It depends on the compression. MP4 is a lossless codec - in other words compression with MP4 does not change the data. MP3 does, however - although the loss is minimal as you approach 320k.
All of the stuff I have downloaded on iTunes has been .mp4. When I rip, I never use iTunes. I usually rip with separate software like SuperC so that I can use a lossless codec. Through other methods that I don't exactly condone and aren't legal, you can usually get very good lossless compressed files... -William -----Original Message----- From: Christina Barkan <[email protected]> To: The Horn List <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Sep 1, 2010 7:10 am Subject: Re: [Hornlist] survey: digital download vs CD release Yes, if you get an uncompressed version I agree that the sound quality would be the same or better. However, the downloaded music I have purchased or music of mine on CDs that I have ripped on to CD media is not uncompressed. It seems to me that the 'standard' today is an mp3 download. I have not seen an option to download uncompressed music from sites like Amazon. iTunes seems to provide a choice between 128 or 256 k bit rate but I don't think they have uncompressed versions either. Downloading a an uncompressed file from the publisher is great but how does that publisher promote their music to a large audience? When I was mentioning the difference I hear between an mp3 and a CD I was using the same playing equipment - Adcom amp and Magnaplaner speakers. I have also heard the same difference using the audio system in my car. My choice for the survey would be a CD and the availability of a lossless download. Tina On Aug 31, 2010, at 11:00 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Christina Barkan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I will add that the sound quality of a digital download is not as good as a CD. > > This is simply not true. There are many reputable sources for > purchasing music as files online that are the same or even higher > bit-rate than CD. From some sources, you are correct, and they offer > tracks in only MP3 or other compressed format. However, any decent > publisher would insist that an online-only release be made available > uncompressed (perhaps with the additional option of compressed > versions), or else the work of the audio engineers will be horribly > destroyed. > > As an audiophile, I would much rather get an uncompressed file > produced by the publisher than a CD. Even ripping from a CD is a > black art, and the results are neither consistent nor 100% accurate > almost ever. > > Christina, as to your experiment comparing lossless files on the iPod > to the CD, your findings are easily explained by the fact that > whatever device you use to play CDs is simply better at reproducing > sound than your iPod and headphones. > > All of that said, I think it is important to have a CD for > self-promotion. You can hand a CD to a music director you meet at a > party, and he/she can listen to it in the car the next morning. And > if you want your CD to end up in libraries, most are currently best > equipped to add a CD to their collection rather than audio files. My > last point is rather speculative, but I suspect that if he wants to > get his work on the radio, many radio stations would have a much > simpler time popping in a CD than anything else. > > So my vote is for a CD release along with downloadable files of the > highest bit-rate the publisher can produce. > > Michael > _______________________________________________ > post: [email protected] > unsubscribe or set options at > https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/tina.barkan%40mac.com _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/valkhorn%40aol.com _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
