Without being a complete technical expert, I would add that the way digital is mastered in the first place is more significant than the resolution. That's a general problem with digital, especially 16-bit. I find that aac is better at avoiding high frequencies, which mp3 may exaggerate. Most of them, including CDs, miss the small vibrations that make up the resonance that should fill the air.

Huh? The quality of phone calls is worse with the cell phone, yet it's getting to the point where we all use mobile more than land lines. Anyone have a DVD player in their car? Watch a video on your iPod? The quality of music coming out of those "cheap" ear buds sounds 2X better than what came out of the early portable CD players and 10X better than the old Sony Walkman (yes, the ones that played tapes).

This is a non-story. It turns out that there are many examples where we will give up quality for portability but given the iPod/iPhone numbers, few care about the "cheap" earbuds. And those who do go buy expense Bose or Shure phones or earbuds.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but what a plainly targeted hack job on APPLE!

I have been producing music for well over 30 years, as well as serving as a voting member in the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, (NARAS), so I feel reasonably qualified to speak to your assertions and offer a contrasting point of view.

1) Since the advent of "rock & roll," radio, there has ALWAYS been heavy compression, cheap speakers, crummy headphones and low end audio systems. Apple iPods have no part or fault in the beginnings and mass acceptance of this "lowest common denominator," price and consumer driven occurrence.

2) Overuse of compression and the resultant flattening of dynamic range has ALWAYS been a concern to any self-respecting engineer... long before there was an iPod or even an Apple.

3) The limited frequency response and manipulated dynamic range of an MP3 has long been known, which is why it was / is intended to be only relegated as a medium for PORTABLE music devices, (which the iPod happens to be.) For anyone serious about fidelity there are many forms of High-Definition audio devices and media available for critical listening. Ironic to your assertion, APPLE is at least trying to address this, if even on a limited basis, via iTunes enhanced premium product offering.

In summary, Apple DID NOT initiate the cause of poorly / inappropriately mastered music, heavy compression, or limited bandwidth encoding methods. Also, you don't have to use the "poor quality earbuds," that have been supplied with EVERY portable audio device since the Sony Walkman was introduced. In fact, the iPod is electronically capable of driving the FINEST audiophile headphones..

Finally, since the very first broadcast of recorded music, your statement, "music producers fret that they are engineering music to a technical lowest common denominator," has remained as a top issue of concern to the industry.

So... NONE of this is CAUSED by iPods or Apple.

Respectfully,
AUGUST

There is no doubt that compressed music is one of the first "advancements" that actually decreased the sound quality of music. (I won't get into the CD vs. vinyl thing -- althought I just hated scratchy warped records.)

I have a vast CD collection that is gathering dust because it is easier to stream my Rhapsody subcription through my home stereo and home theater systems than dig out a CD. It's crazy, but I am not listening to much music in my "sweet spot" these days.

I also enjoy DVD-Audio -- I also have it in my car --but there are so few new titles, I've lost interest.

All of this is unfortunate -- and I am upset with myself, but when I can instantly access almost any CD on Rhapsody -- pretty good sound becomes the enemy of great sound.

Zac, you are now exposed as a confirmed hater.

If you don't like the included earbuds, buy a new pair from Bose or whomever. Doesn't mean iPods are ruining music.

Bloggers like Zac make cost the BloggingStocks site credibility.

Seriously, I'm going to have to read *everything* here with a grain of salt (or even ignore the site completely) if Blogging Stocks is going to host blatant hit jobs and crap like this.

The poor quality of the majority of of compressed music is little to do with Apple and the iPod. In fact, Apple has gone to great lengths to improve it:

1. MP3s which are technically MPEG 1 (Audio Level 3) is an old format from the early 90's that very became popular with the illegal download sites of the late 90's. This occurred way before the iPod existed.

2. Apple initially supported MP3s due to their overwhelming popularity, but once the iPod got popular itself, Apple tried to push user to newer higher quality compression format from MPEG which is MPEQ 4 AAC (Advanced Audio Codaq). This is what iTunes defaults to and what the iTunes store uses combined w/ fairplay DRM.

3. Apple provides a lossless, very high quality option in iTunes that can be used with iPods

4. Apple recently increased the encoding from 128Mbs to 256Mbs on the recently unDRMed AAC files from iTunes for EMI artist.

It is not that Apple is perfect far from it, but they are doing a good job of increasing the quality (MPEQ AAC, Loosless) of the offered compression and had very little to do with the fact that it started with the lower quality MPEQ MP3).

The poor quality of the majority of of compressed music is little to do with Apple and the iPod. In fact, Apple has gone to great lengths to improve it:

1. MP3s which are technically MPEG 1 (Audio Level 3) is an old format from the early 90's that very became popular with the illegal download sites of the late 90's. This occurred way before the iPod existed.

2. Apple initially supported MP3s due to their overwhelming popularity, but once the iPod got popular itself, Apple tried to push user to newer higher quality compression format from MPEG which is MPEQ 4 AAC (Advanced Audio Codaq). This is what iTunes defaults to and what the iTunes store uses combined w/ fairplay DRM.

3. Apple provides a lossless, very high quality option in iTunes that can be used with iPods

4. Apple recently increased the encoding from 128Mbs to 256Mbs on the recently unDRMed AAC files from iTunes for EMI artist.

It is not that Apple is perfect far from it, but they are doing a good job of increasing the quality (MPEQ AAC, Loosless) of the offered compression and had very little to do with the fact that it started with the lower quality MPEQ MP3).

I frankly don't know what the big deal is about "compression". Digital has less compression than analog. Analog AM radio with its processing and compression was able to make music sound GREAT, compared to anything digital now and with higher resolution.
My issue with digital is loss of small vibrations, and tone. Greater dynamic range is in fact a bother when it's too wide for comfort.
I do think the blogger doesn't know the subject well, and equates all digital music with itunes. Apple's aac format is the least of those problems.

PS: Some people by "compression" seem to mean decreased dynamic (volume) range, while others mean the compression codecs. I don't criticize volume compression.

Is (Zac) Bissonnette ruining blogging?

My 13 year old is more plugged into technology than you are.
You're the worst offender of biased reporting I've seen because you read an article written by someone who actually knows something, misunderstand what is being said and then report it in a way that shows your readers how much you should go back to whatever you did before you decided to misunderstand for a living.
Washing cars isn't a bad way to make a living...at least it's honest.