iPod (and mp3s in general) less quality

Written by Casper
Published July 06, 2004

When you buy a tune from iTunes, you should probably be aware that you're not getting quite what you think you are:

Customers are led to believe that they are getting a CD in all respects except the trouble of going to the mall. The iTunes store does not warn about the permanence of its method of compression; once freeze-dried, there is no way to reconstitute the music into CD quality for playing through a good stereo.

Ah, for simpler times, when we never had reason to look up the bit rate at which music is digitally sampled for CD's: 1,378 kilobits per second. The bit rate for iTunes, 128, is so low that when played side by side against the original, the difference is audible not only to audio enthusiasts, but also to mortals with ordinary hearing. Wes Phillips, contributing editor at Stereophile, says "128 is like an eight-track," and he describes the combination of iPod and iTunes as "buying a 21st-century device to live in the 1970's."

More details on the process can be found here.

Or is this just part of the strategy of the RIAA? We'll let you buy "music" online, but we'll give it to you at less quality (over ten times less, to be accurate), so that you'll probably go out and buy the album anyway. The industry gets to sell the same song twice, the consumer ends up not being all that happy with the online experience (which also fits with the RIAA model) and, well, at least the label walks away happy.

Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
iPod (and mp3s in general) less quality
Published: July 06, 2004
Type:
Section: Sci/Tech
Filed Under: Sci/Tech: Internet, Culture: Media, Music: Business, Music: Recording, Music: News
Writer: Casper
Casper's BC Writer page
Casper's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Casper
Sci/Tech: Internet
Culture: Media
Music: Business
Music: Recording
Music: News
All Sci/Tech Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — July 6, 2004 @ 05:34AM — olorin took

i think you're confusing something here... the itunes music store doesn't offer mp3s at 128 kbps, they sell aac files at 128 kbps, which sound a hell of lot better than mp3s.
i'll admit you can hear a difference if you've got gold-plated cables and a high end system, but on most people's stereo system you won't be able to tell which is cd and which is mp3...
selling aiff or wav files at "full cd quality" would be totally unfeasible, as anyone with a modem connection would go insane trying to download 40 or 50 mbs per song... :D

#2 — July 6, 2004 @ 05:35AM — olorin took

"... and which is aac..." is what i meant to write, of course... :D

#3 — July 6, 2004 @ 09:03AM — Rodney Welch [URL]

I don't have an iPod and I don't buy music from iTunes -- but I do have an iMac, and when you rip music from CDs (my preferred method) the bit rate level is optional; I usually use 128, but it can go higher. Anyway, it sounds fine to me.

#4 — July 6, 2004 @ 10:48AM — Jim Carruthers [URL]

The real boot to the prunes isn't the encoding, but the digital rights management (DRM) this means you only "own" the music you purchased in theory.

In practice, the license and terms to listen to listen to the music you purchased can be changed or revoked at will at any time.

These terms are even worse at the other services. At least Apple makes an effort to treat their customers fairly.

#5 — July 6, 2004 @ 12:16PM — Phillip Winn [URL]

I've read many articles which decry the quality of 128Kbps encoding, most of which don't even bother to differentiate between MP3 and AAC. And yet my own testing, while not rigorous, has demonstrated to my satisfaction that most people, even those who say they can tell the difference, can't.

That is, people know there is a difference when two samples of the same song are played, but are as likely to pick the 128kbps AAC version as "superior" than the original CD. Not just on headphones or computer speakers, either, but on my decent home stereo.

Sure, a much more expensive stereo might make the difference even more pronounced, but it still probably wouldn't make the average person on the street any more likely to pick the original over the compressed version.

P.S. I blame FM radio, and over time I suspect my results will change.

#6 — July 6, 2004 @ 16:00PM — Jim Carruthers [URL]

One point about about iTunes is it is a "two out of three" choice. What you lose in audio quality, you make up for in convenience.

If I want to quickly find a particular track in iTunes (out of the approx. 60 gb of MP3 tracks I have on my server), I just type into the search field. If I want to do a theme playlist, it only takes a couple of minutes.

Now if I want to do that with the thousands of CDs and LPs I have, that will take hours because about a quarter of them aren't filed properly, and I don't have a catalogue index (now, did I file Little Richard under "L", "R" or "P"?).

Since convenience has a value, that more than makes up for loss in quality, and besides, I live downtown, where the ambient noise does far worse to degrade any audio experience.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/17140)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments