ATV2 requires iTunes Match...feeling played.

[SonicStomp]

I know I'm in the minority here on this one, but I actually wish iTunes Match would leave my Apple Lossless tracks LOSSLESS...I don't like them being converted to AAC @ 256. Sure there isn't an audible difference in most cases but I'm a lossless guy and wish they would allow for that.

I have a fair amount of lossless my self - but it is no problem. iTunes match will leave them in their original format on your HD if they are > 256 kbps bit rate, it is only the upload that is transcoded to 256 AAC. Best of both worlds - lossless for your local network for home music, more manageable (but much smaller) 256 files for streaming to devices on the go.

 

[Alrescha]

You know that AAC from 192kbit upward is considered transparent. There is no audible difference to Flac/Alac. 256kbit is a nice safety buffer.

Some may consider it transparent, but I have tracks in both AAC/256 and Apple Lossless where I can pick out the AAC file every time.

One might argue that it's something else in the process and that AAC isn't to blame, but at the end of the day the lossless track sounds better than the compressed track and that's what counts.

A.
(and to stay on topic, I paid for iTunes Match just to mess with it. $25/yr is nothing)

 

[NightStorm]

Some may consider it transparent, but I have tracks in both AAC/256 and Apple Lossless where I can pick out the AAC file every time.

One might argue that it's something else in the process and that AAC isn't to blame, but at the end of the day the lossless track sounds better than the compressed track and that's what counts.

A.
(and to stay on topic, I paid for iTunes Match just to mess with it. $25/yr is nothing)

I can pick out the difference between ALAC and 256kbps AAC when listening to my encodes from the handful of DVD-Audio discs that I own (mainly the three Lord of the Rings Complete Collections), but that's about it.

I actually like the way match handles this as I wanted a way to keep the lossless copy in my library while having an AAC version on my iPhone (I also did not want to duplicate the album in my library -- one ALAC and one AAC -- as it makes the library "messy"). I wasn't willing to use the "convert all tracks to 128kps" option in iTunes, but I can now use iTunes Match to accomplish exactly what I wanted.

 

[Scarpad]

I subscribed but have turned it off for now untill apple gets a few patches out, as i'm having massive artwork problems with it now. It's nicest feature is streaming from the cloud, but the problem with that for those of us with lossless is streaming lossy files. If it allowed streaming with ios devices (really what you need it for) it would be great, but it doesnt the stuff needs to be downloaded. I prob won't be renewing when it runs out.

 

[Irishman]

You know that AAC from 192kbit upward is considered transparent. There is no audible difference to Flac/Alac. 256kbit is a nice safety buffer.

Obviously, I've personally moved beyond the phase where my mind will be changed by forum conversations. But thanks anyway!

 

[KeithJenner]

I hope Apple are listening to the few of us who did not have massive illegal libraries of music

In fact, this would only encourage people to download plenty of music by illegal means to justify the cost - something I will not do but I imagine others will.

As you don't seem to understand that there are other means of getting music into iTunes other than iTunes purchases and illegal downloads, I don't think I can really take much else that you say seriously.

 

[jamesvdm]

 

[Cardbear]

Oh my God!! 6.8 CENTS A DAY?

What is a measly $24.99 a year. I didn't have to wait forever to upload my 100 GB of music. Being over 40 I have hundreds of CDs that I imported to iTunes and know I have access to them where ever I go.

Think of it, only .068 cents a day! For a service that no one else offers. All my music, videos, pictures sync'd to what ever Apple device I choose to use.

Steve Got it right. Create everything and offer an unbeatable package!!!

 

[Irishman]

What is a measly $24.99 a year. I didn't have to wait forever to upload my 100 GB of music. Being over 40 I have hundreds of CDs that I imported to iTunes and know I have access to them where ever I go.

Think of it, only .068 cents a day! For a service that no one else offers. All my music, videos, pictures sync'd to what ever Apple device I choose to use.

Steve Got it right. Create everything and offer an unbeatable package!!!

Thanks, Apple Employee #2!

just kidding

 

[zhenya]

Technically speaking, you're right that the human ear only here's between 20Hz and 20KHz, but it's the overtones and release that you lose. It also changes the mixes since all frequencies are being compressed. Kick has a bit more kick, cymbals sound a little harsher, even "S's" on female voices don't sound quite as smooth. I agree MOST wouldn't hear it, but us musicians do.......unless it's Nickelback then it all sounds the same

It is extremely unlikely that in a real blind test you'd be able to tell the difference with properly prepared files. Years of testing have proved this time and time again. While I agree that I want my lossless files at home, Match makes an extremely convenient way for me to listen to my library in a very high quality format on the go or on my computer at work. FWIW, files downloaded from Match and then played in Foobar report ~300kbps bit rate, (vbr) which is pretty damn transparent.

I know I'm in the minority here on this one, but I actually wish iTunes Match would leave my Apple Lossless tracks LOSSLESS...I don't like them being converted to AAC @ 256. Sure there isn't an audible difference in most cases but I'm a lossless guy and wish they would allow for that.

It's been noted above, but be clear that Match does nothing to your source library.

 

[Irishman]

Technically speaking, you're right that the human ear only here's between 20Hz and 20KHz, but it's the overtones and release that you lose. It also changes the mixes since all frequencies are being compressed. Kick has a bit more kick, cymbals sound a little harsher, even "S's" on female voices don't sound quite as smooth. I agree MOST wouldn't hear it, but us musicians do.......unless it's Nickelback then it all sounds the same

IF you play it back on a proper headphone amp or DAC.

What is your setup? I'm shopping and am very interested in finding the most cost-effective solution.

 

[Mr. McMac]

Damn straight you are wrong. When it comes to problems with Apple products, without fail, it is the end-user who is either wrong or has failed to adapt.

I think you're drinking to much Apple Kool-Aid if you ask me.

 

[kas23]

I think you're drinking to much Apple Kool-Aid if you ask me.

I think you didn't detect my sarcasm if you ask me.

The really sad thing is that although my post was seemingly so ridiculously and rude, not one person identified it as obviously fake (or trolling). Likely, because on some level, although very abrupt or "brutal", they must've thought it was reasonable thinking.

 

[kevinfulton.ca]

IF you play it back on a proper headphone amp or DAC.

What is your setup? I'm shopping and am very interested in finding the most cost-effective solution.

Absolutely, but it's really more about knowing what to listen for. To be honest where I hear the difference is when a mix is being worked on and we're analyzing it constantly. You'll find a mix that sounds great, then you compress it to a different format for distribution and all the frequencies shift. Particularly the lows and highs. So we're not talking consumer gear here, more professional recordings. As another poster has stated before, compression changes everything no matter how "transparent" it's supposed to be.

As for setups. Haven't bothered purchasing one in years since I listen to most of my music in the car now, but I never recommend headphones and quality audio never comes cheap. They're too hard on the ears and it's hard to find a pair with good imaging. You're also asking somebody that likes things as flat as possible, which isn't very pleasing to the ear for most. That being said, have a look at some nice two channel amps from companies like Denon, Onkyo, Marantz, etc. The more power the better. Match them with a quality set of speakers and you'll have a nice setup. KEF and Paradigm are two of my favorite speaker brands, but with the KEF's you may want to pair them with a small sub since their more of a flat response speaker and don't have much low end. KEF's are also not as efficient so you'll need a more powerful amp to power them. Remember that more power doesn't necessarily mean more volume. It's more about giving more life to your speakers. The more power you give them the more jump they'll have. Also, speakers have a break in period so if they don't quite sound like they did in the store just give them a few months and they'll warm up. Hope that helps!

 

[Irishman]

Absolutely, but it's really more about knowing what to listen for. To be honest where I hear the difference is when a mix is being worked on and we're analyzing it constantly. You'll find a mix that sounds great, then you compress it to a different format for distribution and all the frequencies shift. Particularly the lows and highs. So we're not talking consumer gear here, more professional recordings. As another poster has stated before, compression changes everything no matter how "transparent" it's supposed to be.

As for setups. Haven't bothered purchasing one in years since I listen to most of my music in the car now, but I never recommend headphones and quality audio never comes cheap. They're too hard on the ears and it's hard to find a pair with good imaging. You're also asking somebody that likes things as flat as possible, which isn't very pleasing to the ear for most. That being said, have a look at some nice two channel amps from companies like Denon, Onkyo, Marantz, etc. The more power the better. Match them with a quality set of speakers and you'll have a nice setup. KEF and Paradigm are two of my favorite speaker brands, but with the KEF's you may want to pair them with a small sub since their more of a flat response speaker and don't have much low end. KEF's are also not as efficient so you'll need a more powerful amp to power them. Remember that more power doesn't necessarily mean more volume. It's more about giving more life to your speakers. The more power you give them the more jump they'll have. Also, speakers have a break in period so if they don't quite sound like they did in the store just give them a few months and they'll warm up. Hope that helps!

It helps, but it also leaves me with my main question unanswered, sadly.

Does your home setup allow you the ability to HEAR the difference between lossy and lossless formats from files downloaded onto your iDevices?

 

[kevinfulton.ca]

It helps, but it also leaves me with my main question unanswered, sadly.

Does your home setup allow you the ability to HEAR the difference between lossy and lossless formats from files downloaded onto your iDevices?

Sorry about that. You caught me babbling. As I said, I haven't bother purchasing a home setup for a while. In the studio? Yes, absolutely. With a high quality home set up? Yes, absolutely. In my car? Not so much. TV speakers? Not at all. So what that tells you is YES I can hear the difference, but when using good gear, but also I know what to listen for. Selling hi-end gear for years teaches you what to listen for so that you can sell the more expensive stuff . If somebody came to me and said "here's the exact same mix, but in two different levels of compression" I'd be able to tell them apart and what the differences are. However, let's say the person doing the mixing did a separate mix that compensates for the differences in compression (which they should do!) it would take a lot more time, and multiple listens, to tell the difference. In the end the more compressed would have a slightly harsher sounding top end and that would be the only give away. Listening casually I probably wouldn't hear the difference and it's never been something that nags at me since I listen to most of my music in my car, but if somebody asks "does it sound different" I'll always say "yes" followed by a "..but it depends...."

 

[theSeb]

You know that AAC from 192kbit upward is considered transparent. There is no audible difference to Flac/Alac. 256kbit is a nice safety buffer.

That's true with laptop speakers and iPhone earphones. When you move past that sort of equipment you can certainly hear the difference.

----------

I have a fair amount of lossless my self - but it is no problem. iTunes match will leave them in their original format on your HD if they are > 256 kbps bit rate, it is only the upload that is transcoded to 256 AAC. Best of both worlds - lossless for your local network for home music, more manageable (but much smaller) 256 files for streaming to devices on the go.

Correct. My entire library is lossless and it's simply too big to carry around with me on the MBA. Now, thanks to iTunes match, I no longer have to muck about with two separate libraries (portable and lossless).

One question though: the album artwork from the cloud shows up on my iOS devices but not on my added MBA. Why?

 

[dgalvan123]

I think you didn't detect my sarcasm if you ask me.

The really sad thing is that although my post was seemingly so ridiculously and rude, not one person identified it as obviously fake (or trolling). Likely, because on some level, although very abrupt or "brutal", they must've thought it was reasonable thinking.

That, or you're just not very good at sarcasm.

 

[chrono1081]

All of my music has been purchased through iTunes too, so there is no reason for me to purchase iTunes Match - other than for streaming through my Apple TV.

Essentially this becomes a £21.99 per year charge to stream music I have paid for. Yes I know I can just play through my laptop - however I do take this away from home and I'm sure other people at home may want to listen to the music.

I hope Apple are listening to the few of us who did not have massive illegal libraries of music and who have been loyal from the start - would be nice to have our iCloud accessible from Apple TV.

In fact, it doesn't make sense. If it was 'stream from iCloud' then you'd still need iTunes Match if you wanted to play all your library (inc. music not bought from iTunes) so why make it connect to iTunes Match?! Just make it connect to iCloud.

Or do it like everyone else and use Homeshare and stream it for free from your computer.

EDIT: I missed where you said you wanted to do that, but you have to remember Apple pays royalties to stream things vs download, not to mention the sheer cost of operating iTunes match so the cost is passed to the consumer.

 

[Irishman]

Sorry about that. You caught me babbling. As I said, I haven't bother purchasing a home setup for a while. In the studio? Yes, absolutely. With a high quality home set up? Yes, absolutely. In my car? Not so much. TV speakers? Not at all. So what that tells you is YES I can hear the difference, but when using good gear, but also I know what to listen for. Selling hi-end gear for years teaches you what to listen for so that you can sell the more expensive stuff . If somebody came to me and said "here's the exact same mix, but in two different levels of compression" I'd be able to tell them apart and what the differences are. However, let's say the person doing the mixing did a separate mix that compensates for the differences in compression (which they should do!) it would take a lot more time, and multiple listens, to tell the difference. In the end the more compressed would have a slightly harsher sounding top end and that would be the only give away. Listening casually I probably wouldn't hear the difference and it's never been something that nags at me since I listen to most of my music in my car, but if somebody asks "does it sound different" I'll always say "yes" followed by a "..but it depends...."

So, if I invest in some good B & W's and pair them with a Pioneer Elite SC-57 class-D AVR, and pick up a high-end dedicated iPod DAC that bypasses the digital out of the 30-pin connector, I'll be okay?

----------

That's true with laptop speakers and iPhone earphones. When you move past that sort of equipment you can certainly hear the difference.

----------



Correct. My entire library is lossless and it's simply too big to carry around with me on the MBA. Now, thanks to iTunes match, I no longer have to muck about with two separate libraries (portable and lossless).

One question though: the album artwork from the cloud shows up on my iOS devices but not on my added MBA. Why?

theseb,

Okay, please continue with that train of thought. What I'm trying to do is to get you guys to name names of gear that is above and beyond iPod earbuds.

 

[theSeb]

Can I assume that you're in Ireland/Europe based on your nick name? If you can solve my album covers problem, then I'll be happy to help.

Nah, I'll post some stuff in a separate thread but where you are does make a slight difference hence why I am asking.

 

[kevinfulton.ca]

So, if I invest in some good B & W's and pair them with a Pioneer Elite SC-57 class-D AVR, and pick up a high-end dedicated iPod DAC that bypasses the digital out of the 30-pin connector, I'll be okay?

Of course you don't have to spend THAT much. No need for sarcasm. I believe I suggested some good brands that range in price in previous posts. You'll be spending around $300-$500 (canadian) for a good two channel amp and probably about the same for a pair of good bookshelf speakers. For headphones some good brands are AKG, Sennheiser, and Audio-Technica. At least those are the brands that I've used for studio. Not sure what their consumer models are like. Unfortunately I can't name models, but I have yet to listen to a pair under $200 that sound decent. If I were you I'd go out and have a listen to some just like you would a pair of speakers since it really comes down to personal taste. Best of luck to you!

Okay, please continue with that train of thought. What I'm trying to do is to get you guys to name names of gear that is above and beyond iPod earbuds.

[/QUOTE]

 

[theSeb]

It all depends on how much you're willing to spend. Sennheiser make some great headphones, but they also make some cheap ones too. AKG and Audio-Technica are also highly regarded. I would also take a look at something from the Grado stable, if the open ear design will not be a problem. They make amazing sound, but the open cans bleed a lot of the sound so they are great if you're in your own room, but not so great elsewhere because people will be disturbed by your music.

The nice thing about good quality headphones is that you would have to spend many times more to achieve the same impact and quality if you're using speakers. I would look for a good quality headphone amp / DAC. I would suggest something like an Audiolab MDAC. It will serve you well for many years before you outgrow it.

This audiophile thing is like a disease if you get into it. Bear in mind that as you look for better and more expensive equipment, the law of diminishing returns applies. In basic terms, a £2000 amplifier may sound x times better than a £1000 amplifier - it does not mean that a £4000 amplifier will sound 2x times better, if you get my drift.

 

[Irishman]

Can I assume that you're in Ireland/Europe based on your nick name? If you can solve my album covers problem, then I'll be happy to help.

Nah, I'll post some stuff in a separate thread but where you are does make a slight difference hence why I am asking.

I've got Irish ancestry. I currently live in North Carolina, in the US.

 

[bp1000]

It all depends on how much you're willing to spend. Sennheiser make some great headphones, but they also make some cheap ones too. AKG and Audio-Technica are also highly regarded. I would also take a look at something from the Grado stable, if the open ear design will not be a problem. They make amazing sound, but the open cans bleed a lot of the sound so they are great if you're in your own room, but not so great elsewhere because people will be disturbed by your music.

The nice thing about good quality headphones is that you would have to spend many times more to achieve the same impact and quality if you're using speakers. I would look for a good quality headphone amp / DAC. I would suggest something like an Audiolab MDAC. It will serve you well for many years before you outgrow it.

This audiophile thing is like a disease if you get into it. Bear in mind that as you look for better and more expensive equipment, the law of diminishing returns applies. In basic terms, a £2000 amplifier may sound x times better than a £1000 amplifier - it does not mean that a £4000 amplifier will sound 2x times better, if you get my drift.

I'm using iTunes match for exactly the same reason. I ripped all my CDs to lossless, too much for my MBA. That iTunes profile streams locally via airport express and optically into a dac and then into a Puresound valve amp. It sounds awesome then equally good are a pair of beyerdynamc dt-250 80ohm headphones plugged into my MBA streaming from match or on my iPhone / iPad. I reckon a dac magic would dramatically improve it even further for computer stuff.

Don't overlook the beyerdynamics, they are expensive but so tonally accurate and dynamic it's unberlievable