1. surur's Avatar
    Oh, mannnn...
    I can't possibly discuss this with you. There are too many issues like: you most probably and undoubtedly refusing to believe that AAC eliminates redundancies in the coded audio signal to achieve more compact file sizes while maintaining superiority.

    And the fact that I need to bring up bit rates not being equivalent is scary as well.

    I know what lossless means but it is apparent that it is you that does not have enough knowledge to bring to the table to have a reasonable discussion.
    Archie, for some-one who is constantly wrong, I would not presume on other people's knowledge. Let me repeat - you are wrong. Again. As usual.

    In blind listening tests 192 kb/sec WMA scores higher than 128 kb/sec AAC from itunes. Get over to it.
    http://www.soundexpert.info/coders192.jsp
    http://www.soundexpert.info/coders128.jsp

    Surur
    04-02-2007 06:24 PM
  2. surur's Avatar
    Yeah, but we're not existing iTMS customers. Is the 90% 90% of people who used iTMS in the past or just 90% of people? Anyway, even if it's the former, there's still 10% of people who'd prefer the old option, and the cost of the product they'd be buying hasn't changed.
    One price is higher and one is the same!

    I think we've done this one to death now!
    Ive got some Itunes music - freed with Hymn of course. When I hear a tune I like I usually shop around all the sites trying to find it. If I find it on Itunes it will now cost more (especially now that Hymn does not work anymore).

    Surur
    04-02-2007 06:28 PM
  3. surur's Avatar
    Then why do they (and will continue to for the foreseeable future) still sell the 99 songs? This fact puts a whole in both of your arguements here.
    a) Not all of the labels are on board yet.
    b) it hides the price increase

    Do you really expect they will continue the 99c service once 80% of their music is available DRM free? It will be like "the customers have spoke and DRM has died" or something similar.

    Surur
    04-02-2007 06:30 PM
  4. dwman's Avatar
    All of this seems to subvert the fact this only helps to promote/increase album sales on ITunes. The price increase will only affect singles, but entire albums can still be bought DRM free for $9.99. In the long run, this seems like the better business model for Apple.
    04-02-2007 06:35 PM
  5. marcol's Avatar
    Do you really expect they will continue the 99c service once 80% of their music is available DRM free? It will be like "the customers have spoke and DRM has died" or something similar.
    You may well be right, and if you are I'd at that point agree with your contention that there's been a price increase (for purchases for parts of albums at least). One thing that makes me think they might keep 128 kbps though is iPod advertising. Those estimates of numbers of songs an iPod will hold that Apple uses so prominently would probably have to halved if they stopped selling 128 kbps songs altogether. A possible (and better) scenario is that they'll just drop DRM from 128 kbps AACs too.
    04-03-2007 04:54 AM
  6. marcol's Avatar
    Ive got some Itunes music
    Apologies for being so presumptuous! That's interesting. Do you think you'll upgrade to 256 kbps (if the upgrade is available)?
    04-03-2007 04:56 AM
  7. surur's Avatar
    Apologies for being so presumptuous! That's interesting. Do you think you'll upgrade to 256 kbps (if the upgrade is available)?
    I mainly have itunes because I like my music digital and legal. I also like instant gratification. When I hear a tune I like on the radio or TV I usually do web search, find out who it is by and then look for it on Rhapsody (which I pay $15/month for). If its not there I look at the various British download sites, like MSN Music, tiscali etc. If not there I look at Itunes. (If I still cant find it I look at usenet )

    I will not upgrade my music, because I am probably not listening to that music any more, and if I was listening to it still I have probably already stripped the DRM or bought and ripped CD. Any future purchases from Itunes will of course be at the higher bitrate and free.

    Surur
    04-03-2007 06:48 AM
  8. marcol's Avatar
    It will interesting to see if if the subscription services change at all to this latest development. I'd hope to see Rhapsody, Napster etc go with DRM-less music for purchase (to own outright) but, as you say, removing the DRM on the rented stuff seems less likely. On the other hand, the competition did just get a whole lot more attractive so they might do something.
    04-03-2007 08:09 AM
  9. marcol's Avatar
    All of this seems to subvert the fact this only helps to promote/increase album sales on ITunes. The price increase will only affect singles, but entire albums can still be bought DRM free for $9.99. In the long run, this seems like the better business model for Apple.
    Apple seems keen on this. As well as shifting the balance towards complete albums with the 256 kbps pricing they just introduced that 'Complete my album' thing too. They're probably just trying to make more money of course, but as long as it's good for the consumer I've no problems with that.
    04-03-2007 08:18 AM
  10. surur's Avatar
    Apple seems keen on this. As well as shifting the balance towards complete albums with the 256 kbps pricing they just introduced that 'Complete my album' thing too. They're probably just trying to make more money of course, but as long as it's good for the consumer I've no problems with that.
    Their motives are pretty transparent. Album sales are diving, and they want to encourage people toward this higher margin side of the business. The whole music business are trying to do it, hence in UK the recent introduction of the album show, which ignores promoting singles as usual, to concentrate on the album charts. Let me say on record there is nothing wrong with that, and in this case they are actually giving punters a better product at the same price, which is cool.

    Surur
    04-03-2007 08:34 AM
  11. archie's Avatar
    Archie, for some-one who is constantly wrong, I would not presume on other people's knowledge. Let me repeat - you are wrong. Again. As usual.

    In blind listening tests 192 kb/sec WMA scores higher than 128 kb/sec AAC from itunes. Get over to it.
    http://www.soundexpert.info/coders192.jsp
    http://www.soundexpert.info/coders128.jsp

    Surur
    This is a typical surur tactic: find something that is obviously heavily biased and slanted against what "archie" says in an effort to prove him wrong.

    People, please don't believe what susrur says. If you want to rely on these links, PLEASE read them and understand them, don't take his word as he presents it.

    There are so many things wrong with this, I do not know where to start. I guess the first thing I would mention is that at the top of these pages that susur links to is one explanation as to why Apple's AAC encoder did so poorly: It is because they used the encoder in iTunes 6.0 which has a bug that is revealed when they use their selected content - that content being a glockenspiel. This particular sound serves to reveal a technique used in AAC that utilizes Temporal Noise Shaping in addition to Prediction. These very techniques will introduce a clicking/popping sound that is heard in unnatural highpitched sounds such as those of a glockenspiel. Who listens to a glockenspiel? Nobody! They sound awful. That is why this technique was chosen and the fact that they used this in their test speaks greatly.

    Ridiculous!

    So to continue with this issue, I would also like to mention that the iTunes encoder found in 7.1 has been upgraded.

    In addition, I do not believe that this encoder is the one used for iTunes encoding on the desktop. I will check.

    I would also like to mention that content encoded for Apple's iTunes Store does away with wow and flutter as well as jitter because it is professionally done utilizing digital sources (no transfers or by-way-of's that presumably would keep the signal digital but possibly via an exchange of format, thereby introducing wow and flutter or of course jitter); whereas content from every other digital store has varied encoding techniques. There is no slanting or biasing in this fact, it just simply brings an uneasy (feeling) and unreliable aspect to other's encoding methods.


    I really don't want to continue this discussion; BUT I will and will return with more evidence.
    04-04-2007 11:30 AM
  12. surur's Avatar
    Archie, why not just accept that higher bitrate is better, and loss-less better still?

    Surur
    04-04-2007 11:48 AM
  13. archie's Avatar
    By and large, yes, the higher the bit rate the better, UNLESS you factor in AAC's use of bitrate storage and take into account the low-pass filter at 256kbps and below. Then there are other issues like WMA's characteristic low frequency drop-off, which cannot be made up for regardless of what kind of bitrate you use.
    04-04-2007 02:15 PM
  14. surur's Avatar
    Then there are other issues like WMA's characteristic low frequency drop-off, which cannot be made up for regardless of what kind of bitrate you use.
    Archie - lossless means lossless compression. It means no drop-off or artifacts. It means a bit-perfect reproduction of the CD source. I hope you understand that.

    Surur
    04-04-2007 02:47 PM
  15. backbeat's Avatar
    Your not listening through an iPod then... or a Bryston BP26 fully discrete Class A operational preamplifier with a Bryston DAC, modified Carver CS1 Amplifier, NAD CD Transport, and an Adcom AC Enhancer in front of a pair of Boston Acoustics T1200s.
    Or, Atma-Sphere MA-1 single-wired monoblocks, via Convergent Audio Technology Ultimate II Pre, producing sound via Eggleston Andra II's.
    04-04-2007 11:10 PM
  16. vinman's Avatar
    Or, Atma-Sphere MA-1 single-wired monoblocks, via Convergent Audio Technology Ultimate II Pre, producing sound via Eggleston Andra II's.

    It's silly to connect any sort of mp3 player to that sort of set up, anyway. Why not connect a really nice old 8-track. Oooh, how about setting up a Radio Shack turn table and do a comparison with a VPI or a Goldmund? Seriously, listening to digital at all on that stuff is questionable in it's fidelity. Maybe listening to a Krell, Proceed, Pass, or Meridian - but that sort of set up cries out for a really well set up analog source.
    04-05-2007 09:52 AM
  17. backbeat's Avatar
    ^ Your assumption that I use an mp3 player as a source for my gear is hardly close to correct and quite a stretch of the imagination.

    BTW, there is such a thing as too much analog or an imbalance of analog/digital. The former EAD suits me just fine as my digital source.
    04-05-2007 04:21 PM
  18. archie's Avatar
    It's silly to connect any sort of mp3 player to that sort of set up, anyway. Why not connect a really nice old 8-track. Oooh, how about setting up a Radio Shack turn table and do a comparison with a VPI or a Goldmund? Seriously, listening to digital at all on that stuff is questionable in it's fidelity. Maybe listening to a Krell, Proceed, Pass, or Meridian - but that sort of set up cries out for a really well set up analog source.
    I disagree. You can hook an iPod up and have it play something like .AIFF and the source will be superior because there is no jitter. Or if the source is at 48 kHz rather than the average run of the mill CD player sampling or RIPped source at 44.1 kHz, again the sound will be better.

    And if a person is after that fluid analog feeling, you can get that with the introduction of tubes or the right equipment. Five or six years ago, I would have agreed with you, analog would have been a better source in some respects but now, digital has it beat all the way around.
    04-05-2007 05:25 PM
  19. Pearl_Diva's Avatar
    Archie, dont make me laugh (again). Do you actually know what "no loss of data" means?

    And you do know WMA at 192 (which is what Yahoo, Napster and Rhapsody uses) has better audio quality than 128 kb AAC, dont you?

    Surur
    To tell you the truth, I don't really like WMA. MP3 VBR, despite now being old, still rules IMO! I do think AAC is also a better format than WMA. I use a higher bit rate than 128 if I rip to AAC.
    04-05-2007 08:10 PM
  20. surur's Avatar
    To tell you the truth, I don't really like WMA. MP3 VBR, despite now being old, still rules IMO! I do think AAC is also a better format than WMA. I use a higher bit rate than 128 if I rip to AAC.
    As this boffin said:

    Based on the listening tests that I have seen here over the years I have come to the following conclusions:

    1) At equal bit rates there are often quality differences between different codecs, though usually the differences are small to modest.

    2) At unequal bit rates the file with the higher bit rate is almost always the one with the higher quality.

    Also, the only guarantee against obsolescence of your chosen codec, is to go lossless.
    http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=50548

    Worth reading the whole thread. The above basically summarizes my views. For near universal compatibility I prefer mp3 over anything else.

    Surur
    04-05-2007 08:32 PM
  21. archie's Avatar
    This is a sample spectograph sweep — original source material:




    Below is a spectograph sweep of Microsoft's NEWEST and best level of WMA at its best possible settings for 192kbps:




    Compare that to a spectograph of the worst level of older AAC compression (AAC-LC) at 128kbps (plus it is done with the poorest "fast" setting):



    So what this is showing is the exact opposite of what you said earlier, that 128 WMA is better than 192 AAC.

    You see, in reality, AAC at 128kbps is actually better than WMA at 192kbps.

    Do you want to see how much better AAC is compared to WMA when using the same sampling rate?
    04-06-2007 12:46 AM
  22. surur's Avatar
    Archie,

    a) why should I accept material sourced from you? How do I know your setup is accurate and not biased?

    b) Spectrograph's are poor at telling us what subjective sound quality is, as with lossly compression some information gets discarded intentionally.

    c) I never said 128 kb/sec WMA is better than 192 kb/sec AAC, thats just your poor reading as usual.

    d) You DID say 128 AAC is better than 192 WMA (a pretty stupid thing to say)

    e) My links, from an independent website that measures many many codecs, prove you wrong.



    http://www.soundexpert.info/coders192.jsp
    http://www.soundexpert.info/coders128.jsp

    Archie, wrong wrong wrong again..... :cry:

    Surur
    04-06-2007 05:53 AM
  23. archie's Avatar
    a)This is why I didn't want to get into this with you. I knew there would be things you would not understand and then any readers that might be left at this point (along with myself) would have to deal with your typical irrational statements.

    b)Well you are correct in saying that "spectographs are poor at telling us what subjective sound quality is". 'Course this should be obvious.
    What they ARE good at are measuring the objective facts.

    c) Yes you did. It's the first thing at the top of this page. I quoted you.

    d) Yes I did say that 128 kbps AAC is better than 192 kbps WMA and I even crippled AAC as much as I could and picked out THE VERY best performance of WMA revisions with the best possible settings. There is no bias here other than me trying to make WMA shine as much as possible. THIS should be noted.

    e)In looking at my first post on this page you will notice a few reasons for accounting in this poor performance of AAC. They even admit to it in your links so I don't know why you insist on using these to back up your insistance that I am wrong, wrong, wrong. Oh, and why are you comparing 198 kbps WMA to 134 kbps AAC? ...oh, maybe I'm just reading it poorly as usual.

    For comparison sake, here's AAC at 192 kbps:



    here's what Apple will be using in the future, AAC at 256 kbps:



    Now you can get your last word in because I'm done discussing this with you.
    04-06-2007 10:21 AM
  24. surur's Avatar
    c) I never said 128 kb/sec WMA is better than 192 kb/sec AAC, thats just your poor reading as usual.
    c) Yes you did. It's the first thing at the top of this page. I quoted you.

    In blind listening tests 192 kb/sec WMA scores higher than 128 kb/sec AAC from itunes. Get over to it.
    .
    Archie, do you suffer from dyslexia? You can tell me, really you can. If you do, I wont be so hard on you for not being able to read what's on the screen...

    Surur
    04-06-2007 11:20 AM
  25. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    c) Yes you did. It's the first thing at the top of this page. I quoted you.
    Finally, I understand what's going on here. It's pretty hard to have a reasoned debate with someone that either can't read or reverses facts regardless of clear evidence. Who knows where the spectrograph pictures came from (Photoshop comes to mind) - or even if they are correctly labeled.
    04-06-2007 06:03 PM
95 1234
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD