Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPhone

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 13, 2012, 07:56 AM   #1
aliensarecool
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
itunes sells 256k songs?

i figured it'd be 320 or whatever
aliensarecool is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 09:01 AM   #2
Zimmy68
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by aliensarecool View Post
i figured it'd be 320 or whatever
Just reboot the phone, it should work then.
Zimmy68 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 09:58 AM   #3
lexvo
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Netherlands
My last purchase was also 256Kb/s songs.
__________________
27" iMac i5 - iPod 80GB - iPhone 5s 64GB - iPad3 - ATV3 - Airport Extreme - Airport Express
lexvo is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 10:00 AM   #4
vastoholic
macrumors 68000
 
vastoholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Tulsa, OK
Used to be even lower than that. I honestly think we should get a choice what we want them downloaded in. I've been trying to redo most of my library into lossless.
__________________
View my flickr sets....if you want. They're not too exciting.
vastoholic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 10:16 AM   #5
adam044
macrumors 65816
 
adam044's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Quote:
Originally Posted by aliensarecool View Post
i figured it'd be 320 or whatever
All is 256 DRM free
adam044 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 10:55 AM   #6
Daveoc64
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bristol, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by aliensarecool View Post
i figured it'd be 320 or whatever
Apple considers 256kbps to be a high bitrate!
__________________
Nexus 5 32GB Black (Three UK) | Nexus 7 (2012) | Kindle Paperwhite (2013)
iPhone 4 32GB
White MacBook (Late 2007)
Windows 8.1 | iCloud, Dropbox, Spotify Premium
Daveoc64 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 03:46 PM   #7
aaronrs7
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
At 256k you really have to have golden ears to hear a difference from cd. But.... a lot of people claim they can. My problem is, a lot of times the physical cd at the store is cheaper. If you buy the cd you get 100% quality that can be encoded to whatever bitrate you want. But most people want instant gratification and itunes is the solution. I believe a itunes album should cost less considering you are not even getting a physical object. At 256k I can't tell a difference. I'm actually ok with 128k aac vbr. I fail the blind listening tests every time. But if the actual cd is cheaper, it kills me to pay more for a technically inferior product. Itunes still remains the number 1 online retailer, so I may only be one of the few that feel this way.
aaronrs7 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 03:54 PM   #8
bogatyr
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronrs7 View Post
At 256k you really have to have golden ears to hear a difference from cd. But.... a lot of people claim they can. My problem is, a lot of times the physical cd at the store is cheaper. If you buy the cd you get 100% quality that can be encoded to whatever bitrate you want. But most people want instant gratification and itunes is the solution. I believe a itunes album should cost less considering you are not even getting a physical object. At 256k I can't tell a difference. I'm actually ok with 128k aac vbr. I fail the blind listening tests every time. But if the actual cd is cheaper, it kills me to pay more for a technically inferior product. Itunes still remains the number 1 online retailer, so I may only be one of the few that feel this way.
Not instant gratification - convenience and less waste. I don't have to rip a CD now and then either store the CD or trash it (waste or space or environment). My ears don't notice a difference in quality.
bogatyr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 04:03 PM   #9
vastoholic
macrumors 68000
 
vastoholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Tulsa, OK
On most of my listening devices I can't hear a difference past 256 either. On my car audio I can a little bit in the low and high ranges. I'm wanting lossless for if I ever upgrade to a nice home theater sound system. I have ample space to store them right now. Just like my video as well. I have a 37" LCD tv but always try to get 1080 over 720 just in case I ever upgrade to a better system.
__________________
View my flickr sets....if you want. They're not too exciting.
vastoholic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 04:17 PM   #10
aarond12
macrumors 6502a
 
aarond12's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Dallas, TX USA
The difference isn't between 256kb and 320kb, the difference is between AAC and MP3 files.

I have an extremely sensitive ear for the compression noise in certain lossy sound formats. (I attribute this to ear infections as a child which left holes in my eardrums, allowing me to hear higher frequencies than I would normally be able to hear. At age 43, I can still clearly hear the "teen buzz"/mosquito sounds.) I have no problems hearing the compression noise at 256kb MP3 files but I cannot hear almost any compression noise at 256kb AAC.

Apple's compression format (.m4a) is AAC. It used to be 128kb, which to my ears is acceptable, but then they increased it to 256kb which is nearly perfect to me.

If you want to enhance the compression noise to hear what is lost in the music, do this simple test:

In a home theater system, set your surround mode to Dolby Pro Logic. Then, disconnect all your speakers except for your surround speakers. Now, play the music through your system. You will hear background vocals loudly, but you will also hear the "watery" compression noise. Compare a 256kb AAC file to a 256kb (or even 320kb) MP3 file. There's quite a difference.
__________________
Voted "Most likely to start his own cult" by my high school class.
aarond12 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 06:07 PM   #11
stonyboys
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Like this guy said^

The 256kb lossless is pretty much perfect, and much better than mp3.
stonyboys is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 10:22 AM   #12
aaronrs7
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Oh and one other thing that I noticed. If any of you guys like to use the eq, you must use a higher bitrate. I thought 128k vbr aac sounded perfect, that is until I turned the eq on for a little added bass. I got nothing but distortion and clipping. I think that is due to the fact that so much of the music data is thrown away during compression, there is not much left to boost without distortion.
aaronrs7 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 12:56 PM   #13
Vundu
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Manchester, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonyboys View Post
Like this guy said^

The 256kb lossless is pretty much perfect, and much better than mp3.
256 is not lossless. AAC uses more compression which also lowers quality.

V0 is the best balance between size and quality IMO.
Vundu is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 01:20 PM   #14
cipher29
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimmy68 View Post
Just reboot the phone, it should work then.
I literally nearly spit coffee all over myself when I read this

----------

I find it funny when people complain about 256 vs 320...

There are so many other factors that are more important:


1) Your source.. The iPhone is a good source, but, hardly a source that's going to get full value out of lossless music

2) Most important in my mind is the compression that's happening with music today.. This is making music sound worse than 320 to even 128... It sounds like loud garbage

3) Headphones.. What are you using?

I have Shure SE535's and an iPhone 5 and the music I listen to sounds excellent for my setup..
cipher29 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 01:34 PM   #15
teknikal90
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
$50 says you cant tell the difference between a lossless CD rip and a 256kbps AAC itunes rip on a blind A/B test. even with the most expensive listening equipment on your iPhone
__________________
Logic Pro and Mainstage 3 User. I use iOS a lot.
teknikal90 is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 02:48 PM   #16
Menel
macrumors 601
 
Menel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Atlanta
Quote:
Originally Posted by teknikal90 View Post
$50 says you cant tell the difference between a lossless CD rip and a 256kbps AAC itunes rip on a blind A/B test. even with the most expensive listening equipment on your iPhone
Actually the AAC could be better, technically as well as audibly.

Lossless would be sourced from the CD at 16bit, 44.1khz sample rate.

The AAC could be sourced from a 24bit, 192khz sample rate source.
__________________
iPhone 5 iPad Air Mac mini i5
Menel is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 04:23 PM   #17
teknikal90
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menel View Post
Actually the AAC could be better, technically as well as audibly.

Lossless would be sourced from the CD at 16bit, 44.1khz sample rate.

The AAC could be sourced from a 24bit, 192khz sample rate source.
It will end up 'sounding' different if you do a visual null analysis on the two, but on a double blind test, no chance you'll be able to tell. $50 you wont lol. Unless the iTunes version was "mastered for itunes", in which case it will be mixed differently and then you may be able to tell if concentrate hard enough. But it's 'different' vs. 'better'

as a side note, I don't buy this 192khz stuff. human hearing is largely only between 20hz to 20khz, such a high sample rate is futile and some studies even say it adds distortion and is detrimental to the trueness of the sound. 44.1khz is good enough.
24bit sound again I argue, not necessary. Given that most songs on itunes are loudness warriors, 24bit is a spec, not a feature.
__________________
Logic Pro and Mainstage 3 User. I use iOS a lot.
teknikal90 is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 07:00 AM   #18
Menel
macrumors 601
 
Menel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Atlanta
Quote:
Originally Posted by teknikal90 View Post
It will end up 'sounding' different if you do a visual null analysis on the two, but on a double blind test, no chance you'll be able to tell. $50 you wont lol. Unless the iTunes version was "mastered for itunes", in which case it will be mixed differently and then you may be able to tell if concentrate hard enough. But it's 'different' vs. 'better'

as a side note, I don't buy this 192khz stuff. human hearing is largely only between 20hz to 20khz, such a high sample rate is futile and some studies even say it adds distortion and is detrimental to the trueness of the sound. 44.1khz is good enough.
24bit sound again I argue, not necessary. Given that most songs on itunes are loudness warriors, 24bit is a spec, not a feature.
16bit vs. 24bit provides dynamic range and greater detail.

In order to reproduce a sinewave, as in audio, the Nyquist Theorum tells us that the sample rate has to be greater than 2x the source frequency. If Audible range tops out at 20 khz, really for some it's higher, the 20-20k is convenient for theoretical use, but practically individuals can hear upto 26khz. 44.1khz already has potential to clip this. 96khz is better.

There is no reason 192khz degrades anything. It can allow for the replacement of analog filters with digital filters for higher accuracy recordings and reproduction.
__________________
iPhone 5 iPad Air Mac mini i5
Menel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 11:25 AM   #19
teknikal90
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menel View Post
16bit vs. 24bit provides dynamic range and greater detail.

In order to reproduce a sinewave, as in audio, the Nyquist Theorum tells us that the sample rate has to be greater than 2x the source frequency. If Audible range tops out at 20 khz, really for some it's higher, the 20-20k is convenient for theoretical use, but practically individuals can hear upto 26khz. 44.1khz already has potential to clip this. 96khz is better.

There is no reason 192khz degrades anything. It can allow for the replacement of analog filters with digital filters for higher accuracy recordings and reproduction.
have you heard anything 20khz? even some of the most expensive IEMs top out at around 18Khz. barely anything out there reach as high as 22Khz, nevermind 26khz.

24bit vs. bit yes does increase the 'steps' of loudness, thereby increasing dynamic range, but as I said, the loudness wars, and the use of compressors pretty much makes this extra resolution futile. unless you listen to some super classical, non compressed music, which, if you do, all props to you, but the source of that isnt readily available. and trying to find the speakers/headphones/IEMs that would translate that extra detail accurately enough to be noticeable is akin to the quest of the holy grail - not really, but kind of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menel View Post
There is no reason 192khz degrades anything. It can allow for the replacement of analog filters with digital filters for higher accuracy recordings and reproduction.
explain?

EDIT: anyway, this is all off-topic. Going back to the thread, 256kbps iTunes AAC is AMAZING sound quality for your iPhone.
__________________
Logic Pro and Mainstage 3 User. I use iOS a lot.

Last edited by teknikal90; Nov 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM.
teknikal90 is online now   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPhone

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to make iTunes stop looking for songs on nas and locate songs on mac instead? Scorpia Mac Applications and Mac App Store 0 Sep 27, 2013 10:39 AM
How to put songs into itunes library without losing checked songs etc Scorpia Mac Applications and Mac App Store 0 Sep 27, 2013 08:31 AM
iTunes Match songs vs. downloaded songs zoezoezoe iCloud and Apple Services 1 Sep 21, 2013 12:48 PM
Itunes- copying songs and recognition of songs Kristina85 Mac Applications and Mac App Store 3 May 23, 2013 01:06 AM
iTunes Match but not 256k ZeRoLiMiT iCloud and Apple Services 4 Aug 12, 2012 09:49 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC