Recently I got in a bit of an argument with an avid Apple fan. His argument was that at 256 Kbps ITunes has come out with actual CD quality downloads. I disagreed.
I use various Audio players, but one of my favorites is Foobar, Foobar shows the bit rate in the lower left hand corner of the Foobar window. This is what I observed:
I chose 12 commercial CDs from my collection and played them using Foobar. The bit rate for these ranged anywhere from 798 to 1411.
AAC is in my opinion an Apple equivalent to MP3, these are lossy formats, there is a place for them but they are NOT CD quality. An audio format I like is Flac, Free Lossless Audio Compression. Flac enables audio files to be downloaded and stored using less bandwidth, agreed more than MP3 but the quality is still there. I ripped one those CDs to Flac format, decoded back to wave and burned a sample track back to a CD. The resulting bit rate was identical to the original. Flac seems to be truly lossless.
WMA is the Microsoft file format and from what I can tell a WMA file can be lossless or it can be lossy so just because a file is WMA does not mean it is lossless.
Now, lets do the math. I will agree that some of the audio spectrum is not discernible to many/most people, but still using the lowest bit rate from a commercial CD that I checked, 798 Kbps, and looking at the AAC file at 256 Kbps doesnt something stand out and hit you in the face? 798-256=533! Heck, the lost data would make a better bit rate than the "lossless" file. The 1411 Kbps file is even a bigger difference 1411-256=1155! 1155 IS CD quality, a whole CD quality file is lost when reduced to 256 Kbps.
I admit I am an old fart, I am in my 50s, but I remember listening to music on a good quality Audio system and enjoying listening to music as an activity all its own. I agree that when one listens to music over crappy speakers, ear buds, cell phones, etc the quality is not as noticeable. A poor quality recording sounds just as good as a high quality recording under those circumstances. However it does make a difference when played over a decent audio system.
This is where the consumer is being sold a bill of goods, lossy music formats are lossy. No if ands or buts about it. However, if one is told that something is just as good by a major corporation they are going to believe it. 256 Kbps is NOT equal to CD quality in fact a 256 Kbps file is not even close to CD quality. A 256 Kbps file takes up less space on a server, it uses less bandwidth, and involves no packaging, Inventory, transportation, and in fact has a much higher profit margin. Why not sell less for about the same price as the original?
If you like a song or performer, buy the CD, many artists sell CDs on their Websites or link to a preferred retailer and the Artist gets more of the money, or at least has an accurate accounting of how many units have actually sold. Even better attend concerts and buy CDs there, the Artist makes a better living that way.
Instead of fighting the consumer, the Record Companies should get on the bandwagon and actually promote the sale of CDs again, this might even mean that the price needs to come down a bit. The consumer should realize that they are being taken advantage of when they pay for lossy music files. Record companies are good at selling CDs as they are similar to LPs and the record companies have years of experience selling and distrbuting them. Why not do what they are good at? If the consumer is educated, the consumer would not want to settle for less at the same price as the original, and illegal downloads would be a lot less of a problem.
