256 bit iTunes plus AAC VS CD

[arcman]

I believe have very sensitive ears. I can tell a difference between 128 bit files and CD (CD better). However, I am stumped when it comes to the 256 iTunes + files and CD. I used same editions of numerous tracks (example 2011 Animals remaster CD and 2011 Animals remaster iTunes). I listened at all volumes on my studio monitors and main home system. Thru my studio headphones and thru my portable headphones. I cannot hear the slightest difference. I listened for the 'swishy", boominess, punch, breath, space, soundstage etc. I compared a couple of Norah Jones vocal and Dave Brubeck piano pieces. Drum solo tracks, etc. So I'm not asking for people to say "your ears or system components are S%&@3". Please tell me what to listen for. If you point it out, I should be able to hear it. I can hear how bad Sirius/XM is (swishy). Also, I've brought this up on a couple of forums and every expert that sent a link to an mp3 study. I'm not talking about mp3. Specifically 256k arc iTunes purchases. I'm wanting to learn here...not a debate.

 

[arcman]

I was hoping for some pacific examples I could compare myself.

 

[RankStranger]

listen for attack and (particularly) decay in notes and sounds (percussion etc.). Listen for the space around the instruments. Good recordings and higher res stuff allows you to hear into the recording space and between the instruments. Compressed files sound flat and two-dimensional by comparison.

 

Try to tell if you can discern the difference between an electric bass and an upright bass or if you're a guitar nerd whether you're hearing a Gibson or Fender. These sorts of distinctions are easier to make with uncompressed music because you get more of the subtle cues that distinguish one from another.

 

There is also the PRAT stuff (Pace, Rhythm and Timing) that compressed music gets wrong. Sometimes the easiest way to tell is the toe-tapping test (i.e. am I feeling this groove?)

 

I hope this helps. Alternatively, maybe stop trying to listen for differences, especially with short-burst A-B comparisons and just compare your enjoyment of tracks and whether you "get into it" or not or to what degree. Music is an emotional thing and doesn't bear too much rigorous scientific attention.

 

Cheers,

 

RS

 

[arcman]

Thanks for info, i'm looking for scientific examples here. Specifically iTunes purchases vs CD. All over the audio forums I've heard how much iTunes downloads (not just mp3's, etc) are S&@T. Nobody, so far, has been able to give me a SPECIFIC example that I can go listen to and HEAR the difference. I know it's all about "enjoying the music" and all other cliché's. However, I want to hear what the audiophiles are hearing in a specific A/B comparison of a track. I've asked this on multiple forums and NOBODY has come to the party. But when a post pops up that says "I download a track off iTunes" or like I did on a board once "I think the iTunes tracks sound great" I get the attacks about how the sound is so inferior to at least a rebook CD (the vinyl crowd is a whole other story). So now I want someone to come to the party and enlighten me with a SPECIFIC example

 

[Mark Powell]

Sorry, I think you are missing the point. It is NOT about scientific examples, it IS about enjoying the music. It is not about 256K Itunes+, 1411K CD, or a 4608K hi res file.

 

An example. Some time ago I replaced my 500 dollar CD player with a 5000 dollar one. The difference? My attention was far more caught by the music. It was no longer a background activity. I stopped what I was doing and listened. Bit rate was of course identical. It is about air, space, and so on, as the previous appender said..

 

Sensitive ears. I can instantly tell the difference between the 320K (higher bit rate than Itunes+) BBC Radio three broadcasts and the same piece on a CD. I suggest that if you cannot then your ears are not as sensitive as you believe.

 

You ask what specifically to listen for. Precisely what the previous appender said. Not particular pieces of music.

 

My ears are large and stick out. Maybe that helps

 

[Akapod]

... taking some ALAC and 256k AAC files to your local stereo store, and hearing what they sound like on a top-notch system. Maybe it's your system; maybe it's your ears.

 

If you still can't tell the difference, then you can expect to save a lot of disk space!

 

For what it's worth, lossy formats sound "thin" to me.

 

[RankStranger]

256 bit AAC is actually a pretty good approximation of music. Good enough, In fact, to fool most of the people most of the time. There are not really audible artifacts as such so you won't hear the swishyness of 128k mp3 and no one can say "go to 2:42 on such and such a track and hear such and such an artifact".

 

The last time I bought something from iTunes was when I was on my honeymoon and I read an article about an album so I took advantage of the convenience and downloaded it right to my iPhone. I got halfway through it and realised I just wasn't really enjoying it so I deleted it and bought it on cd when I got home. I can't tell you which bit I didn't enjoy or what part of the cd was better in any scientific way and I don't believe anyone else could either.

 

For a objective scientific comparison look at the file size. For why cd is better than iTunes you've just gotta listen.

 

Cheers

 

RS

 

[Mark Powell]

Piano pieces are good. Classical violin is even better. Most 'pop' is useless. Not because it is inherently bad, but because the recording studio has meddled with it. Also there is too much 'pace, rhythym, and timing' taking your attention.

 

[arcman]

Very good. I will a few classical piano pieces. It could be my system. To me I enjoy music no matter what format. I consider myself a somewhat audiophile (abet with mid grade equipment--maybe musicphile is better term). 99% of my music is CD transferred in Apple Lossless to iTunes 15,000 tracks and counting. I have less than 100 iTunes downloads. I'm just trying to make my "sound" expertise better.

 

[Erwin S]

On the recording quality and the listening volume. The louder you play, the better you will hear it.

 

I'm into Lana Del Rey now (a new New York peach). She's working on her first CD, so for now it's only a 192kbps mp3 version of her single "Video Games". I believe it has been well produced. But if I put it in a playlist against Selah Sue (new Belgian sweetheart, check her out) or Björk's new CD and playback loud using Amarra MINI, it's all the obvious there's something missing. Can't wait for her CD to surface.

 

Also, Amarra doesn't seem to be able to do it's magic on lossy formats. It plays them, but no better than iTunes IMO.

 

[AudioDoctor]

I only have Atlantic examples...

 

;-)

 

[DonLafontaine]

I interpret your inquiry to be very limited: a comparison of the 256 AAC files available at the iTunes store versus those same files from a CD. It's not a discussion of lossy files versus CD files in general. With that in mind, I'm of the same (or a similar) opinion. In my opinion, I've found that the AAC files from the iTunes store approximate the files from a CD much closer than those which I create locally. I actually doubt that I could tell the difference between the two.

 

[Paul R]

 

For what it is worth, on some but not all 256kbs AAC tracks, to me they sound "flat" or "thin" - compared to a CD or hi-res track of the same music.

 

Also, I believe it is perfectly possible to design and build an audio system optimized for 256AAC tracks that makes them sound as good as they can sound, and practically indistinguishable from CD tracks. This is, in fact, the premise that Apple is operating on. With millions of tracks, the storage costs between 256kbs and ALAC add up fast, and are not insignificant.

 

-Paul

 

 

[arcman]

Actually, Apple stores the tracks in the native redbook resolution (16/44). The files are compressed & converted (aac) as you download (or right before). Even before they introduced iTunes plus, the files were all 16/44. They have the ability to change the "output" resolution and format (AAC, Apple Lossless etc) on the fly or selectively. Technically, assuming their agreements with all parties would allow, Apple could turn on 16/44 lossless right away. Now it would effect their bandwidth and may need to adjust accordingly. But with all the hi-def movies (720p), etc...I'm sure they could handle it.

 

[Paul R]

Wow - now that I did not know. Wow... I stand totally corrected. Thanks for the info!

 

[arcman]

Well I did a test on a bass heavy track. The Beatles Come Together from the blue album. I admit...there is something somewhere missing on the AAC iTunes track. Everything seems to be there and sounds great, but...the smallest lack of breathing area. It's as if you could jump up to 257 bits aac, it would be there. I would not notice it at all if I were not comparing. Man, Apple has that thing so darn close.

 

[RankStranger]

good enough to fool most of the people most of the time.

 

Problem is, now that you know you won't be able to un-notice it on your itunes-sourced tracks. Like when someone points out to you an as-yet-unnoticed ding in your like-new used car. From that moment on, it's all you see.

 

Good luck and have fun.

 

RS

 

[Ajax]

 

Hi Rank Stranger,

 

I just wanted to say how much I appreciated the commonsense that came through in your comments on the 256kps lossy vs lossless arguement.

 

I have been listening to high quality audio for over 30 years, beginning in the early 80s with Linn LP12 turntables playing through naim amplifiers, and when computer audiophile first appeared I mistakenly ripped all my CDs to 320kps ACC, as I did not notice any difference between lossy and lossless and I wanted to save disk space.

 

I have since re ripped to ALAC although my wife thinks I am mad and anal.

 

My own experience has been that I hear little difference between the the actual sounds of the instruments and voices, however, the music looses some of it's realism, energy, vitality and feeling when compressed, some music types more than others.

 

Your analogy of whether or not the music makes you feel like tapping your toe is a good one.

 

Personally I can't detect any difference (sound or feeling) between the two lossless file formats, ALAC and AIFF, however, a lot of people say they can .... they claim that ALAC sounds flat to them. One explanation put forward to explain this phenomena is that the extra CPU load required to expand the ALAC files "on the fly" in real time causes electrical interference.

 

However most current software (not iTunes) now preloads the file into RAM and decodes it before playing so you would assume there should now be no difference.

 

The only explanation being the dreaded placebo effect .... as you well pointed out with your ding in the car analogy. Tell someone that the bass on a particular track is exceptionally tight and stunning and that is all they will hear, whether it is in 256ACC or AIFF.

 

Similarly tell someone the music sounds flat and it is very difficult for them to let go of that thought.

 

To the originator of this thread I think you need to ask yourself whether the glass is half empty or half full.... i.e. does it matter?

 

I am not rying to be patronising but if it ain't broken don't try and fix it ... if you cannot hear a problem within your play back system don't go looking for one, and be grateful that you are satisfied and enjoy listening to your music at 256kps.

 

All the best.

 

[arcman]

Great comments. I guess I'm anal myself. I would love to ditch CD's altogether and just purchase off iTunes. I was trying to convince myself. I just cannot do it ..yet. Now, as I'm downloading the 24/44 version go Achtung Baby of HD tracks, I would drop CD's in an instant it iTunes sold Apple Lossless versions. To me it's all about the source. Like I said earlier, I have thousands of CD's that I transferred to iTunes via Apple Lossless. I even ditched the jewel cases (except special releases) and placed all CD's in a binder. I'm ready to leave CD's altogether. I just want at least the same sound quality.

 

[slowdown5646]

I myself can barely tell the difference between VBR mp3 and ALAC, so it baffles me when some people say they can definitely hear a difference between similar lossy formats and lossless ones. I've been able to hear the impact of high rez, music programs, and even cables readily, but iTunes AAC sounds as good as any CD rip to me. I could do much more in-depth tests, but why would I bother? I've never had a really high-end system like a lot of users here so I try to keep everything in ALAC/AIFF anyways but at least I'll be using iTunes Match with my iPhone when it comes out without any worries...

 

[bikemig]

I buy CDs because I want to be able to rip all my music in a lossless format. I also make a copy of all my music in 320 kbps to play on my ipod and a laptop to save space. The sound quality is pretty good even when I play the high bit rate MP3 on my more "revealing" home theater system. I have no complaints about the files I've downloaded from Itunes as well. But I'll still keep buying CDs. . . . . .

 

[Paul R]

+1 on that. The only reason I have and buy CD's is because I want the full resolution of the music, whether I can hear a difference or not is not even a factor in the decision.

 

I would certainly spend the vast amount of my music budget on iTunes if ALAC 16/44.1 of higher downloads were available.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

[Akapod]

Audio technology is improving by such leaps and bounds that I would be concerned about being locked into a sub-optimal format.

 

I will happily admit that I can't tell the difference between 256 AAC and ALAC on my iPhone using Bose headphones. But the difference on my big rig is, to my ears, night and day. And the quality of this sound would have been unobtainable for me three years ago (maybe four) because (a) my speakers didn't exist and (b) the Ayre QB-9 didn't exist.

 

There was surely other equipment which sounded better (!) than what I had, but I couldn't afford it. Wait another three or four years, and there should be even better equipment available at this price range. And perhaps the modest little software DAC in the iPhone and my then current headphones will almost be on a par with Ayre and Sonus Faber.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is an easy way to check this. Load up a thumb drive with some music you know and love -- in both lossy and lossless formats. Take it to your local stereo store to play on a really high-end system. If you still can't tell the difference, then you can safely say that the psycho-acoustic magic used on 256 AACs works for you, and that's all you need. If you do hear a difference, then stick with CD or better formats, as that sound quality will be available to you (and affordable) in the not-too-distant future.

 

[bafonso]

Hi,

 

This is an excellent quest you want to embark on, for which I commend you.

 

Basically, what you want to do is to buy/borrow some CDS of your favorite music. It's irrelevant whoever tells you it's not a good choice, etc because in the end, you're the one listening to the stuff you like.

 

With the CDS in hand, you should use EAC to rip the cds and then you should use Max to make ALACs and mp3/aac from it at different rates. Now, you're ready to compare stuff. You want to start comparing from lossless to low bit mp3/aac. Say, ALAC to 56kbps. This should be obvious. Then start going up to 128kbps. Hopefully this will give you hints as to what to look for when changes may become subtle.

 

You should use the same software player to listen to stuff so I'd suggest audirvana free which is *free* and bit perfect. basically, you just want the same player because you want keep constant the way bits get into your DAC. Also implied is that you need to keep the listening chain the same when comparing stuff. Bring stuff to a store but don't change around equipment..

 

Your listening chain will allow you to potentially spot differences due to inherent quality of the components (good vs mediocre speakers) or qualities. For example, tube amps affect sound in a different way than solid state amps. This may become relevant when using them since as information is discarded in lossy formats (aac/mp3) it can become relevant when changes affect the not usually perceived audio band.

 

The more familiar you are with the music you are listening to, the easier it will be for you to try and spot differences. Having played instruments and listened a lot to live music will help you here but, it's not necessary.

 

Depending how much you want to trust your beliefs or not, you should consider doing ABX tests. I would read hydrogenaudio's listening tests forum to get a grasp of how to go about this.

 

Don't believe too much what you read on forums. Use your own ears. I've had casual listening sessions with lots of people that consider themselves audiophiles, and I've found most of them talked a lot but then could not blindly say which was which. Most of them could very poorly understand what instruments were being used and what they actually sound like live. It's hard to believe a can perceive "bandwidth smearing" when they can't spot when an upright bass player is plucking or caressing strings. Or perceive when drums have been heavily compressed vs the bass or know what a compressor can do to a voice or an upright bass.

 

When you spend 5k on a piece of equipment, there is a big psychological bias that it has to sound better. Before you trust someone's advice spend time with that person. Everyone can talk about what they hear but only really knowledgeable persons can guide you to grow as a critical listener. Avoid using vague descriptions. Music either swings or not. 50s jazz swings with terrible audio quality as any musician can attest. As does tango music recorded in the 30s. Sound quality is terrible but it still moves you.

 

Most people able to actually spot the differences between lossly formats actually make/write compression algorithms and understand what things are happening at a deep level. They have spent countless hours tweaking algorithms and listening to differences. Very few people possess these skills as you may imagine. Even fewer of these actually spend time writing on internet forums.

 

Music is not a science, but audio reproduction is. This is more than you probably were looking for but I feel you truly want to look for understanding if things are real or not. The bad news is that hardly anyone will have the time to guide you all the way, the great news is that you have all the tools to reach your own conclusions in an unbiased way if you so desire.

 

[RankStranger]

one thing I will call you on though is that old recordings have "terrible audio quality" so the resolution of the recording doesn't matter, or you can't learn anything from them.

 

I listen to a fair bit of old bluegrass and some old jazz and regardless of the age of the recording it still sounds lousy when compressed. The background noise takes on a hard, brittle edge and it loses that lovely immediacy that these recordings can have so I think resolution matters here too.

 

I wouldn't flatter myself that I'm a "musician" but I've been faffing about on various stringed instruments for more that half my life so I do know what real instruments sound like.

 

Your pardon if I mistook your point.

 

RS