You know, it is posts like this one, that remind me that most people really know nothing about technology.
There are a couple of flaws in his argument. First, he says the crappy quality comes from "losing the punch." Well, the punch is still there. The problem is that all the flaws in the music are more evident from the increased volume. The other flaw is that that way he is performed his example is with digital sound, most likely off of a CD, a 16-bit sound source. Meaning he is introducing clipping really quickly. Professional studios use either analog or 96-bit or great digital: clipping is a long ways away!
First, Apple embedding your information into a song only you should possess is hardly spyware. In fact, it fails to meet the basic definition of spyware! The supposition that someone would randomly guess a song you own (iTunes records are easily accessible by you, yourself and Apple) and use your e-mail address is extremely low unless they hack Apple's servers. Yeah, good luck on that one. So unless you really are illegally sharing your files, there should be no issues.
As far as inability to tell the difference, I call bravo sierra. Just because some people at Gizmodo can't tell the difference doesn't mean "no one can...." The quality is likely to go un-noticed unless you burn it to CD or DVD and listen to it properly - not off of an ipod which DOES introduce artifacts, one way or another. They actually put that guy's blog on the front page of Yahoo!
Posted by Skywalker at July 10, 2007 06:39 PM