One for all you audiophiles out there. Here is what the Audio Video Revolution website (http://www.avrev.com) has written about the sound quality bit of EMI's recent announcement regarding the release of non-DRMed higher quality digital music files via iTunes.
As you'll remember, as well as the major making its catalogue available via the Apple service without DRM restrictions, the non-DRMed tracks will also be encoded at 256 kbsp which means they will be of a better sound quality than tracks currently bought via iTunes, and elsewhere. The improved sound quality thing is one of the justifications for charging more for the non-DRMed tracks - $1.29 instead of 99 cents. But AVR reckon that the new premium tracks won't have as good a sound quality as EMI and Apple's PR spin has been suggesting.
They write: "[In its] press release dated April 2, 2007, Apple states that their 256 kbps AAC encoding results in audio quality that is 'indistinguishable from the original recording'. Suggesting to consumers that 256 kbps downloads are anything close to high-resolution music is truly misleading and highly damaging to the audio business. These are stereo tracks with audio that is audibly worse than the standard set by the Compact Disc (1,411.2 kbps) format launched 25 years ago. Has anyone working with music at Apple heard of Moore's Law? Products, software and overall applications are supposed to double in speed ever 18 months yet they are selling audio at less than 1982 standards as high-resolution? Anyone who has heard the audio goodness of a high-res format like DVD-Audio (up to 4,608 kbps - uncompressed PCM stereo) knows that Apple is selling the music buying public a bill of goods. While the iPod is without question the most successful audio format or component since the CD, it has also single handedly taken the art from making music - specifically the long standing practice of providing the highest fidelity to consumer formats. Now with downloads being dominated by iTunes and being played back on horrible, stock headphones for an iPod - why should people care about audio quality in stereo let alone music in high-resolution surround?"
I suspect they are right though, as with regards their last point, I'm not sure most music fans have ever cared that much about audio quality, which is why they have so readily accepted the current digital music services even thought their digital music files back track considerably in terms of sound quality in comparison with physical product music.
That said, experiments in delivering better quality digital music are, nevertheless, interesting to watch. One Liverpool based musician, Dean Walker, who seemingly shares AVR's opinion on EMI and Apple's sound quality claims, has made some of his tracks available online in what he says is a format that really is "indistinguishable to the original source", though those have been encoded at bit rates three to five times higher than the new EMI/Apple service will offer. If you're interested in the results - go check http://www.deanwalkermusic.com