toggle

AAPL Stock: 565.32 ( -5.24 )

MacNN News

NYT takes aim at low-music quality at Apple's iTMS

updated 05:20 am EDT, Tue July 6, 2004

iTMS music quality

An article in this past weekend's New York Times (also reprinted in the , noting that Apple fails to explain why it has not adopted lossless data compression: "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... 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."

by MacNN Staff

(35)

TAGS :

audio

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

henryblackman
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2003

0

07/06, 06:25am | report spam | close Reply |
I'm a mere mortal

I'm a mere mortal and I can't tell the difference. But then I can't tell the difference between MP3 and CD quality audio either - but I don't have the latest Hi-Fi equipment either.

porieux
Baninated

Joined: Mar 2001

0

07/06, 06:29am | report spam | close Reply |
thats funny

because the latest update DID IN FACT add lossless compression.

Too bad most people don't care... (I do)

John Dwight
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 1999

0

07/06, 06:44am | report spam | close Reply |
Good point

I think the point about Apple's lossless codec is that it isn't an option for sale via iTMS. I've had no problems with the music I've bought there, but I'm a musician not an audiophile. ;) I still agree that it would be nice to have a higher bitrate for sale at iTMS.

jimothy
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2000

0

07/06, 06:46am | report spam | close Reply |
re: that's funny

The article is talking about the iTunes Music Store, not iTunes itself. The store only sells 128-bit rate encoded music.

Frankly, I think it'll be many years before any online music store (aside from perhaps a niche store with a small catalog catering to audiophiles) offers lossless downloads. Bandwidth and hard disk capacities (particularly of the size that'll fit in an iPod) have a lot of catching up to do before album sizes of 300+ MB is practical.

chrisutley
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: Mar 2003

0

07/06, 07:36am | report spam | close Reply |
NY Times

Boy that newspaper pisses me off all the time.

bobolicious
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2002

0

07/06, 07:41am | report spam | close Reply |
Finally,,,

...someone has recognized CDs are still a far superior music quality option given the price/quality of even AAC let alone MP3 - although I agree bandwidth is an issue (but hey for $10 they could afford it?)

All the fuss over downloading MP3s seems odd to me because if I really want to listen to music, they aren't even close to an option...

I still spin vinyl, too (what's that you ask, hehe?) ...
;-)

spotkat
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2004

0

07/06, 07:47am | report spam | close Reply |
Other Services?

Has anyone done a decent side by side comparison with the other music services out there?

Despite the fact that I can hear the quality drop (and yes, I'm annoyed with it) I am still extremely satisfied with what Apple offers, especially if I only want one song. That in mind, I haven't bothered trying other services.

Thoughts?

GORDYmac
Mac Elite

Joined: Dec 1999

0

07/06, 07:51am | report spam | close Reply |
Yea, this is news...

iTMS has only been out a year. NYT just noticed this? This wreaks of competitors, money, and conspiracy.

I don't notice any difference.

bobolicious
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2002

0

07/06, 08:00am | report spam | close Reply |
Comparisons...

...I bought an iPod over a year ago & sold it within a week because I couldn't listen to it for very long even at 320k... The ear fatigue was very apparent to me & for a $300 component that was unacceptable...

Now that we have a 40G option & lossless compression I expect I could load 50-60 CDs worth of music, which is tempting & useful, however I woudn't be buying it online, just ripping from source material...

I think I'll be waiting a little longer, until we have FM & video options, which I would expect sometime soon...

burger
Forum Regular

Joined: Sep 2000

0

07/06, 08:12am | report spam | close Reply |
What a pain

MACNN message posting stinks!

Glenstorm
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2000

0

07/06, 08:16am | report spam | close Reply |
MP3 vs. AAC

It is noteworthy that the article does not make a distinction between MP3 and AAC formats. While the bit rate maybe low, AAC is better at lower bitrates than MP3's. So when the article compares other services it reallly isn't comparing "apples" to Apples.

ethical_paul
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2002

0

07/06, 08:26am | report spam | close Reply |
silly audiophiles

For years they griped that CDs were junk compared to LP sound quality, now all of a sudden, CDs are the gold standard and it is compressed songs that cause ear fatique (yeah right).

What a bunch of prima donnas.

scottrussell
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2001

0

07/06, 08:43am | report spam | close Reply |
Why single iTunes out?

This article points out that while iTunes lets you rip your own CD collection using a lossless codec, you can only buy iTunes music store music at 128 bit rate compression. The article doesn't point out that iTunes music store uses the AAC codec, which is an improvement over MP3's encoded at the same bit rate.

The author briefly mentions that the other digital music stores have the same download quality restrictions, but concentrates his criticisms on iTunes. That's unfortunate and, yes, unfair.

TigerPRO
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2004

0

07/06, 09:33am | report spam | close Reply |
Nonsense!

As Glenstorm and scottrussel, AAC bit rates are superior to, and can't be compared with those of MP3. Music encoded at 128 AAC have the same quality as MP3s encoded at 192. And 192 bit MP3s are very commonly referred to as the MP3 equivalent of CD quality.

The writer of this article is a blundering fool. Not personally insult author, or make him feel bad; but this article is pure malarky. He seems to have read a few articles, and decided to write his. Probably without even listening to any music from the iTMS and judging for himself. It's strange he should go barking down Apple's tree when they are offering the highest quality music online, and not focussing on every other service that is truly offering these "trash" 128 bit MP3s.

bobolicious
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2002

0

07/06, 10:00am | report spam | close Reply |
re: silly audiophiles...

I still spin vinyl, or can't you read...

And I don't consider myself an audiophile, I just have decent set of horn based speakers...

And I agree AAC is a vast improvement over MP3, and Apple has the best option for downloads, but it's not there 4 me yet...

chas_m
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

07/06, 10:05am | report spam | close Reply |
yeah right

NYT is talking to a country that can barely distinguish SLP VHS from DVD, okay? So please, spare me the BS.

People with audiophile ears wouldn't be buying AAC music (or MP3 music for that matter) in the first place, so who cares what they think?

No other music service offers anything better. 128Kbit AAC sounds, to my music-loving ears, easily as good as 192Kbit MP3, which is what my collection is ripped at.

Just another cheap shot at Apple, trying to create a false "snob" market that would reject them. They fail to mention that the "snob" market doesn't have any alternative BUT Apple, though.

Typical one-sided yellow journalism. Glad I get my data elsewhere ...

dthree
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 1999

0

07/06, 10:10am | report spam | close Reply |
right

Like most people didn't know this already. Hey NYT, find me the apple web page where they claim iTunes store songs are "true CD audio" as you claim. Yeah, thats right you can't because they don't!

Oh, and to claim that AAC 128 sucks because people should want uncompressed audio for thier "collections" ignores the fact that most people don't buy music to listen to in "50 years", they buy it to listen to NOW.

VadersCape
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2004

0

07/06, 10:43am | report spam | close Reply |
You know the motto

At one time the NYT was respectable but now their motto is "all the news that fits we print." And the definition of "news" is a lot looser nowadays. More heavily-researched and fact-checked material from the paper that brought us journalism from the likes of Jayson Blair.

z10n
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2003

0

07/06, 10:49am | report spam | close Reply |
Humph.

It really would be nice if apple listened to their customers for once. People have been asking for higher bitrates then 128 kbps since day one, yet the requests have fallen on deaf ears.

Apple, if you're going to force AAC on us (rather then adopting better codecs like MPC, Vorbis, etc.) then at least offer files at 192 kpbs or higher. It's important. Every day you don't do it is another day a competitor can swoop in and do it for you.

bbxstudio
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: Sep 2002

0

07/06, 11:06am | report spam | close Reply |
Bullsh*t

Somebody's obviously on the take here - I'm an audio enthusiast and find the quality of the purchased tracks more than acceptable. Also, holding out for video and FM is absurd - most iPod owners (and I'm sure this is Apple's view) neither need nor want this sort of functionality in the iPod, especially if it has an impact on the form factor or ease of use the iPod currently enjoys. Who wants to watch video on a tiny LCD?

Nostromo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2001

0

07/06, 11:51am | report spam | close Reply |
snobs

Well, here we go again.

Yet another "audiophile" snob sticking his nose in the air over the quality of encoded music.

Here's a clue for all you snobs out there: aside from the .0000001 of you who claim you "can hear a difference", the vast majority of people listening to digital music listen to it in their cars, while walking, while running, or through their computer speakers and thus DON'T GIVE A s*** about "audiophiles" with $10000 speakers who clain they "can hear a difference".

ArcticBear
Junior Member

Joined: Oct 2000

0

07/06, 11:54am | report spam | close Reply |
Sadly Uninformed Article

The article has a subtle push near the end for Real's subscription model. Why re-buy your music in vinyl, CD, next-best-thing when with a monthly subscription you can get the latest-and-greatest format 5, 10, 20 years down the line?

Oh yeah, the company still has to be _in business_ 5, 10, 20 years from now. Will that be the case with Real? You tell me...

That and the fact you're paying for the right to listen not the right to own a copy of the recording (which is not to argue that iTunes gives you the latter...).

Home Slice
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2004

0

07/06, 12:16pm | report spam | close Reply |
He's got a point...

I hate to say it, but this guy's got a point. 128kbps AAC is really good, but it's not without audible artifacts. Yes, I'm somewhat of an audiophile, and I can get over the fact that most of the world doesn't care about the loss in quality between CDs and 128kbps AAC, but the fact is that it's kept me from buying from the iTunes Music Store.

I can generally find the albums I'm looking for, used on CD, for about $10. And I can rip them to my computer at 256kpbs AAC (which I generally can't distinguish from source) or Apple Lossless. So right now it's a quality (CD) vs. convenience (iTMS) tradeoff, and I'm choosing quality.

Now that Apple has their own Lossless Encoder, it seems almost inevitable that they will add lossless downloads to the iTMS at some point. Of course, there are hurdles (bandwidth, music industry concerns, implementation), but if there are enough people out there who want it, it'll happen. The convenience and price point of the iTMS, combined with the quality of Lossless, might be a real knockout punch for Apple.

In nothing else, it'll satisfy critics and help drive sales.

PookJP
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2001

0

07/06, 12:42pm | report spam | close Reply |
Losless...

I'm just adding my opinion to the fray that Apple should offer lossless tracks as a no-cost option. The fact is, by buying through iTMS, you are getting a lower quality product. Not a good thing, friends.

ADeweyan
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2004

0

07/06, 01:02pm | report spam | close Reply |
Great!

Let's bring on a little heat. Even the apologists would have to admit that an option (even a moderately higher-priced option) for higher-quality music would strengthen the iTunes music store.

Still, I wonder if the moderate quality isn't a compromise Apple had to offer to get the recording industry to get onboard.

If they're smart, they are holding lossless versions of the song files somewhere, and can just click a few buttons to save and post them in different formats.

JordanGold
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 1999

0

07/06, 01:09pm | report spam | close Reply |
Give us higher bitrates!

I'd like the option to download songs with a higher bitrate. I think that's really important, because I can hear the difference.

Companies never fail by giving consumers choice.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

07/06, 02:32pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: lossless/higher rates

I'm just adding my opinion to the fray that Apple should offer lossless tracks as a no-cost option.

No-cost? Exactly where's the benefit to apple in that one? 99 cents no longer costs them 3-4MB of bandwidth, it costs them 30-40MB of bandwidth. Yeah, I'm sure they'll jump on that.

The fact is, by buying through iTMS, you are getting a lower quality product. Not a good thing, friends.

Lower quality then what? If I just want two songs, I still make out on the deal ($2 for 'lower' quality vs. $10 for the entire album, if the songs are on one album). But being I'd end up taking the CD, ripping it to AAC and shoving it on my iPod, its kind of hard to say I'm losing out when I end up with what I had (sorry, I generally don't listen to CDs anywhere, except maybe in the car, and in there, unless you have some high-priced noise free auto, details get washed out everytime a truck roars by).

Let's bring on a little heat. Even the apologists would have to admit that an option (even a moderately higher-priced option) for higher-quality music would strengthen the iTunes music store.

Not by much. Let's say Apple add's this option for another 20-50 cents. Then you're talking $2-5 per album, which easily gets you the CD itself, plus the stupid liner notes and album art the geekheads always crow about missing.

Companies never fail by giving consumers choice.

Umm, yes, they do. There is such a thing as too much choice. Too much choice requires you to carry more inventory of more products, which then leads to increased storage costs, transportation costs, less discounts (more of one vs. few of many means you're not getting the extra discounts from the wholesalers). h***, the reason most companies do fail is because they try to do too much.

Anyway, on top of all this, people seem to keep missing the whole "ITMS is to sell iPods" thing. If you're just buying music for listening on your stereo, yes, you're being stupid to buy from the iTMS. But if you're buying for your iPod, then why do you want to spend the time getting a lossless version and then having to code it down to 128 or 160 or whatever for your iPod? Which you have to do if you even want to get close to getting that 8 hour battery life out of the thing.

loudpedal
Forum Regular

Joined: Oct 1999

0

07/06, 03:13pm | report spam | close Reply |
My 2 cents...

Downloaded about 300 songs from iTMS. Love the service. Could be better selection but getting better. Can't hear the difference with the music I listen to. Rock on...

andyshedd
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2004

0

07/06, 03:49pm | report spam | close Reply |
what difference?

I've personally heard the full gamut of digital audio, from AAC up to DVD-Audio, and to me the successive improvements are only marginal. For most music AAC sounds fine, and is less grating on my ears than MP3 or any other compression format.

Dale Sorel
Mac Elite

Joined: Aug 2002

0

07/06, 04:42pm | report spam | close Reply |
LOL...

NYT is talking to a country that can barely distinguish SLP VHS from DVD, okay? So please, spare me the BS.

Gotta love all those C- students that make the big companies rich ;)

010111
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2002

0

07/06, 05:00pm | report spam | close Reply |
FM?

i can't believe in one post there was :

a) complaints about audio clarity using 128k AAC encoded files.

b) complaints about lack of FM radio on the iPod.

whaaaa? talk about conflicting ideals. 'yeah! AAC sucks! long live the superior sounds of overcompressed narrow bandwidth FM!'

dthree
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 1999

0

07/06, 05:52pm | report spam | close Reply |
strawman audiophile snobs

Hey you audiophile bashers: the NYT writer claims that ordinary people can notice the difference in quality, not "just audiophiles". People are always bitching ABOUT the snobby audiophiles, but I never hear THEM complaining. Most audiophiles looked at ITMS and said "well, thats not for me" and moved on. None of them are bitching about the low sound quality.

spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN

Joined: Feb 2002

0

07/06, 06:27pm | report spam | close Reply |
The problem

The problem with Apple's methods is that they spent months encoding thousands upon thousands of CDs to 128 kbps AAC prior to the original store launch, and there have been thousands more added since. Had Apple encoded their inventory at a lossless rate, then re-encoded down to 128, increases in the bit rates could have been done easier.

Instead, for Apple to offer better quality, they'd have to spend moths again re-encoding everything from CDs again.

If I were a serious competitor of iTMS, I'd differentiate by offering (and advertising) a better quality music file.

esc
Junior Member

Joined: May 2002

0

07/06, 10:12pm | report spam | close Reply |
strange article

I've been part of quite a bit of double blind testing of codecs. The Times author wasn't very plugged in

http://tingilinde.typepad.com/starstuff/2004/07/the_quality_of_.html

talisker
Mac Elite

Joined: Oct 2001

0

07/06, 10:34pm | report spam | close Reply |
It's a fair point....

...why not offer higher bitrate downloads?

I must admit having waited bloody ages for the European iTMS to come out, I'm remarkably underwhelmed, and have hardly used the thing. Several reasons:

It costs around the same as buying CDs, but for poorer sound quality, no artwork, restrictions on use etc. I know in theory it's more convenient but when I can order CDs online and get them in a day or two who cares? Needs to be half as expensive.

It's just not fun to navigate around. Seems a little bit clunky. I actually much prefer using a conventional web based service like Amazon. iTMS just doesn't seem to offer you a wide range of interesting alternatives at any given point, and so after a few minutes of aimless browsing I just get bored.

Choice, or lack of it, especially when it comes to indies. I realise this may change though.

All in all very dissapointing I'm afraid.

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...
05/24	Yahoo releases Axis 'visual search'...
05/24	Apple airs two new Siri commercials...
05/23	Google launches redesigned Search app...
05/23	IBM blocking iPhone's Siri on internal...

Show All

05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...
05/24	Yahoo releases Axis 'visual search'...
05/24	Google�s 7-inch tablet ships next month...
05/24	Apple airs two new Siri commercials...
05/23	Google launches redesigned Search app...

Show All

05/23	Google launches redesigned Search app...
05/22	Leaked next-gen iPod touch part hints...
05/22	Hulu Plus updates with iPad Retina...
05/22	TiVo Stream to push TV to iPhones,...
05/22	Hands on: TouchType case for iPad,...

Show All

03/02	Save $330 on refurb. 15.4-inch, 2.4GHz...
03/01	Pre-owned 8GB iPod touch 2G, drops...
02/29	$150 off Nikon Coolpix S80 Compact...
02/28	Plantronics BackBeat 903 Bluetooth...
02/27	Refurb. Seagate 1.5TB GoFlex Portable...

Show All

toggle

NYT takes aim at low-music quality at Apple's iTMS

updated 05:20 am EDT, Tue July 6, 2004

iTMS music quality

Related Articles

Recent Articles

I'm a mere mortal

thats funny

Good point

re: that's funny

NY Times

Finally,,,

Other Services?

Yea, this is news...

Comparisons...

What a pain

MP3 vs. AAC

silly audiophiles

Why single iTunes out?

Nonsense!

re: silly audiophiles...

yeah right

right

You know the motto

Humph.

Bullsh*t

snobs

Sadly Uninformed Article

He's got a point...

Losless...

Great!

Give us higher bitrates!

Re: lossless/higher rates

My 2 cents...

what difference?

LOL...

FM?

strawman audiophile snobs

The problem

strange article

It's a fair point....

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace