-192kbps AAC, save some hard drive space and enjoy your music. But you can't tell me to encode Beethoven Symphony No. 9 in D minor in AAC or any other codec and tell me that's as good as it gets.
On a good system the difference is smack-in-the-head clear. The clarity, imaging, depth of soundstage, feel of attack, the ambience noise is all affected when the music information is changed in any way.
With a master CD in my system, I can feel and tell where everyone's standing, the separation of each instruments in the symphony, the awesome deep soundstage in the concert hall. These all dissapear or significantly worsen when I listen to AAC files. The imaging isn't as focused, the attack of a piano key isn't as real etc etc...
So to sum up, if you have a regular little computer audio setup, which would consist of just a computer and maybe a $200 2.1 satelite/sub combo and can't tell the difference between different music formats, then just encode at the lowest bit acceptable to your ears.
But if you're crazy about music as I am, and are willing to get into this expensive hobby, get yourself a professional quality external DAC and a good system. I only encode CD music into my PowerBook in AIFF files w/ error correction in iTunes. I've heard good things about the Apple Lossless Encoder, but currently the space saving isn't worth it and I trust AIFF more.
Do yourselves a favor and walk into a high-end audio store and demo their reference system. And by high-end, I don't mean Sony or Bose. Any audiophile would laugh if you called Bose a high-end. Find yourselves a McIntosh, Mark Levinson, Linn, Martin Logan, Krell, etc stores around you and demo your favorite CDs on the system. If this is your first encounter w/ highend audio systems, you will be blown away by the sound.
Until then, please don't yell at other people trying to achieve good sound.
Originally posted by spacekadet
But if you're crazy about music as I am, and are willing to get into this expensive hobby, get yourself a professional quality external DAC and a good system. I only encode CD music into my PowerBook in AIFF files w/ error correction in iTunes. I've heard good things about the Apple Lossless Encoder, but currently the space saving isn't worth it and I trust AIFF more.
Apple's Lossless Codec is, well, lossless. So the output is exactly the same as AIFF. If there was any difference, Apple wouldn't be allowed to call it lossless.
Sweet setup, BTW. I can't vouch for your speakers because I haven't personally listened to them, but everything else you've got is really top-notch stuff.
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
Wow, all this because I dared to suggest that CDs were not the pinnacle of quality...
Think before you post
I enjoy music from the iTMS, and i think the convenience of it makes it worth the price. AAC is good enough for me because i'm not going to waste more money to buy the CD and compare the two.
Not that I would call a fair bit of the recordings these days "music" anyhoo but thats another thread topic..
I really don't appreciate when ignorant people, who really don't know what they're talking about, say that audiophiles are wasting our hard earned money on worthless stuff.
The issue is really not open for debate. On any decent audiophile grade equipment, you can CLEARLY hear the difference between a 192kbps encoded AAC file and the original CD. If you still think I'm just arrogant and silly, take my advice and test it yourself on a good system.
Also, audiophiles don't have better ears than any other people. We just love music and listen to it as much as we can. We all want to reproduce that awesome sound we just heard at a live concert in our living rooms. This is in fact a very hard goal to achieve and some audiophiles spend years and decades to achieve the sonic nervana.
If listening to AAC music file on your computer system is good for you, by all means, keep on listening and enjoy the music. But don't start calling us complainers and arrogant pricks before you really know what you're talking about.
I have a feeling I'm wasting my time trying to convince people online. If you still disagree with me, please go visit a high-end audiophile store around you and demo your favorite CDs on their reference system. Then, if you still don't think there's a difference between an encoded AAC file and the original CD playing through a quality system... well, i don't know what to say. Go have your ears checked at a hospital?
The important thing here is, no matter what level of audio system you currently have, keep on listening to music and enjoy it. That's all that really matters.
Furthermore, I think the claims that you "can't tell it's not a CD" are intended to be generally true rather than absolutely true. Sure, on that sweet McIntosh system I could probably tell the difference in sound between the a CD played during one phase of the moon, and the same CD played during another, along with the effects of fluctuating power current on the amplifier. But how many people have that kind of system? And how many people listen to the sort of compressed, synthetic music that lossy compression algorithms excel at reproducing?
I listen to 128k AAC and 192k MP3 music almost exclusively now. I can tell the difference more on some songs than others, but by and large it's always been good enough for daily use. Now, when I get to set up my stereo system set up again again, and get my turntable back, I might notice a real difference. But I'm not sure it'll be a big enough difference to put up with the added bulk of lossless files. Those file sizes add up quickly.
I have one simple question/suggestion:
Is it possible to store (at least) two versions of one song in iTunes (one lossless, the other one in a format you are comfortable with listening to on your iPod) without recording it twice and having two distinct entries? If not, this would be my wish for the next iTunes release.
P.S.: What kind of life concert are you talking about, Spacekadet? Most of them are reproduced via PA-equipment and performed in hugh (concert) halls.
Depending on where you are seated/standing, sound quality is worse than a really bad analog tape recording played back on a cheap ghettoblaster.
My last (and worst) experience was U2, we were sitting in the back of the hall straight facing the stage. Our position was elevated fairly hight but the PA-speakers should have made that up.
Except for "Uhhuu" ans "E-le-va-tion", I did not understand a single word off the lyrics! My luck, my girl-friend knew them all from memory.
Even classic concerts tend to be the same way. My last one (Carmen at the Opera in Vienna) was - sound-wise - better than U2, but far from perfect. Granted we had cheap leftover cards on the highest rank at almost the outer-left wing, but I am just a student, too, and I paid a fracture for my whole trip than you spent on your stereo (or are you quadrophonic - and although I am a little jealous, this is not to be understood as a personal insult ;-).
I love almost every genre of music with the exception of country (no offense to anyone) and I especially love live classical concerts. The most recent concert I went to is Yo-Yo Ma and the Singapore Symphony Orchestra at the awesome Esplanade Concert Hall in Singapore. I paid S$75 = about $45US for the closest "A" section seats pretty much smack in the middle. The experience was amazing and worth every single penny.
I mostly listen to classical on my McIntosh/Totem system and when I put on some of the music I've heard live reproduced almost to the same level, I can't stop but smile and find myself losing track of time until the CD's over.
Yes, I've been to a U2 concert as well as Eminem, Dave Matthews Band, Tool, Incubus, Phish, and many others and I enjoy those kinds of concerts not particularly for their sound, but more for the awesome environment and energy.
I personally find those type of artists/bands sound better on CD than in live concerts.
For your first question, I don't think that's possible unless you rip the music twice in different formats, but I may be wrong.