Slightly off topic, but I recently I downloaded an old album from Amazon (early 70s BeBop Delux), and was quite pleasantly surprized by the sound quality.  I believe that it was 256kbps.  It *did* sound better than many of my home ripped mp3s (usually use Lame at the "normal" setting which is roughly 256kbps).  Maybe my ears were playing tricks, but I don't mind tricks that make my music sound better to me. 🙂 There were short "gaps" between songs that flow together on the LP, but oh well...

I do agree with Puncher for the most part (lossless means you'll never have to rip again) - anything new I generally rip in lossless.  The 256kbps that I already have I'll get to if/when I decide it's necessary.

Stan

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.

moxxey wrote:

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.

There is nothing superior about the latest iTunes Plus media files (or any other counterpart 256 kbps audio files).  To say you can get better quality from less information is sort of "CSI stuff" 🙂   You will all agree, mathematically that is impossible.  Now, on the audio mastering and the perception aspect of some... yes, most audio files streamed or downloaded are EQ'd to suit the device or target audience.  If the impression you get extra bass or treble translates in "extra dynamic" that's where we lose focus of the argument.  

The other thing to keep in mind is signal bandwidth, namely, how capable is your system in reproducing a higher resolution signal such as a lossless file or the actual CD?  What is the weakest link in your system (a cable, a speaker, the CPU)?  To answer that I will use an analogy: many of us using B&O systems particularly have experienced a better picture quality for SD signals (such as normal DVD) compared to HD signals (such as HD TV broadcast) or even Full HD (such as Blu-ray sourced from a PlayStation).  The reason that is is due to various factors in the system setup (or maturity of the equipment if non-B&O) which impede on output quality.  So, IMO it is certainly not the source file which auto-magically improves the output resolution / quality but rather the ability of your system to better process a lower-resolution signal (sometimes less CPU and data transfer required equates to lesser transfer loss and a better more mature output signal) or, in some cases the perception of the audience (who may like more bass, less treble imposed on them by the "audiomaster"etc).    

dkresz wrote:

There is nothing superior about the latest iTunes Plus media files (or any other counterpart 256 kbps audio files). 

Does anyone actually READ through a forum discussion before giving their opinion?

No-one said that, as a rule, the new iTunes Plus audio tracks are now 'better' or more 'superior' to those from CD (ie. a lossless digital computer version). However, they are definitely far superior to the old DRM-based tracks that you used to get from iTunes and were ripped from CD. The new tracks are now sourced from the original audio master, from the publisher and are therefore far superior to the old tracks.

On a sidenote though, lossless audio tracks are ONLY good if the source CD is mastered correctly. I can grab many of my CDs from 1988 through to 1998 - when a lot of CDs were mastered poorly - and take lossless versions of these tracks. Those lossless tracks are just a waste of large drive space (12 lossless tracks can take 600MB of hard drive space). Who in their right mind would create a lossless digital track from an average 1990 CD?

moxxey wrote:

 

No-one said that, as a rule, the new iTunes Plus audio tracks are now 'better' or more 'superior' to those from CD (ie. a lossless digital computer version). However, they are definitely far superior to the old DRM-based tracks that you used to get from iTunes and were ripped from CD. The new tracks are now sourced from the original audio master, from the publisher and are therefore far superior to the old tracks.

Ok, let's break this down:

- old tracks from iTunes were DRM-protected 128 Kbps and of very limited quality; thus, mainly targeted for your average sound system (one would hope non-B&O) or portable device.

- the new iTunes Plus tracks were introduced in May 2007, they were now DRM-free and at 256 Kbps, 30c extra per track and available for selective (EMI) albums;  let's agree these were now "far superior" to earlier tracks (i.e twice the resolution of pre-existing tracks and twice or more the quality due to direct sourcing from the audiomaster).

- as of April 2009, all songs are now available in the iTunes Plus format ranging from 0.69c to $1.29 and are pretty good value.

Got it!  And I hope that was not the basis for B&O to "restrict" the old BeoMedia1 (BM5's predecessor) to 196 Kbps playback but that's a separate argument for another forum at another time...

moxxey wrote:

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.

This is the bit I was trying to tackle in my previous post BTW.  I have this same album, I bought it last month.  I have compared it (and many others) against my prior album versions downloaded via iTunes Plus.  I have also compared them against AAC lossless (i.e. MPEG-4 Audio Lossless Coding supported by MACs and not officially supported by BM5 but installed the codec nonetheless) and WMA Lossles (i.e. Windows Media lossless - currently supported by BM5).  Outcome:

1. WMA Lossless - best output sound.

2. AAC Lossless - second best but inferior to 1.

3. AAC 256 Kbps (from iTunes Plus) - good value, easy to source but inferior to 2.

4. AAC 128 Kbps, MP3 128 Kbps et al - poor quality, in conflict with B&O equipment or an audiophile-like setup.

As for  older recordings, I am not sure you can put a time bracket around it but if you feel lower resolution tracks sourced directly from the original audio master are superior to tracks ripped of the original CD, fine, I'd go with that (but not necessarily under the premise there's not enough disk space - that constraint is so easy and cheap to remove nowadays).  BTW, I did not get my friends to listen to the comparision tests above for the simple reason I don't trust them 🙂  Many things get in the way unless the tests are blind.

dkresz wrote:

.......................................This is the bit I was trying to tackle in my previous post BTW.  I have this same album, I bought it last month.  I have compared it (and many others) against my prior album versions downloaded via iTunes Plus.  I have also compared them against AAC lossless (i.e. MPEG-4 Audio Lossless Coding supported by MACs and not officially supported by BM5 but installed the codec nonetheless) and WMA Lossles (i.e. Windows Media lossless - currently supported by BM5).  Outcome:

1. WMA Lossless - best output sound.

2. AAC Lossless - second best but inferior to 1.

3. AAC 256 Kbps (from iTunes Plus) - good value, easy to source but inferior to 2.

4. AAC 128 Kbps, MP3 128 Kbps et al - poor quality, in conflict with B&O equipment or an audiophile-like setup.

............................. 

If both 1. & 2. are lossless conversions, to what do you attribute the apparent superiority of the wma lossless file?

Surely, for one codec to give different results to the other, it would suggest that at least one codec is modifying the content and therefore it will be different to the wav file from which it originated and so cannot claim to be lossless ..................... or am I missing something?

puncher wrote:

If both 1. & 2. are lossless conversions, to what do you attribute the apparent superioity of the wma lossless file?

Primarily, on a blind test - comparing the same song at the same (lossless) resolution on the BM5.  I encourage you to do the same.

Now to the speculative part: one is (mainly) Mac and the other is Windows? The codecs have diiferent encryption / decryption algorithms that are affected by the platform?  BM5, being Windows XP Embedded, may be fine-tuned for WMA and WAV playback ?  It will be interesting to re-run the same comparison test when the BM5 / BS5 software gets upgraded to officially support AAC lossless...

OK - I can't say I'm convinced - if there is a difference it says one codec (likely the aac) isn't truly lossless, I don't think the hardware has any effect.

As you say, it will be interesting to retest if/when the BM5 officially supports alac.

Puncher wrote:

OK - I can't say I'm convinced - if there is a difference it says one codec (likely the aac) isn't truly lossless, I don't think the hardware has any effect.

I can assure you there is a difference.  I have tested this both on the BM1 and BM5/BS5 (under an audiophile-like setup: i.e. using high-end Shunyata Research power conditioning and cables).  In terms of proving that one codec isn't truly "lossless", I am not sure the fact either codec is mathematically calculated to be lossless (and advertised as such) it actually means it is lossless in terms of its end-to-end reproduction (I believe that was the thrust of this entire thread, namely, could we agree on whether you can compare or choose b/w an actual CD vs. a 256 Kbps media file sourced from the audiomaster etc? although, to some extent we were comparing 'apples' and 'oranges' given one was actually tested on the BS9000 and one on the BS5 respectively).

What it would imply though is, there are more "obstacles" encountered by an AAC file played on a Windows-based media player (B&O player in this instance) than there is for a WMA encrypted file.  If you'd like, it's like trying to listen to the "same" CD but with different software versions uploaded to the same digital drive unit.  The results don't have to be identical (the media source is virtually the same but the decoding / playback software is different).  Do the test I say (preferably, when the AAC lossless codec gets supported by the BS5 software).

Personally, I'm skeptical about this whole thread... 

Are the record companies *really* re-mastering audio files for the digital age?  I find this highly doubtful unless it's something that can be accomplished automatically, and even an automated remastering still costs money for computing power and IT folks to make it happen.  Why would a money grubbing record company spend any money on improving the audio sound for run of the mill downloads (i.e. not marketed and priced as "audiophile") when the "general public" has demonstrated that they don't really care about high quality audio?

Does an mp3 ripped from a CD sound any different than an mp3 ripped from "the original audio master"?  I assume the audio master is a higher resolution than a CD so,  I suppose, this one could hold a little water.  An mp3 from a quality source does sound better than an mp3 from a crappy source.  However, is the difference *so* great between a CD and the original audio master that they can still be heard after being compressed to 256kbs?  Could it be that you're just hearing the difference between 128kbs DRM and 256kbs non-DRM, and the actual source doesn't really matter...  Also wouldn't a poor sounding CD also have a poor sounding master?  Or have the record companies remastered all of their recordings so people get better sounding compressed mp3s (we're talking about the same company that released the poor CD to begin with... why are they getting audio quality religion just now)?

Does a lossless WMA sound better than a lossless AAC?  Lossless is lossless.  Plenty of people have performed tests where WAV -> WMA -> WAV (or AIFF -> ALC -> AIFF) results in bit-for-bit identical files before and after.  I have read that folks have studied the digital output of the airport express (which uses apple lossless compression for the wireless transmission) and found it to provide bit-for-bit identical rendition of the source.  The contention here seems to be that, for playback, something different is happening.  A full bit-for-bit rendition of the original source is not making it to the DAC.  Once again, there's a window of possibility here, but, again, I'm doubtful.  If the codec can produce a bit-for-bit copy to the disk (WAV->WMA->WAV), why not to the DAC?  I guess the one possibilty is that the ALC codec on Windows may not be 100% lossless.  I have no experience with this codec, but if Apple created it (or licensed it), it seems very doubtful - why would Apple allow their high-end proprietary audio format to sound worse on windows?  Is this a strategy to sell more Macs?  I'm not buying it...  then again, I've not done a direct comparision...

Oh well, we all hear things differently (even when it's the same)...

Stan

Stan, agree with what you say... that was the gist of my comments also.  In short, the AAC 256 Kbps - no matter where sourced from - are inferior to AAC lossless (just to keep things simple).  But I need to make this point again, lossless is not lossless.  There are so many factors at play here besides the advertisement of a mathematical algorithm.  Digital information is subject to 'loss of data' due to transport (hence the term: bit error rate).  Transport could mean: a digital drive, software used, DAC, bandwidth of the cables and their insulation against electrical / magnetic interference etc.  I don't' intend for this thread to extend even further (say, around a digital vs. analogue argument and data buffering & error correction etc) but, in summary, people should buy and listen to what they like and most enjoy.  Perception could be a good thing stopping us up over-analyzing things...