iTunes (or alternatives) Download Quality

[DavieCee]

I am currently re-ripping all my CDs to lossless format (& backed up) to be played wirelessly (?) via Airport Express to my DAC.

The quality is such that I am questioning keeping all my CDs, not to mention the player.

Here is my question (eventually), iTunes downloads are at 256 kbps which they claim are CD quality but I doubt.

I am not sure I want to buy CDs in the future, rip them and then either store them in the loft or put them on Ebay if I can simply download.

Any comments or suggestions? Or is ripping simply the only way to guarantee optimum quality?

 

[professorhat]

256 kbps is nowhere near CD quality. Right click on one of your ripped lossless tracks and have a look at the Properties (Get Info on the Mac version of iTunes, not sure about PC). The bitrate will probably be around the 800-900 kbps region, if not more. The bitrate of uncompressed CDs (or WAV files) is actually 1411.2 kbps - so you can see you're losing a lot of info when it's compressed down to a 256 kbps MP3 file.

You can get lossless downloads from some places, but not iTunes (or Amazon, or Play etc.) and they're pretty thin on the ground. For this reason, for now, I continue to purchase CDs and rip them. The bonus I find of this is, you can often find an album with 3 or 4 songs you definitely want for under £5 so not much more than purchasing the separate tracks from iTunes. However, you also get a load of tracks you've probably not heard and can often find gold tracks you didn't know. I've discovered quite a bit of new music by this method.

The CD can then live in a box somewhere if you want them out of the way, though I still display mine in a rack as I do still listen to the CD sometimes if I'm in proper music listening mode. The advantage there again is, they're your ultimate backup for your music (though you should obviously keep a backup of the hard drive to save you having to re-rip!) and also are something tangible meaning they're covered by your home insurance, whilst you may find only some / none of your downloaded digital collection is covered were it to be lost through fire / theft etc.

BTW - buying CDs, ripping them and then selling the CDs on is obviously illegal, although of course so is just ripping them under UK law. However, I would argue that ripping a CD you own is fine morally, whereas ripping a CD then selling it is on very dubious ground morally.

 

[DavidNorway]

I agree with all that professorhat says,i still buy cds and have them on shelves and love playing them,they also spend a lot of time in the car.A few years ago i lived in a place where i could not buy cds so i tried buying downloads from itunes,the sq is really not very good,not ever going to do that again.Keep buying the real hard copy and enjoy reading the sleeve notes,that part of the buying listening experience for me.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

always go for the highest quality (and the most universal format) you can get. this way you can be sure your curretn and future system can take advantage of higher quality and be compatible. hard disk space is no longer an issue these days.

in reality, you cannot get everything on CD or hirez downloads and inevitably end up with tracks in lower bit rates eg amazon and itunes, so in reality it is going to be a mix.

 

[DavieCee]

Thanks for the comments guys. Sounds like CDs is still the way to go.

I hadn't thought of the legal aspect

Edit:- of selling.

I did know about the lossless rip rate, hence my sceptism.

Another reason for going down the ripping route is that some of my older, 20 year+, CDs are getting iffy. Some machines will play them, some won't so it's better to copy while I can.

 

[professorhat]

DavieCee:Another reason for going down the ripping route is that some of my older, 20 year+, CDs are getting iffy. Some machines will play them, some won't so it's better to copy while I can.

Indeed - with a lossless copy on your hard disk, you can always write a brand new version to CD if you need to. So the two systems work well in tandem.

 

[Clare Newsome]

Although technically illegal to rip copies of your own CDs, I have an on-the-record statement from the head of the IFPI (recording industry trade body) that they consider it 'fair use', and would not pursue a prosecution, providing the files were purely for your own use.

It's sharing those ripped files with other people - in any way - that immediately gets you in trouble.

 

[the record spot]

Sounds like a common sense approach. I keep the CD, have a 192kbps version for the iPod nano (only 8Gb) (lol, "only"...how much could the original Walkman take...1 tape!) and follows on from similar thinking around home taping which turns out never did kill music after all!

 

[Alec]

I'm fine with the odd download; they sound ok to me. They may to you too, or they may not

 

[Anonymous]

The audible difference between properly done 256 kbps AAC (iTunes) or 320 kbps MP3, and a CD original, will be very small, and you'll have a hard time hearing it at all with most music.

The reason why you might hear a difference in CD and iTunes playback, is most often that 'Sound improvement' is checked in iTunes. Despite the name, this function muddles the sound. Might sound more pleasing and less 'fatiguing' in some settings, but sounds bad compared to clean sound. Always uncheck this function if you're concerned about sound quality!

With top quality recordings of complex music, on a high quality system, you'll probably be able to hear a difference anyway. So it's a good idea to consider the type of music and the recording, as well as how you intend to use the music, before you decide which medium to buy.

Myself I buy AACs from iTunes (and occasionally MP3 from other on-line stores), as well as CDs (that I rip to ALAC) and high resolution files from Linn Records and the like -- dependent on type of music, recording quality, and whether I expect to use the recording for background music or for critical listening.

Little use in a 24 bits/96 kHz version of a 1960's single or 1930's 78 rpm original -- while a full symphony might sound disappointing in a compressed format.

 

[DavieCee]

I agree that 256 - 320kbs may be difficult to spot but I can tell if something is 192 or below, especially in the bass notes.

Hard disc space is so cheap why compromise? And the way I see it, with hardware improving all the time I would rather not compromise now, and have to re-rip later to get future benefits.

For best sound, I agree on unchecking "Sound Improvement" but also, uncheck "Sound Check". You wouldn't think setting the db level would affect the sound quality but for some reason it seems to compress and dull tracks - to my ears anyway.