Same Song Different way of hearing it.
mantis
Posts: 17,201
Al Di Meola "Winter Nights" is one of my favorite songs to use to evaluate a system , speakers , room etc. I have been reading about Mastered for iTunes and Decided to do a small shoot out over the ways of listening before this.
I plan on downloading a version from iTunes of this song in 256 mastered for iTunes to see what differences this will make.
To get started I also have this song recorded directly from the CD in a few different formats to see if the recording will change anything. I've done this part before but to refresh my memory I decided to do it again.
I have a copy in AIFF , WAV and Lossless. I'm gonna rip a version is standard 256k and listen to that , then I'm gonna download the 256 Mastered for iTunes version. I also have the original CD on hand . I'll pass it over Optical , Analog and HDMI to see if there is any differences my Cambridge Audio player will introduce if any.
ROUND 1 AIFF , WAV , APPLE LOSSLESS.
Call me crazy but there is little difference between these recording formats that I can hear. I've listened back and forth A B C ing the hell out them running the exact part of the track 0 to 2:30 over and over and If I was to guess a difference I would say WAV and LOSSLESS sound Identical with maybe WAV having a slight edge in clarity in back ground sounds but it might not even be a real thing as I switch back and forth and find all the same tones and dynamics. SAme goes for AIFF. If I remember correctly I thought last time I did this shootout , I heard some difference in these recording formats. If there are some , it's incredibly hard to tell. They all are detailed and clean.
NOTE: I have both a Apple TV 160g and a Apple TV 3 which is the newest version 1080p model. This model you have to stream all music to it as it doesn't have a internal hard drive. The 160g has a internal hard drive and all these tracks live there. I have found as this shoot out isn't about the differences in the 2 apple TV's , but about how songs are ripped and how they sound when played back. I'll just say this , the old APPLE TV sounds much better then the streaming Apple TV3. Apple TV 3 is not going to be used to judge these files. I can however make a new thread on how they sound very different and why I decided the old Apple Tv sounds better.
ROUND 2 CD OVER OPTICAL AND HDMI.
I also have analog connections but this will change the test as the DAC in the Cambridge sounds different then the DAC's in my receiver(SC-07). I actually think it's a warmer more natural sound which will really change the comparison when the output is figured out to be the best sounding digital transfer. The reason for this shootout is I have heard that HDMI is not the best way to send digital info for music listening as loss happens. Coax or optical are a better carrier for audio signals. I fully don't believe that but hey why not find out if there are any differences in overall sound quality here. I really stopped comparing digital when I have done so many optical vs coax in the past and came away with they sound exactly the same no matter what player , system , speakers , room or even quality when you start getting into very high end cables of both kinds. But HDMI has had one very small difference for me when I was using a Binary B5 level HDMI cable and switched to Audioquest Cinnamon Silver model. Awhile back when I was building my system from component to HDMI , I have ran hundreds of HDMI cables in many systems and really didn't notice any audio or video differences at short lengths. In very short I found the Audioquest to sound slightly better then the Binary which cost to cost they are very very close. Could be I thought I heard differences but when I did the shootout years ago I was convinced the Audioquest was a better cable and re wired my entire system as such.
In this test , the HDMI and optical made no difference so I decided to just use HDMI and be done with it. I'll spare all of you the back and forth no differences I didn't hear.
ROUND 3 CD VS APPLE LOSSLESS.
So here is where it's pretty noticeable. Same DAC's , both being send over HDMI over the same kind of HDMI and I can clearly hear differences in many many ways. When you listen to the CD , it sound open and clear. You hear every single note , cue , harmonic and the dynamic range is full and powerful. When you listen to the compressed version you realize your missing some openness some of the tones are slightly shadowed and the dynamic range seems slightly limited. It's like how some feel about grills on or off on your speakers where you feel a clarity is unmasked when you remove them. I feel this way when you listen to the CD version over the ripped version. Now maybe the APPLE TV is not the best way to perform this test but I don't see a better way unless I run optical right out of my computer . The Apple TV has a built in hard drive and stores an exact copy, I don't see how it could possibly sound any different. maybe it does but that will be for another time.
So I'll get a copy of mastered for iTunes and compare it to the cd and Lossless. I can't imagine it sounding better then lossless being recorded at 256K or maybe it can. Maybe iTunes figured out a better way to compress the file yet sound exactly as the CD does. Thats the claim isn't it? But shouldn't Lossless WAV and AIFF also sound exactly like the CD? They don't or maybe it's the Apple TV that doesn't sound as good?
Who the hell knows. Maybe I should get another mac mini and make a server out of it , there is suppose to be very good software that works with iTunes but masters better.
I plan on downloading a version from iTunes of this song in 256 mastered for iTunes to see what differences this will make.
To get started I also have this song recorded directly from the CD in a few different formats to see if the recording will change anything. I've done this part before but to refresh my memory I decided to do it again.
I have a copy in AIFF , WAV and Lossless. I'm gonna rip a version is standard 256k and listen to that , then I'm gonna download the 256 Mastered for iTunes version. I also have the original CD on hand . I'll pass it over Optical , Analog and HDMI to see if there is any differences my Cambridge Audio player will introduce if any.
ROUND 1 AIFF , WAV , APPLE LOSSLESS.
Call me crazy but there is little difference between these recording formats that I can hear. I've listened back and forth A B C ing the hell out them running the exact part of the track 0 to 2:30 over and over and If I was to guess a difference I would say WAV and LOSSLESS sound Identical with maybe WAV having a slight edge in clarity in back ground sounds but it might not even be a real thing as I switch back and forth and find all the same tones and dynamics. SAme goes for AIFF. If I remember correctly I thought last time I did this shootout , I heard some difference in these recording formats. If there are some , it's incredibly hard to tell. They all are detailed and clean.
NOTE: I have both a Apple TV 160g and a Apple TV 3 which is the newest version 1080p model. This model you have to stream all music to it as it doesn't have a internal hard drive. The 160g has a internal hard drive and all these tracks live there. I have found as this shoot out isn't about the differences in the 2 apple TV's , but about how songs are ripped and how they sound when played back. I'll just say this , the old APPLE TV sounds much better then the streaming Apple TV3. Apple TV 3 is not going to be used to judge these files. I can however make a new thread on how they sound very different and why I decided the old Apple Tv sounds better.
ROUND 2 CD OVER OPTICAL AND HDMI.
I also have analog connections but this will change the test as the DAC in the Cambridge sounds different then the DAC's in my receiver(SC-07). I actually think it's a warmer more natural sound which will really change the comparison when the output is figured out to be the best sounding digital transfer. The reason for this shootout is I have heard that HDMI is not the best way to send digital info for music listening as loss happens. Coax or optical are a better carrier for audio signals. I fully don't believe that but hey why not find out if there are any differences in overall sound quality here. I really stopped comparing digital when I have done so many optical vs coax in the past and came away with they sound exactly the same no matter what player , system , speakers , room or even quality when you start getting into very high end cables of both kinds. But HDMI has had one very small difference for me when I was using a Binary B5 level HDMI cable and switched to Audioquest Cinnamon Silver model. Awhile back when I was building my system from component to HDMI , I have ran hundreds of HDMI cables in many systems and really didn't notice any audio or video differences at short lengths. In very short I found the Audioquest to sound slightly better then the Binary which cost to cost they are very very close. Could be I thought I heard differences but when I did the shootout years ago I was convinced the Audioquest was a better cable and re wired my entire system as such.
In this test , the HDMI and optical made no difference so I decided to just use HDMI and be done with it. I'll spare all of you the back and forth no differences I didn't hear.
ROUND 3 CD VS APPLE LOSSLESS.
So here is where it's pretty noticeable. Same DAC's , both being send over HDMI over the same kind of HDMI and I can clearly hear differences in many many ways. When you listen to the CD , it sound open and clear. You hear every single note , cue , harmonic and the dynamic range is full and powerful. When you listen to the compressed version you realize your missing some openness some of the tones are slightly shadowed and the dynamic range seems slightly limited. It's like how some feel about grills on or off on your speakers where you feel a clarity is unmasked when you remove them. I feel this way when you listen to the CD version over the ripped version. Now maybe the APPLE TV is not the best way to perform this test but I don't see a better way unless I run optical right out of my computer . The Apple TV has a built in hard drive and stores an exact copy, I don't see how it could possibly sound any different. maybe it does but that will be for another time.
So I'll get a copy of mastered for iTunes and compare it to the cd and Lossless. I can't imagine it sounding better then lossless being recorded at 256K or maybe it can. Maybe iTunes figured out a better way to compress the file yet sound exactly as the CD does. Thats the claim isn't it? But shouldn't Lossless WAV and AIFF also sound exactly like the CD? They don't or maybe it's the Apple TV that doesn't sound as good?
Who the hell knows. Maybe I should get another mac mini and make a server out of it , there is suppose to be very good software that works with iTunes but masters better.
Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
Post edited by mantis on
Comments
-
Ai Di Meola is not on Mastered For iTunes so I had to select another song that I could use for testing. I found Norah Jones " Come Away With Me" which I have Ripped in Lossless , Cd and SACD.
I downloaded the song in mastered For Intunes and the first thing I noticed is the song is 1 second longer then the CD version. Wield but it is what it is.
Forget the CD version for now I really wanted to demo the Mastered For iTunes version as it's the latest and greatest thing going on in downloaded music. I wanted to see if they can create the cd sound better then the Lossless version. Is this version worth checking out and at 256k would save a ton of hard disk space.
So far the Mastered version and the Lossless version well I'll say this , I can't tell them apart at all. They sound exactly the same in every way. There is no loss in sound anywhere. I'm wondering since this song is limited to how much is going on and the slow pace of it makes it easier to master and compressing it had little effect? Well it's not better then the Lossless version and the Lossless version still sounds a bit different then the CD version which sounds better. SACD there is no compare as the SACD version is more lifelike which to me is how all music should be recorded. Not that the Lossless , Mastered or CD Version is unlistenable but it's not as good as it could be. Again you give up a little for convenience.
It is remarkable that the 256k version is exactly the same sounding as the lossless version. 256k vs 812k. Both versions are sample rate of 44.1 Khz so dynamically they are identical. File size is 19.3 for Lossless vs 7.1 for the Mastered version. I've only listened to both of them about 12 times now going back and forth and I can't find anything that stands out. Nothing which there should be something right? I mean it's a huge difference in file size and I have 1 second more with the Mastered version.
This might be a remarkable upgrade for iTunes and the quality we can purchase. I'm very happy with it so far. I might download a few other songs for a more fair compare. Using one song might not reveal the whole truth. What would make me completely happy is if the Mastered version was exactly the same as the CD version. Ripped they are but when I listen to the disc it sounds better more real and alive. CD is 44.1 as well so that should be exactly the same by spec. But when did spec's ever make anything sound better or worse?
it would be cool if some of you could run this little experiment and see what your results are. I'm gonna try the Apple Tv 3 for the sheer hell of it and see if it's better suited for that device to sound better then the Lossless version. The Apple Tv 160g sounds exact which is where this test was conducted.
To be continued.Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.