Are CD-R's made from iTunes inferior to Commercial?

Hi Anthony

If you have downloaded AAC tracks they will sound fine but will not match the quality of either a commercial CD or a CD-R with uncompressed aiff or wav files.

Tog

Thanks Tog, should I convert to WAV files before burning? I have to admit that this whole process is VERY confusing!

Anthony

Yes they are inferior. In more ways than one.

But they will be OK for the car or something.

quote:

hanks Tog, should I convert to WAV files before burning?

You will have no choice but to convert to WAV.

Unless A) iTunes can create a data disc (doubt it) or B) you car stereo plays MP3s (possible).

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

quote:

hanks Tog, should I convert to WAV files before burning?

You will have no choice but to convert to WAV.

Unless A) iTunes can create a data disc (doubt it) or B) you car stereo plays MP3s (possible).

You don't need to convert to WAV before creating a CD from within iTunes: iTunes will convert "on the fly" to create an Audio CD which is then playable on any audio CD player.

Alternatively, if your CD player can play AAC files and you have recent (non-DRM) iTunes downloads then you cab set iTunes to create Data CDs.

Converting to WAV won't improve quality as you've already "lost" information to create the AAC file which Apple sells you (via iTunes). So to answer you initial question directly: downloads from iTunes (and written to CD) are inferior to commercial CDs but how much you will notice depends on the listening environment, equipment, etc.

Eloise

Thanks everyone for the replies. I am finding the whole digital thing a little overwhelming. Eventually, I probably will have to re-rip all my CD's to a better type of file on a large hdd. May get the Serve.

Anthony

Hi Anthony, I'm a relative newby myself and use itunes to rip cds which are stored on my macbook. I can confirm downloads from itunes are poor (bitter experience) and easily beaten by ripped cds. But you must be careful, this forum has helped me no end and if you have a mac I understand that it's best to go into itunes preferences, Import Settings then Import using AIFF and tick the error correction box (which I believe allows the transport to read the disc several times to minimise error correction).

If you want you can then investigate Pure Music (free trial) or others which take the file from itunes and play it from the ssd ram on the computer.A HiFace could also be used, there's loads of info on here. Have fun!

Thanks for words of wisdom! It is fun and I look forward to getting the best sound I can.

Anthony

quote:

Originally posted by smiglass:
Thanks everyone for the replies. I am finding the whole digital thing a little overwhelming. Eventually, I probably will have to re-rip all my CD's to a better type of file on a large hdd. May get the Serve

This is a really great place to start, especially if the whole process is a bit confusing–you'll need a DAC (or digital input), though, as the UnitiServe lacks an analogue output (as the HDX has).

quote:

Originally posted by Eloise:

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

quote:

hanks Tog, should I convert to WAV files before burning?

You will have no choice but to convert to WAV.

Unless A) iTunes can create a data disc (doubt it) or B) you car stereo plays MP3s (possible).

You don't need to convert to WAV before creating a CD from within iTunes: iTunes will convert "on the fly" to create an Audio CD which is then playable on any audio CD player.

Alternatively, if your CD player can play AAC files and you have recent (non-DRM) iTunes downloads then you cab set iTunes to create Data CDs.

Converting to WAV won't improve quality as you've already "lost" information to create the AAC file which Apple sells you (via iTunes). So to answer you initial question directly: downloads from iTunes (and written to CD) are inferior to commercial CDs but how much you will notice depends on the listening environment, equipment, etc.

Eloise

Yep, that's mainly why I m still surprise about iTunes offer and customer feedback.

Yes i have to agree that you can download music easily, but what about quality (very low on my point of view)
For Iphone/pod or other "on air" system, the Q would be enough but when listen them on a correct system that's another story

So having to pay for a "B class" music file....not my taste, would stay to the CD route a take a bit more time for a correct ripping ( AIFF or FLAC format).
If looking on the current CD price, not sure it's cheaper to buy them on iTunes....ony valid if you just need one track...but could certainly find it on the web

Secondary benefit of the CD : I will keep the source at the higher quality possible (as of now)
Cons : Storage of unneeded cd when ripped , but as the pros are so big....i will live with this constraint

My two cents

Couldn't agree more - why pay for a low quality file, it's not as if Apple charges a bargain basement price. Why anyone wants to pay for low bitrate compressed Beatles tracks is beyond me - what is the point of a remastered catalogue?

I think you can tell the difference on the ipod classic and although the Uniti/Qute both do a great job of covering up the deficiencies of aac it is still pretty poor.

Why pay the same money in many cases for poor quality music when you can rip better quality from the CD?

Rant over - back to the day job.

Tog

quote:

Originally posted by Tog:
Couldn't agree more - why pay for a low quality file, it's not as if Apple charges a bargain basement price. Why anyone wants to pay for low bitrate compressed Beatles tracks is beyond me - what is the point of a remastered catalogue?

I think you can tell the difference on the ipod classic and although the Uniti/Qute both do a great job of covering up the deficiencies of aac it is still pretty poor.

Why pay the same money in many cases for poor quality music when you can rip better quality from the CD?

Rant over - back to the day job.

Tog

Yep...the Quality have a price....but nobody is willing to pay for that so the impact is that we are moving slowly on a "low quality" society. (everybody wants everything for cheaper without keeping the initial objective...the emotion mainly provided by the quality )

It’s a Fast Food World…..we want everything now….and will change tomorrow…so who cares about quality.

Being asked to pay 3 times for the same track during our life (Vinyl, CD, Stream) is a big archievement for the majors ;-) … the Beatles (which still alive at least ) should appreciate ;-)

Yes, you are paying a bit less....but the quality is a lot lower than the price paid

quote:

Being asked to pay 3 times for the same track during our life (Vinyl, CD, Stream) is a big archievement for the majors ;-) … the Beatles (which still alive at least Cool ) should appreciate ;-)

4 times.... They will sell you the 24/48 FLACs on a USB drive. And yes, they are stunning.

Thanks for the advice. I agree we are paying too much for an inferior product but iTunes is so convenient. I have to travel over 100 miles to Amoeba in Los Angeles to get CD's and Vinyl, so downloading has given me access to music I would not otherwise have. BTW, I re-burned some of my jazz downloads after converting to lossless and using the sound check settings and what an improvement! More detail, depth and better tone. Just better SQ. I learning as I go, thanks for the information

Anthony

quote:

I have to travel over 100 miles to Amoeba in Los Angeles to get CD's and Vinyl

Ever heard of mail order? I bet Amoeba will mail you anything you want.

quote:

Originally posted by AbsoluteMusic:
Yep...the Quality have a price....but nobody is willing to pay for that so the impact is that we are moving slowly on a "low quality" society. (everybody wants everything for cheaper without keeping the initial objective...the emotion mainly provided by the quality )

It’s a Fast Food World…..we want everything now….and will change tomorrow…so who cares about quality.

Being asked to pay 3 times for the same track during our life (Vinyl, CD, Stream) is a big archievement for the majors ;-) … the Beatles (which still alive at least ) should appreciate ;-)

Yes, you are paying a bit less....but the quality is a lot lower than the price paid

Hardly costs any more to provide at least full birate files ... there is no excuse other than the majors probably fear that if Jobs et al provide the full fat stuff - nobody will buy silly shiny discs in nasty plastic cases with horrible artwork.

To add to this even venerable UK radio institutions like "PM" are reduced to items like ..guess the top 5 itunes Beatles tracks ... cue JL spinning in grave.

ArrrH

Tog

quote:

Originally posted by Tog:
...
Hardly costs any more to provide at least full birate files ... there is no excuse other than the majors probably fear that if Jobs et al provide the full fat stuff - nobody will buy silly shiny discs in nasty plastic cases with horrible artwork.

To add to this even venerable UK radio institutions like "PM" are reduced to items like ..guess the top 5 itunes Beatles tracks ... cue JL spinning in grave.

ArrrH

Tog

Read a recent interview with the founders of Spotify. They have all of the lossless files, and their licenses allow them to stream them. They don't because if bandwidth issues. Their tests have shown that for most people, streaming lossless would result in too many dropouts. Am sure it is frustrating for those premium service subscribers that do have high bandwidth internet connections.

No idea what Apple's (or Rhapsody's or any other's) licensing situation is. Obviously, streaming and selling downloads are not the same thing.

I do wonder what will happen when Spotify (or someone else) launches a CD-or-better streaming service. Right now, am using Rhapsody only to surf for new artists. Would likely subscribe, but am not sure if I could break the habit of "collecting" music!

Hook

Most ISPs would grind to a halt with full bitrate streaming on Spotify.

Tog

quote:

Originally posted by Eloise:
Converting to WAV won't improve quality as you've already "lost" information to create the AAC file which Apple sells you (via iTunes).

Eloise

Eloise,

Interesting you say this, is it not true that Apple Lossless is a true lossless format and does not loose any data i.e. you can recreate the original CD? I don't use Apple Lossless but would be interest to hear the experiences of others.

ASenna04

quote:

Originally posted by Asenna04:

quote:

Originally posted by Eloise:
Converting to WAV won't improve quality as you've already "lost" information to create the AAC file which Apple sells you (via iTunes).

Interesting you say this, is it not true that Apple Lossless is a true lossless format and does not loose any data i.e. you can recreate the original CD? I don't use Apple Lossless but would be interest to hear the experiences of others.

Yes, Apple Lossless files can be returned to WAV without any loss - hence the term lossless. However iTunes Store sells AAC encoded files which (like MP3) compress the file by throwing information away - hence can be described as lossy.

Eloise