The Beatles' Apple vs Steve Jobs' Apple, part 2

The one and only Beatles DVD-Audio release

A reader responding to my The Beatles on iTunes? Who Cares? rant came up with this great summation: "iTunes are to audio what McDonald's is to hamburgers, but if this is how the public wants to buy music, then let 'em have it." Right on! Sound quality doesn't matter anymore, just the so-called convenience of downloading 1s and 0s at the cheapest possible price, or better yet for free. Why buy the complete "Sgt Pepper" when you can just get "With A Little Help From My Friends"? That's where it's at.

If a remastered recording sounds "better," but no one can hear it, does it sound better? No, not really. I get the feeling that the remastered tag has just been reduced to a catchphrase, something to connote goodness. Hey, it's been remastered, so it's got to be better. Yeah right, maybe, maybe not. I think Apple did a lousy job on the Beatles "Let it Be... Naked" CD a few years ago.

It's curious, the Beatles' Apple's supposed "remastering" for low-fi iTunes was mentioned again and again by The Audiophiliac's readers, as if the new digitalization would reveal new sound from the old tunes over 128 K iToons. Puh-leeze! Yes, sure, maybe they'll also put out remastered CDs or DVD-Audio like Apple did with last year's Love release. Maybe we'll get multichannel, 5.1 Beatles on Blu-ray, sure, why not? Now that would be something. We audiophiles can dream, but the market will collectively yawn.

[mcphenom]

Maybe thats why I never eat at mcdonalds

[moretroops]

I've abandoned itunes

Jobs' resistance to providing quality downloads is inexplicable. McDonalds serves cheap burgers because they're easy to make and profitable (actually, because corporate figures it's the best way for tenants to pay rent -- but that's another story). iTunes gives us 128 kps downloads because ... um, why exactly? It's not like it costs more to provide better downloads -- indeed, iTunes could charge higher prices.

I don't get it, Apple. iPods aren't just for earbuds anymore. If people want to spent a little more time downloading in exchange for better quality, let them choose that option. Apples' stance is baffling.

[b_baggins]

Sigh, yes it does.

You ever hear of a thing called bandwidth? It costs money to send those bits
over wires. It costs money in electricity, infrastructure, network equipment, etc.

So, just because it's electronic bits, doesn't mean it doesn't have a cost
associated with it. If you believe that, try and tell your electric company to stop
billing your for using electricity. After all, it's just electrons moving through wire,
and they aren't even organized into 1s and 0s like iTunes downloads.

[moretroops]

Even if you are correct, and there's a significant per-download cost difference to Apple for making lower compression music available (I'll take your word on that), iTunes could still charge higher prices. In fact, they already do for a limited amount of songs (256 for $1.29), just as other services like beatport.com (320 kbps) do for all their offerings.

So, again, if someone can explain why Apple wont offer better quality downloads for ALL of its music, I'm all ears. (And don't tell me there's no difference in sound quality -- that's only true for cheap earbuds). Your pithy response offers no explanation.

[minimalist]

Be careful...

[i]"iTunes are to audio what McDonald's is to hamburgers, but if this is how
the public wants to buy music, then let 'em have it."[/i]

I am sure many of the food evangelists of today would be horrified to learn
that Julia Child LOVED McDonald's. (Gorden Ramsey does as well)

I think fact that says volumes about the difference between enthusiastic
advocacy and snide condescention. I think many audiophiles could learn a
thing or too from Julia.

[verbalvoodoo]

No DETECTABLE Audio Difference

One can?t help but be very amused at the self-professed ?audiophiles? who claim to be able to hear differences in audio quality that we mere mortals can?t possible appreciate.

?Why I?d never demean myself by listing to a MP3!? cluck the audio snobs while sipping their tea, pinky fingers firmly outstretched and noses turned up.

Please. I play a song on a CD and then I play that same song I downloaded from iTunes and there is absolutely no noticeable difference in quality. None.

The real question is what is going on psychologically with some people that make them think (I won?t use the word delusion) there is this massive audio distortion that only they and they alone can here? Is this really a self-esteem issue masquerading as a technological one? They do seem to be proud of their ability to detect this ?distortion? that they alone can detect. Are they truly hearing a massive sound distortion or are they just hearing what they want to be there instead of what actually is?

There is no noticeable difference between the music purchased on iTunes and the music played on a CD.

I better repeat that: There is no noticeable difference between the music purchased on iTunes and the music played on a CD.

The people selling you snake oil, er, I mean to say the people who are making the claim that there is a massive and distinct difference between iTunes songs and CD songs are either fooling themselves or just outright trying to fool others for reason that remain mysterious.

[fred dunn]

"Please. I play a song on a CD and then I play that same song I downloaded from iTunes and there is absolutely no noticeable difference in quality. None."

You are not an Audiophile. A true Audiophile looks at the class/crossover distortion/intermodulation distortion/etc of the amplifier, the resonances/crossover type/crossover distortion/etc of the speakers, transducers, cabinet damping, cabinet resonance, impedance mismatches,etc.

One type of distrotion that digital music provides is called transient intermodulation distortion and is a by-product of the sampling frequency (BTW has to be filtered out with a very sharp low-pass filter).

When you think about even CD quality music, it is sampled at 44.1 KHz (44,100 times per second) so at 15Khz you have 2.94 data points to reassemble that point in time. Due to that it is the low-pass filter that "fools" your ears into thinking that it is being reproduced properly when in fact it is not.

The only means of reproducing music as it is supposed to be is the same means that it is produced, by linear means (ie; tape, vinyl LP) with the bandwidth to accomodate the range of frequencies to be reproduced.

Digital formats depend highly on the sampling frequency and the low-pass filter required by the Nyquist theory (it takes at least two samples to reproduce a note) but two sample points does not do music justice since music is not simple sine waves but rather complex waveforms. So when you look at the number of samples given by low sampling rate digital formats you are not receiving the music as it was recorded rather you are just receiving portions of it.

To summize: A lot is lost to the Audiophile since they have spent thousands of dollars on highly linear equipment and only receive a distorted no-linear representation of the work.

To that end some companies are re-introducing the Vinyl LP and turntable.
Will it make much of a difference? It depends on your equipment since a great deal of receivers/amplifiers being touted as high fidelity are in fact class D amplifiers which are pulse width modulated (hence digital) and muck up the works even if you have a true linear input.

[moretroops]

You're wrong. I better repeat that: you're wrong. There is a very noticeable difference between 128 kps and, say, 320 kps -- let alone b/w 128 and a CD! It's not snake oil. It's a glaring fact. If you personally can't hear the difference, I suggest getting a better system (what exactly are you listening to?) or a hearing aid. If you still can't hear the difference, then god bless you, you can look forward to a life of itunes bliss.

[verbalvoodoo]

What is unusual is that the vast majority don't seem to hear any significant difference.

As iTunes sales continue to go up and up and up -- there is little to no public outcry against the alleged massive audio distrotion that the audiophiles claim is there.

If this is because they don't have ten thousand dollar stereos, well, that might make sense.

Is Apple wrong for providing music for the masses and leaving out the very niche market of high end audiophiles?

99 percent of the customers that buy songs off iTunes don't notice any problems with the audio.

I find it curious as to why that is.

Why is it that 99 our of 100 iTunes customers can download and song and find no problems with sound quality whatsoever but there is 1 that seems to hear some sort of massive audio distortion so serious that they simply cannot listen to it.

Curious.

[minimalist]

I think you are being a bit harsh...

...because sonic differences do exist. And quality does make a difference.

But to me it?s just a question of the how much are will you pay for the diminishing returns you get with higher end equipment? When is good enough, good enough? The few iTunes albums I have sound just fine streamed via airport express to my NAD amp hooked up to my old Cambridge Soundworks satellite-sub system. I prefer VBR recordings from Amazon or other 3rd party music stores when possible but I am certainly not looking to replace those 128 kbps AAC?s with higher bit-rate versions or CD?s.

The real question is why does anyone have to be a condescending elitist to be an advocate of quality sound? If you truly care about audio what good are you doing if you sneer with contempt at all the McDonolds lovers?

[forkboy]

Sound quality

I'm no audiophile, but I know that I can hear a difference between a song encoded at 128kbps and one using a variable and higher bit rate. This is precisely why I decided to encode songs on my computer (from CDs - I don't download just because they are only offered at 128kbps) at a high & variable bit rate - you can tell the difference. However, I think it may also have much to do with to what music one is listening.

[epitone]

You're right... it doesn't matter!

But do let's crank out a few more posts about how and why it doesn't matter. The "Best Curmudgeon" category in the Bloggies remains conspicuously underfilled.

(I kid. But seriously, dude. I worry sometimes that you're going to blog your way to an aneurysm if you don't find something positive to write about, and soon.)

[4schler]

There is obviously a difference in quality, or else people wouldn't talk about it - it wouldn't be an option anywhere else, either, if that weren't the case. I know that I personally can hear a difference between even 128kbps and 160kbps, especially on nicer drivers. When I encode CDs, I use variable bit rate for just that reason. However, I'm also a classically trained musician, so if i weren't able to hear subtle differences like that, I probably wouldn't be very good at my profession. Just because most people "can't" (or don't) hear the differences doesn't mean they don't exist and it doesn't matter.

The McDonald's metaphor was not supposed to be a stab at McDonald's, but rather to explain the difference between companies who opt to offer convenience over quality. iTunes doesn't offer the option to buy high quality encoded audio just like McDonald's doesn't offer gourmet burgers.

It's not a matter of snobbery; it's a matter of people choosing to opt for quality in what they listen to over convenience and availability. It's not a matter of right and wrong, just a choice.

Just because Julia Child 'loved' McDonald's doesn't mean that she couldn't find a better burger, or make one for herself, for that matter.

[Feedbacker]

When iTunes started offering DRM-free music, wasn't it also mentioned that it would be at 256kbps encoding as well. And while initially $1.29, I see tracks listed at $0.99 now. So, what's the argument about? Someone obviously not keeping up with what Apple is doing? Seems to me people just like to complain.

[BeatleMegaFan]

This is still not right though. Take the world's greatest band and stick them on iTunes, and you get a regular band with online downloads to the masses. Ripping a CD is better than downloading off of iTunes, and not once have I complained about CD quality. It sounds fine.
Anyway, this is like taking a well made, fancy steak, changing the recipe for the worst and selling it through a cheap burger place. That's what the McDonald comparison should be. The Beatles made fantastic music, and now Apple is close to securing their music for iTunes. They'll have to "remaster" them, mess up the formats, etc... not cool.

Of course, if they do some kind of extraordinary thing with the music, say, offer the songs and albums in some hi-def quality that no one has along with a special iPod, I'll hop on the bandwagon. Hopefully, I'll be too busy staring at the Yellow Submarine iPod Touch with the whole catalog and films on it to cry about the last major holdout giving way to Apple. Sigh.

-BMF

[Deulce]

Mr Guttenberg, if you read this...
How come you haven't reviewed the Bang & Olufsen Form 2 Headphones?
Please do! :)

[mwaldyke]

Lots of stabs here at 128 kbps encoding. Whether you can hear a difference or not (if I can hear a difference, it is subtle and not worth fretting about), has nobody here heard of iTunes plus? No DRM and 256 kbps encoding. It's not the whole catalog, of course, but they're working on it. I would challenge even the "golden-eared" to tell the difference between a 256 kbps AAC recording and a CD, in a double-blind listening test. Quality material is there if you get down off your high horse and look for it.

If more RECORD LABELS would get with the program, maybe we could get this option for the whole iTunes catalog.

[Feedbacker]

When iTunes started offering DRM-free music, wasn't it also mentioned that it would be at 256kbps encoding as well. And while initially $1.29, I see tracks listed at $0.99 now. So, what's the argument about? Someone obviously not keeping up with what Apple is doing? Seems to me people just like to complain.