Posted 06/01/2007 at 10:26:02am

I actually did something very similar to what the other "Commenter" suggested, using both iTunes and M$ Media Player to rip music to CDs. The reference was Pink Floyd "The Wall", Disks One and Two. I downloaded versions off-line, as well as ripped them from the Mobile Fidelty, Gold-disc mastered series (about 15 years old). I used iTunes to rip from CD and then used M$ as well, and experimented with 192 versus 256, versus the ridiculously highest rate of Media player (I apologize, I can't remember what it is) around 300-500k. On the iPod, I heard no difference using the Apple provided buds. The difference was remarkable on the home system, which was a Denon AVR-985 (20-20k Hz, 100 watts at .05% THD) to really old Klipsch speakers. The speakers were EQ'ed (using auto-eq feature w/ mic) and stereo turned loud enough that a conversation would be very hard, but possible, to hold during peak transitions within the songs. The differences between 192 and 256 was evident, but not startling. The differences between iTunes ripped and Media Player was remarkable. I would say it was similar to going between CD and FM Radio. The iTunes sounded very condensed, with rapid transitions dampened. My conclusions: CDs are ripped at much better quality than iTunes is able to provide, with not much difference in iTunes ripped 192 or 256. Using other software to rip will have more effect than changing data rates. On a side note, but related to the article, the age difference doesn't surprise me. I don't think most people under 30 have heard uncompressed music. Meaning, I'm 37 and have heard the transitions from Vynil (sp?), cassette, CD, to compressed MP3. I can usually pick up quickly on high notes that have been compressed/uncompressed. If you haven't heard the difference, you're not going to really know what to listen for.