lossy is no misnomer
With the Apple-EMI announcement Monday, I was glad to finally see some end-user-friendly, corporate collaboration. As I saw it, this was the type of result that democratic systems should naturally default to - services that the collective whole of constituents jointly request.
But, for me, for me the audiophile, the part of the announcement containing numbers was the true success. Music labels have been releasing 128 kbps MP3s or AACs for years, a sampling quality so low that middle-fi systems can reveal the gaping holes. Existing music stores’ files were appeared as silk from afar but cheese cloth within reach of a pole.
However, for years I have ripped my tunes in 160 AAC, an equivalent to 192 kbps MP3. The 256 kbps sampling with the Apple-EMI announcement was actually unexpected for me, this “indistinguishable from the original” quality. I had never been given that number as “indistinguishable” in the past. In fact, since my graduate studies are pointed towards perceptual acoustics, as is the host of my academic readings, the numbers I had seen were closer to 128 or 192 kbps MP3. I was thoroughly satisfied with 160 AAC.
The conflict of my satisfaction then appears when I consider that my common audio reproduction method is either the iPod-included earbuds or simple 2.1 Logitech computer speakers that have served me for five years. Once I move into the house in July, actually even for my midway apartment from May to July, I will be using a super-fi system that I have pieced together from high school to today. And I should admit, listening to past-purchased 128 AAC iTunes Store content on that system doesn’t provoke tears.
So, today I ripped a few CDs laying around, ripping at 256 AAC, as a test. Once the PowerBook fan died down, I copied them all to the iPod and grabbed my Bose TriPort headphones. The first album to test: Evanescence’s Fallen.
Some of you may wince, but I have lately been getting nostalgic for my 3 or 4 year-old medium-to-heavy rock albums. You know, Something Corporate, Linkin Park, Chevelle, whatnot. Don’t ask me why. And I won’t ask you about that N’SYNC album you’ve refused to donate to Goodwill.
Ok, so get this. In 256 AAC form, Evanescence sounds amazing. The high frequencies are all there and Amy Lee’s vocals are truly remarkable, albeit likely processed by so many voice synths that supercomputers of the day had to be hired as mercenaries for the job. The whole album, actually, is beautiful at this quality. In actuality, I give this album three stars in my iTunes.
Next up was Diana Krall’s Live In Paris which was remarkably more real-to-life. This album is one of my favorites so I already know each and every part of the quar/quintet songs. But, this time I heard new background guitar timbre that I had never before spotted from the 160 AAC files. Really. That good.
The Apple-EMI deal is going to be huge, and one-by-one the other major labels will fall into place, too. It happened with television shows and is happening for movies, though that content is still protected with lock and key. Still, the 256 AAC portion of the announcement is big. It is important to remember, too, that playback hardware is the key for harnessing the other 128 kbps of these DRM-free tracks. The white earbuds are no good for this tier of playback, but a quality pair of earphones or a stereo receiver with two nice speakers could show you new layers and textures to the albums you love enough to purchase.
Anyways, now that I have experimented with 256 AAC - and also discovered how easy it is in iTunes to replace existing tracks with new files, without losing ratings or playback data - I am definitely, absolutely going to begin buying my DRM-free albums from iTunes. Audiophiles, let us rejoice!
April 9th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Most of the tracks available from iTunes Store from major labels are ripped from masters, not CDs, so they actually have more audio information than ripping the same song off a CD. Apple offering a higher bitrate track doesn’t really mean much.
I personally use my iPod when I’m in the car, on the subway, walking, and working out. None of these moments are particularly quiet enough to notice a difference in encoding.
Regardless, the difference certainly won’t mean much to people listening to the songs via the iPod headphone jack (the component quality just isn’t there), but if you’re in a silent room with great speakers coming out of your computer’s toslink, then, maybe, it will, but you probably could have EQed out just as good a sound from the lower bitrate.
I’d rather Apple just strip the DRM off my standard bitrate tracks for free. The situation now requires me to pay for de-crippling something I already bought and am otherwise happy with.
The higher bitrate offering is smoke and mirrors to cover the fact that DRM is crippling. If Apple was really concerned about audio quality and not just covering up the DRM fiasco, it would offer DRM-free songs in the Apple Lossless Codec or FLAC (which I can tell a difference between).
But whatever… DRM is going away and I’ll pay $.30 to support the movement.
April 10th, 2007 at 12:17 am
I object about the iPod headphone jack comment. I remember this article from some years ago when the first iPod shuffle came out. Similar performance, sometimes better, has been calculated from the newer iPods since that point. The headphone jack, today, isn’t the absolute best way to get the audio out of the iPod, but it certainly performs almost as well.
And I agree about the listening environment and EQ issues. The EQ in my iTunes is relatively flat, somewhat compensating for lacking midrange in the computer speakers’ response. But, easily half of my music listening occurs when I am doing work in front of the desktop.
At the moment, the bigger issue would be a nice set of computer speakers, sensitive enough for me to take advantage of a few more kbps.
April 17th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
I’m also pleased that finally iTMS will offer DRM-free music, although I do agree that they should provide a DRM stripper for existing tracks. I switched from MP3 encoding (vbr 32-320 with LAME encoder) to AAC when iTunes offered vbr, and now do vbr 192 AAC.
With good headphones on through an outboard amp, or through my (midrange) hi-fi, I can definitely detect a quality difference between compressed files and CDs. I feel like a pretty big part of that is the Mac built-in sound card versus the dedicated audio hardware.
At least it’s a respectable step in the right direction.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Your experiments make perfect sense. We sometimes lose sight of the obvious. If you want the best possible quality sound remember the following:
lim = analog
bps → ∞
Unfortunately, for the music sharing public, we don’t have infinite BW on the Internet (yet). But fortunately, as has been noted, most people’s ears aren’t good enough anyway.