Actually, the Amazon MP3s are encoded at variable bitrate, with demanding sections of songs going as high as 300 kbps... listening to the AAC and MP3 version side-by-side, the MP3 can even sound better (yes. I tried it). Just, this is not true if using iTunes to encode the MP3s, as the built-in MP3 encoder is abysmal ? using e.g. the LAME encoder to generate MP3s makes a world of difference.
I have VBR MP3s from Amazon that go as low as 130 and 140 kbps. I have others that take as long as 8 seconds to start playing -- using everyday garden-variety MP3 players and iPods. They aren't empty at the beginning (at least not according to Audacity), they just take a while to start playing. So count me as not being sold on the Amazon download quality.
On a related note: Whatever happened to the LAME encoder for iTunes? Did they finally give up trying to keep up with the iTunes versions or what?
I?ve gone through three pages in Complete My Album looking randomly at different albums and I haven?t seen A SINGLE ONE where the tracks are 69 cents ? including Nirvana?s ?Never Mind,? which came out in 1991 as is as catalog as it gets.
Maybe it?s going to be a gradual conversion.
They are there, just in miniscule numbers. Looks like a handful of artists have ONE track each at 69 just so Apple can say they exist.
At this point, there's no question that Apple's promise of ten at 69 for every one at 1.29 is completely bogus so far. If that's what the labels promised Apple, they should have gotten a commitment on it before taking the deal.
The term "lossless" seems to complicate matters. I think that a better approach may be to compare "compressed" vs "uncompressed".
For example, as I recording engineer, I usually record at 24-bit 44.1k sample rate. This is the format that I find most commonly since it is generally helpful to have a greater dynamic range to work with.
Since a CD is a 16-bit format, I need to convert my sample-rate in order to put the recording on CD. This is a somewhat different process from "compressing" a file to put it in a smaller format more suitable for sharing (MP3, AAC, etc).
To make a long story short, a CD is an uncompressed PCM (pulse code modulation) format, even though it may be converted from the original format, either to a lower bitrate or sample rate. Since there is not a compression algorithm introduced, it is not considered a compressed format.
That being said, we live in a world where the convenience of compressed audio is overwhelming the need for ultra high-fidelity audio.
Also take this into consideration: The quality loss from the digital-to-analog converters on an iPod is probably much greater than what you may ever be able to decipher between compression formats. Keep in mind that most listening environments are far from "ideal" unless you are a true audiophile willing to invest big bucks into the most accurate equipment.
It is ironic to me that many of us carry around iPods with $10 earbuds and worry about whether our music is in 192 or 256k compression.
Good to see someone with some background on this. I've done just a bit of recording with pro gear several years ago. I do, however, run into a similar issue everyday in my actual job as a graphic artist. Perhaps some of the more visual thinkers might get it better this way, since I feel there are a lot of parallels between music engineering and photo manipulation:
RAW photo file = Music Studio Master = Best possible quality
.PSD or .TIFF files = AIFF, WAV or Apple Lossless = best quality for distribution, interchangeable
.JPEG = MP3 or AAC = 'convienent' file sizes, quality is variable and optimized for specific purposes
For many editing reasons it is best to work with high-resolution images in both mediums, and as an image or sound file is prepared for distribution it becomes more acceptable to dial back the resolution. Editing can emphasize lack of fidelity, but once editing is complete, ultra-high fidelity is no longer necessary.
For example, as I recording engineer, I usually record at 24-bit 44.1k sample rate. This is the format that I find most commonly since it is generally helpful to have a greater dynamic range to work with. Since a CD is a 16-bit format, I need to convert my sample-rate in order to put the recording on CD.
Um.... your not converting the sample rate; you're reducing the bit depth from 24 to 16 (and I hope you're dithering while you're at it).
Quote:
The quality loss from the digital-to-analog converters on an iPod is probably much greater than what you may ever be able to decipher between compression formats. Keep in mind that most listening environments are far from "ideal" unless you are a true audiophile willing to invest big bucks into the most accurate equipment.
Type of music has a lot to do with discerning the quality of MP3 or AAC compression versus an uncompressed master. Cymbals generally sound like $h!t on pop & rock records; squashed into mere bursts of noise. A delicate ride cymbal on a modern jazz release OTOH can reveal weaknesses in a codec rather easily. Isolated transients can be tricky as well. If you put MP3 files through a frequency analyzer (Waves PAZ will work) you can easily see the HF rolloffs created by various MP3 rates AND you can hear them on a decent set of speakers that get out to 16k or better in their response.
Listen to YouTube with a good pair of full sized, cup around the ear, headphones. A lot will be revealed. On another note: I've rented cars with satellite radio and can't believe how bad that sounds. Lower bit rate compression is the bane of good audio.
Amazon's $1.99 daily specials (like Motown Number 1's) sell for $8-$10 on iTunes. I could never figure out for the life of me why anyone would purchase low bit rate DRM protected music for such an exorbitant price on iTune's.
wait till if/when amazon gains some market share and the labels no longer need them to fight apple. They'll force amazon to raise prices just like apple. Amazon is merely a puppet for the labels to use as a tool to fight apple's dominance.
I have VBR MP3s from Amazon that go as low as 130 and 140 kbps. I have others that take as long as 8 seconds to start playing -- using everyday garden-variety MP3 players and iPods. They aren't empty at the beginning (at least not according to Audacity), they just take a while to start playing. So count me as not being sold on the Amazon download quality.
On a related note: Whatever happened to the LAME encoder for iTunes? Did they finally give up trying to keep up with the iTunes versions or what?
Hm, I have not bought a lot from Amazon (as iTunes is more comfortable), but I did buy the same record (Goodnight Oslo by Robyn Hitchcock & The Venus 3 to be precise) from both shops, just for doing the comparison. I compared tracks using all kinds of constellations (from using the iPhone with stock earbuds and Etymotic ER-4Ps to my high end pre-amp and my Stax headphones)... there was no difference worth talking about. They both sounded clearly worse than the CD though...
I think Blacktree has not been updating anything (except for the Google Quick Search Box thing) lately...
wait till if/when amazon gains some market share and the labels no longer need them to fight apple. They'll force amazon to raise prices just like apple. Amazon is merely a puppet for the labels to use as a tool to fight apple's dominance.
We're headed that way already since Amazon has ALREADY started to increase prices to 1.29.
For all intents and purposes, CDs are loss-less. I know, I know, some audiophiles will claim they can hear EVERYTHING on the original recording. In reality, the human ear won't perceive the amount of data "lost" due to digitalization. Most (if any) won't hear the difference between 256 and anything above. Anyone who thinks they can is either the first human/canine hybrid or has delusions of grandeur.
And of course there are the folks that say CDs are not as good as vinyl. I can live with out the hiss and pops just fine. Someone could have better ears than mine, but I don't believe there are so many with superhuman hearing out there, either.
It seems that the higher pricing is completely arbitrary, especially when viewing the top 100. Roughly 1/5 of them are at the $1.29 price. Personally speaking, some songs that I expected to jump to $1.29 stayed at $.99, while other songs that I expected to stay at $.99 received the price hike. With tiered pricing there will come confusion and frustration. Consumers are now more likely to ask themselves, "Why is #100 on the chart priced at $1.29, but #4 is $.99? Why is a single by Lady GaGa offered at $1.29, but a single by The Fray being sold at $.99, and both are in the top 10?" Both questions are true scenarios, as of this being posted. Truth is, consumers judge a song's worth based on their own taste in music. At a flat price tier, all consumers can acquire what they want equally. What we have now is the Major Labels telling us what they feel the worth of a song is, what price we should pay, and punishing us with (arbitrary) higher prices. Furthermore, for price conscious consumers, how are they supposed to know the duration of time that a song will be sold at $1.29? Are they supposed to wait around indefinitely for it to be lowered to $.99? If the duration of time is not known, I forsee people becoming miffed at the mere thought of paying $1.29 for a song only to possibly have its price lowered to $.99 the next week. Sure, $.30 isn't much in and of its own right, but it adds up over the long haul. I'm surprised Apple did not work out a deal/system whereby, say, the top 15 or 20 songs within the top 100 would be automatically adjusted to $1.29 (heck, they could make them $2 for all I care), with the lower 75 being priced at $.99. That would seem a more logical method based on newness/popularity rather than by what seems to be a completely arbitrary and indefinite way of pricing. That makes me uneasy, and I suspect it will make others as well.
Glad I hate the popular stuff. Haven't seen a song yet I'd want to buy that went up in price.
Seems to me this greed grab by the big companies will do nothing other than drive the market towards illegal downloads. This segmentation won't make sense to most consumers, who will view it as an attempt to rip them off. They will respond by ripping off the companies and artists. Everyone loses.
iTunes plays AIFF and WAV files, the same type as found on a CD, just as well as any of the compressed formats. Why not offer those in the store, lose the DRM and force the labels to grow a pair and learn how to run a proper consumer based business? Oh, I know why. People who need immediate gratification and everything for nothing are looking towards lower quality files and/ or stealing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csdg
As far as I know, there is no piracy protection available within AIFF or WAV formats. This would by why they aren't in the online stores.
The record companies need to learn how to cut costs in a different area to help offset the revenue loss of people copying (stealing) their CDs. It's the whole reason they fought consumer tape recorders in the LP days and consumer DAT in the CD days. They are slow to adapt and are forcing the consumer to pay more for less.
You seriously have no idea why an online store that sells DRM-free audio would choose a compressed file that is 5MB over a file that 50MB and sounds the same to most people on most players? You really don't understand how using 10x the bandwidth is more costly to the online retailer so they will have to charge more to turn the same profit? Some days I'm just amazed!
And of course there are the folks that say CDs are not as good as vinyl. I can live with out the hiss and pops just fine. Someone could have better ears than mine, but I don't believe there are so many with superhuman hearing out there, either.
I went for many, many years without listening to any vinyl and then one day had to get out a turntable for a client. After they left I put a few LPs on. You'd hear it. It would surprise you. I put the turntable away and have not listened to an LP for a very long time. Most CDs these days sound appalling bad on a good studio system. Mastering has become a destructive process. Part of what makes vinyl so appealing is the dynamic range compared to CDs. I don't mean signal to noise, I mean the greater dynamic range of the music; transients that are transients instead of over squashed mush.
I went for many, many years without listening to any vinyl and then one day had to get out a turntable for a client. After they left I put a few LPs on. You'd hear it. It would surprise you. I put the turntable away and have not listened to an LP for a very long time. Most CDs these days sound appalling bad on a good studio system. Mastering has become a destructive process. Part of what makes vinyl so appealing is the dynamic range compared to CDs. I don't mean signal to noise, I mean the greater dynamic range of the music; transients that are transients instead of over squashed mush.
I agree with you about most mastering and over-compression these days. But that is a creative choice on the part of those doing the mastering, not something inherent to the CD format.
Did Apple get kiss after being in bed with the record labels? Or were they left crying wondering why they let them get victimized.
I did a search of old songs too and have not found a single 69 cent song... I was sorta looking forward to the different prices, I held off on buying some music hoping for cheaper prices.. Looks like thats not happening.
I agree with you about most mastering and over-compression these days. But that is a creative choice on the part of those doing the mastering, not something inherent to the CD format.
It is not a creative choice. It's about the psychoacoustic effect of things that are louder being perceived as better. It's also about record industry people not wanting to adjust the volume when listening to a collection of music from different sources. It's about radio stations getting compilation discs/previews and wanting your music to stand out by being louder. This has been discussed many times in professional settings by the industry's top mastering engineers. It's also been demonstrated that highly compressed/limited music sounds WORSE after passing through radio station processing (multi-band compression, phase flipping, limiting, etc.) than music that is less compressed/limited. The godfather of on-air processing, Mr. Orban has written about this and it's available online. Some FM pop stations simply sound horrid in their efforts to be the loudest station on the air --we're back to the psychoacoustic effect we started with.
It's rather inherent to digital formats because they can be pushed to a clearly defined limit: 0 dBFS.
The Black Eyed Peas' song, "Boom Boom Pow" is $1.29 on iTunes, and still $.99 on Amazon.
Where do you think people are going to go for music from now on?... AND, at this point the labels are cannibalizing their own profits with the variable pricing in effect on iTunes. What a bunch of mindless strategizing.
Comments
Actually, the Amazon MP3s are encoded at variable bitrate, with demanding sections of songs going as high as 300 kbps... listening to the AAC and MP3 version side-by-side, the MP3 can even sound better (yes. I tried it). Just, this is not true if using iTunes to encode the MP3s, as the built-in MP3 encoder is abysmal ? using e.g. the LAME encoder to generate MP3s makes a world of difference.
I have VBR MP3s from Amazon that go as low as 130 and 140 kbps. I have others that take as long as 8 seconds to start playing -- using everyday garden-variety MP3 players and iPods. They aren't empty at the beginning (at least not according to Audacity), they just take a while to start playing. So count me as not being sold on the Amazon download quality.
On a related note: Whatever happened to the LAME encoder for iTunes? Did they finally give up trying to keep up with the iTunes versions or what?
I call bullshit on the 69-cent tracks.
I?ve gone through three pages in Complete My Album looking randomly at different albums and I haven?t seen A SINGLE ONE where the tracks are 69 cents ? including Nirvana?s ?Never Mind,? which came out in 1991 as is as catalog as it gets.
Maybe it?s going to be a gradual conversion.
They are there, just in miniscule numbers. Looks like a handful of artists have ONE track each at 69 just so Apple can say they exist.
At this point, there's no question that Apple's promise of ten at 69 for every one at 1.29 is completely bogus so far. If that's what the labels promised Apple, they should have gotten a commitment on it before taking the deal.
The term "lossless" seems to complicate matters. I think that a better approach may be to compare "compressed" vs "uncompressed".
For example, as I recording engineer, I usually record at 24-bit 44.1k sample rate. This is the format that I find most commonly since it is generally helpful to have a greater dynamic range to work with.
Since a CD is a 16-bit format, I need to convert my sample-rate in order to put the recording on CD. This is a somewhat different process from "compressing" a file to put it in a smaller format more suitable for sharing (MP3, AAC, etc).
To make a long story short, a CD is an uncompressed PCM (pulse code modulation) format, even though it may be converted from the original format, either to a lower bitrate or sample rate. Since there is not a compression algorithm introduced, it is not considered a compressed format.
That being said, we live in a world where the convenience of compressed audio is overwhelming the need for ultra high-fidelity audio.
Also take this into consideration: The quality loss from the digital-to-analog converters on an iPod is probably much greater than what you may ever be able to decipher between compression formats. Keep in mind that most listening environments are far from "ideal" unless you are a true audiophile willing to invest big bucks into the most accurate equipment.
It is ironic to me that many of us carry around iPods with $10 earbuds and worry about whether our music is in 192 or 256k compression.
Good to see someone with some background on this. I've done just a bit of recording with pro gear several years ago. I do, however, run into a similar issue everyday in my actual job as a graphic artist. Perhaps some of the more visual thinkers might get it better this way, since I feel there are a lot of parallels between music engineering and photo manipulation:
RAW photo file = Music Studio Master = Best possible quality
.PSD or .TIFF files = AIFF, WAV or Apple Lossless = best quality for distribution, interchangeable
.JPEG = MP3 or AAC = 'convienent' file sizes, quality is variable and optimized for specific purposes
For many editing reasons it is best to work with high-resolution images in both mediums, and as an image or sound file is prepared for distribution it becomes more acceptable to dial back the resolution. Editing can emphasize lack of fidelity, but once editing is complete, ultra-high fidelity is no longer necessary.
For example, as I recording engineer, I usually record at 24-bit 44.1k sample rate. This is the format that I find most commonly since it is generally helpful to have a greater dynamic range to work with. Since a CD is a 16-bit format, I need to convert my sample-rate in order to put the recording on CD.
Um.... your not converting the sample rate; you're reducing the bit depth from 24 to 16 (and I hope you're dithering while you're at it).
The quality loss from the digital-to-analog converters on an iPod is probably much greater than what you may ever be able to decipher between compression formats. Keep in mind that most listening environments are far from "ideal" unless you are a true audiophile willing to invest big bucks into the most accurate equipment.
Type of music has a lot to do with discerning the quality of MP3 or AAC compression versus an uncompressed master. Cymbals generally sound like $h!t on pop & rock records; squashed into mere bursts of noise. A delicate ride cymbal on a modern jazz release OTOH can reveal weaknesses in a codec rather easily. Isolated transients can be tricky as well. If you put MP3 files through a frequency analyzer (Waves PAZ will work) you can easily see the HF rolloffs created by various MP3 rates AND you can hear them on a decent set of speakers that get out to 16k or better in their response.
Listen to YouTube with a good pair of full sized, cup around the ear, headphones. A lot will be revealed. On another note: I've rented cars with satellite radio and can't believe how bad that sounds. Lower bit rate compression is the bane of good audio.
gc
Amazon's $1.99 daily specials (like Motown Number 1's) sell for $8-$10 on iTunes. I could never figure out for the life of me why anyone would purchase low bit rate DRM protected music for such an exorbitant price on iTune's.
wait till if/when amazon gains some market share and the labels no longer need them to fight apple. They'll force amazon to raise prices just like apple. Amazon is merely a puppet for the labels to use as a tool to fight apple's dominance.
I have VBR MP3s from Amazon that go as low as 130 and 140 kbps. I have others that take as long as 8 seconds to start playing -- using everyday garden-variety MP3 players and iPods. They aren't empty at the beginning (at least not according to Audacity), they just take a while to start playing. So count me as not being sold on the Amazon download quality.
On a related note: Whatever happened to the LAME encoder for iTunes? Did they finally give up trying to keep up with the iTunes versions or what?
Hm, I have not bought a lot from Amazon (as iTunes is more comfortable), but I did buy the same record (Goodnight Oslo by Robyn Hitchcock & The Venus 3 to be precise) from both shops, just for doing the comparison. I compared tracks using all kinds of constellations (from using the iPhone with stock earbuds and Etymotic ER-4Ps to my high end pre-amp and my Stax headphones)... there was no difference worth talking about. They both sounded clearly worse than the CD though...
I think Blacktree has not been updating anything (except for the Google Quick Search Box thing) lately...
wait till if/when amazon gains some market share and the labels no longer need them to fight apple. They'll force amazon to raise prices just like apple. Amazon is merely a puppet for the labels to use as a tool to fight apple's dominance.
We're headed that way already since Amazon has ALREADY started to increase prices to 1.29.
For all intents and purposes, CDs are loss-less. I know, I know, some audiophiles will claim they can hear EVERYTHING on the original recording. In reality, the human ear won't perceive the amount of data "lost" due to digitalization. Most (if any) won't hear the difference between 256 and anything above. Anyone who thinks they can is either the first human/canine hybrid or has delusions of grandeur.
And of course there are the folks that say CDs are not as good as vinyl. I can live with out the hiss and pops just fine. Someone could have better ears than mine, but I don't believe there are so many with superhuman hearing out there, either.
My $.02
Seems to me this greed grab by the big companies will do nothing other than drive the market towards illegal downloads. This segmentation won't make sense to most consumers, who will view it as an attempt to rip them off. They will respond by ripping off the companies and artists. Everyone loses.
iTunes plays AIFF and WAV files, the same type as found on a CD, just as well as any of the compressed formats. Why not offer those in the store, lose the DRM and force the labels to grow a pair and learn how to run a proper consumer based business? Oh, I know why. People who need immediate gratification and everything for nothing are looking towards lower quality files and/ or stealing.
As far as I know, there is no piracy protection available within AIFF or WAV formats. This would by why they aren't in the online stores.
The record companies need to learn how to cut costs in a different area to help offset the revenue loss of people copying (stealing) their CDs. It's the whole reason they fought consumer tape recorders in the LP days and consumer DAT in the CD days. They are slow to adapt and are forcing the consumer to pay more for less.
You seriously have no idea why an online store that sells DRM-free audio would choose a compressed file that is 5MB over a file that 50MB and sounds the same to most people on most players? You really don't understand how using 10x the bandwidth is more costly to the online retailer so they will have to charge more to turn the same profit? Some days I'm just amazed!
And of course there are the folks that say CDs are not as good as vinyl. I can live with out the hiss and pops just fine. Someone could have better ears than mine, but I don't believe there are so many with superhuman hearing out there, either.
I went for many, many years without listening to any vinyl and then one day had to get out a turntable for a client. After they left I put a few LPs on. You'd hear it. It would surprise you. I put the turntable away and have not listened to an LP for a very long time. Most CDs these days sound appalling bad on a good studio system. Mastering has become a destructive process. Part of what makes vinyl so appealing is the dynamic range compared to CDs. I don't mean signal to noise, I mean the greater dynamic range of the music; transients that are transients instead of over squashed mush.
gc
I went for many, many years without listening to any vinyl and then one day had to get out a turntable for a client. After they left I put a few LPs on. You'd hear it. It would surprise you. I put the turntable away and have not listened to an LP for a very long time. Most CDs these days sound appalling bad on a good studio system. Mastering has become a destructive process. Part of what makes vinyl so appealing is the dynamic range compared to CDs. I don't mean signal to noise, I mean the greater dynamic range of the music; transients that are transients instead of over squashed mush.
I agree with you about most mastering and over-compression these days. But that is a creative choice on the part of those doing the mastering, not something inherent to the CD format.
I did a search of old songs too and have not found a single 69 cent song... I was sorta looking forward to the different prices, I held off on buying some music hoping for cheaper prices.. Looks like thats not happening.
Wow, what a ripoff
I agree with you about most mastering and over-compression these days. But that is a creative choice on the part of those doing the mastering, not something inherent to the CD format.
It is not a creative choice. It's about the psychoacoustic effect of things that are louder being perceived as better. It's also about record industry people not wanting to adjust the volume when listening to a collection of music from different sources. It's about radio stations getting compilation discs/previews and wanting your music to stand out by being louder. This has been discussed many times in professional settings by the industry's top mastering engineers. It's also been demonstrated that highly compressed/limited music sounds WORSE after passing through radio station processing (multi-band compression, phase flipping, limiting, etc.) than music that is less compressed/limited. The godfather of on-air processing, Mr. Orban has written about this and it's available online. Some FM pop stations simply sound horrid in their efforts to be the loudest station on the air --we're back to the psychoacoustic effect we started with.
It's rather inherent to digital formats because they can be pushed to a clearly defined limit: 0 dBFS.
gc
this is why i'll be using Amazon.com from here on out.
Not me. I will not pay money for music encoded in the legacy mp3 format.
The Black Eyed Peas' song, "Boom Boom Pow" is $1.29 on iTunes, and still $.99 on Amazon.
Where do you think people are going to go for music from now on?... AND, at this point the labels are cannibalizing their own profits with the variable pricing in effect on iTunes. What a bunch of mindless strategizing.
Not me. I will not pay money for music encoded in the legacy mp3 format.
Why? Perceivable audio quality is nearly identical between the two formats at the higher bit rates.