-deleted post-

I've found exactly the opposite. Why? iTunes have changed the way they handle their audio tracks, since going DRM-free. Instead of ripping from CD, they are sourced directly from the music publisher and the publisher submits the tracks through the iTunes CMS. As these tracks are created from the original sound source, the quality is far far better than old tracks.

Indeed, they are better than those on CD - I've bought various recent albums (Depeche Mode 'Sounds of the Universe' is a good example) and the same version from iTunes. Both myself and a music publishing friend thought the iTunes non-DRM tracks were superior to those on CD. The iTunes tracks were more dynamic.

However.....and this is the big problem. Older tracks will STILL be compressed versions sourced from a CD. Only fairly recent iTunes tracks are sourced directly from the music publisher. So, if you're downloading older albums, the tracks on iTunes will sound worse than those on the original CD.

My advice is to rip your own tracks from albums before iTunes went DRM-free (last year?) and stick with recent albums from iTunes after it went DRM-free.

I understand what you're saying but aren't iTunes plus still only 256Kbps compressed *.aac files?

My concern regarding files ripped specifically by the publisher for use in iTunes, iPods etc. would be that they are specifically EQ'd for portable systems, PC speakers etc. Is there anything published that says these files are suited to full bandwidth, main room systems?

Personally I would stick to ripping the CD to (any) lossless format, although I haven't as yet experimented with different versions of the same track  as you have.

Puncher wrote:

I understand what you're saying but aren't iTunes plus still only 256Kbps compressed *.aac files?

My concern regarding files ripped specifically by the publisher for use in iTunes, iPods etc. would be that they are specifically EQ'd for portable systems, PC speakers etc.

But you can argue the same thing about CD mastering? The CD is produced from a mastered audio source. The same source will be used to provide the tracks for the CD and the iTunes store. The tracks and then burned to produce an audio CD for duplication. The mastered tracks will not differ between CD and iTunes store.

Thanks for the advice.  I'll try ripping a CD and see if it sounds any better.

moxxey wrote:

Puncher wrote:

I understand what you're saying but aren't iTunes plus still only 256Kbps compressed *.aac files?

My concern regarding files ripped specifically by the publisher for use in iTunes, iPods etc. would be that they are specifically EQ'd for portable systems, PC speakers etc.

But you can argue the same thing about CD mastering? The CD is produced from a mastered audio source. The same source will be used to provide the tracks for the CD and the iTunes store. The tracks and then burned to produce an audio CD for duplication. The mastered tracks will not differ between CD and iTunes store.

OK - but the iTunes plus file is still a "lossy" version compared to the CD.

moxxey,

i just need to correct this whole issue.

the studio does record the track on multiple channels - these are then put into a WAV file master copy. the WAV lossless master copy is then used by the CD pressing plant to burn CDs and distributed to servers for distribution via itunes, spotify etc...

but the a CD is mathematically lossless and uncompressed form. it is a mathematical clone of the studio master file whereas the itunes plus is a compressed from the master with a considerable loss of data so itunes plus will never ever be anywhere near as good as a lossless format... the act of making it mp3 from a WAV loses data bigtime in the algorithm. 

seethroughyou wrote:

but the a CD is mathematically lossless and uncompressed form. it is a mathematical clone of the studio master file whereas the itunes plus is a compressed from the master with a considerable loss of data so itunes plus will never ever be anywhere near as good as a lossless format...

Not always seethroughyou. It depends on how the player reads the CD, processes the data and then ouputs this to your speakers. In a digital format, it's much easier for a computer to process the file and, as a result, a well engineered and fairly uncompressed digital track can sound as good if not better than the track from a CD.

I think you misunderstand my point though: what I was saying is that the original iTunes tracks were sourced as a much-compressed digital file taken from a retail CD. These days the digital track is sourced directly from the publisher. These tracks are FAR superior to the old pre-DRM tracks and sound much more dynamic when played through my BS5.

If I take a recent CD and compare it to the same track sourced post-DRM via iTunes, the iTunes track sounds very impressive. Long gone are the days where they were a far poorer version than playing a CD. They are a good balance between size and audio quality. Yes, you can be anal and record a lossless file from a CD, but those differences are minimal and your BS5 drive will be soon filled.

Agree that the 256Kbps files are much better than the DRM 128Kbps files however I'm wary that a 256Kbps compressed file generated from the same source material as a CD can sound better.

Everyone needs to make their own choice regarding HD space/quality when building their music library. My view is, as HD space is so cheap these days, doing it as lossless isn't a hardship and means they never have to do it again (until everything is recorded and released in high-def audio).