Higher BitRate AACs?

[iDave]

When Steve Jobs introduced the iTMS, he made a big deal about the AAC files sounding better than CDs. It would be surprising if iTMS began offering higher bit rate files but perhaps they're worried about competition offering them and losing customers because of it.

If I were on dial-up, I sure wouldn't want to buy music files higher than 128Kbps, so there should be a choice.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by illumin8
That's a good point, but 384k 5.1 is not very good quality sound... Basically, you only have 64k for each channel (6 discrete channels), so sound quality should suck ass.

I think 128 AAC is probably superior to 160 WMA also.

Way to go on the 192 AAC AAPL! (hehe... enough abbreviations for ya?)

Erf, except that it doesn't work that way. MorganX correctly stated that it'll sound great. Music doesn't have 6 channels...It's stereo, meaning it has two, and most of the time, your speakers are outputting both. There's no "division" in terms of kilobits per second. That's just the data meaning how much music data per second was recorded.

IF for some reason you were a professional mixer and you had input from 6 different sources, yes 384 total would be an incredibly low bitrate. However, most of the time, they'd take above CD-quality audio(perhaps from 6 different sources), mix it all together, and then put out the stereo that you get on CDs or from the iTMS. The only exception is sometimes when they're making audio for a specific place where directional audio is very important, i.e. perhaps the IMAX theatres.

The advantage to 5.1 audio is that you have music coming from all directions, or for say games like Alien vs. Predator when hearing someone sneaking up behind you is a big help.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Mercury
Erf, except that it doesn't work that way. MorganX correctly stated that it'll sound great. Music doesn't have 6 channels...It's stereo, meaning it has two, and most of the time, your speakers are outputting both. There's no "division" in terms of kilobits per second. That's just the data meaning how much music data per second was recorded.

5.1 audio indeed does have 6 channels (5 regular and 1 subwoofer). Stereo (2.0) has 2 channels. You can play stereo over a 5.1 system, but you can also get 5.1 music that has all six channels.

Originally posted by Mercury
The advantage to 5.1 audio is that you have music coming from all directions, or for say games like Alien vs. Predator when hearing someone sneaking up behind you is a big help.

That effect can be simulated with stereo (particularly with headphones) but you are correct.

 

[Brad Smith]

I think the big problem with offering multiple bitrates on the iTMS is simplicity. Apple wants to make the process as simple as possible, so they was to keep only one "buy now" button. I think the solution to this is a preference you set in your Apple ID account. Select the bitrate you want there. From that point, any "buy now" button you click will automatically download your selected bitrate version. If, for some reason, the bitrate you set in your preferences isn't available for a track, it would show you a dialog box similar to the one you get if you purchased a song before, thus notifying you of the difference in bitrates and asking if you want to continue. I think that's be the best way to handle it.

 

[2112]

I would like to see the higher complexity AAC encoders in iTunes.
I really enjoy music, and 128kbps MP3 does indeed "hurt". IMHO 190kbps AAC is a big step foward, although I agree that a lower bitrate version of the song should be available for ppl. with bandwith/space concerns.

 

[BOOMBA]

this is ONE rumor I HOPE will turn out to be true!

Man this will be sweet!

I also wouldn't mind if it found album artwork when it got you the songs.

then I couldn't think of any reason why it wouldn't be THE default Windows music app.

 

[JGowan]

Originally posted by evil
i honestly dont see the need to use 192 aac unless for professionals or something...but professionals would use an even higher bit rate.

I agree,... 128 AAC sounds great -- But I have a friend who rips EVERYTHING at 256 AAC ! I couldn't believe it when he told me.

I just now ripped a song at 256 AAC and compared it to the 128 AAC version... I'm sorry, I just can't hear too much difference. Certainly, the difference between 128MP3 and 256MP3 is huge, but the AAC format has certainly closed the gap in quality. In my opinion, 128AAC sounds just about as good as the original CD.

Damn.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

I suspect that if you can tell the difference between 192 and 128 AAC and care about it enough, 192 won't be enough either, and you're near if not in the "audiophile" category.

 

[iamtiger]

Speaking of quality, i initially started to encode my cd's at 224kbps AAC when itunes 4.0 first came out, but lately ive decided to try to bump up my whole cd collection to 256 AAC. I feel that this is that magical number along with Dolby Labs and Apple's seal of approval that AAC is the best encoder on the market, and this gives me the identical sound quality i come to expect from an uncompressed cd with all its aural nuances. At 256AAC, I can hear the high and Low acoustics of a classic symphony, and hear the equivalent of say a michael jackson squeal as if he were serenading me in person. At this compression ratio, it is undetectable from the AIFF file which is compact disc quality. In summary, this gives me the reassurance that im getting "CD" quality without any compromises. Anything under 256 AAC and i might miss Michael's squeal and whisper like you can sometimes detect comparing a remastered cd vs. the old copy.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by iamtiger
At 256AAC, I can hear the equivalent of say a michael jackson squeal as if he were serenading me in person.

And you want this why...?

 

[iamtiger]

HaHaHa,

Thats funny. But seriously, I just can't stand leaving any digital bits out of my music like leftover carcasses of endangered ocean sharks left to waste and savoring the fins for soup. You know, sharks are endangered and should be protected as much as can be without allowing for useless killing and leaving the blubbers to dry in the sun. I treasure my michael screams, my mariahs ooohs, my axel roses aaawws, my johnny cashs' deeps (rip), my seals ahhs, my eltons uuus, well you get me dont you? hahah, i just want quality as much as i want a sony widescreen hdtv and not a zenith, and sheek aluminum apple and not a plasctic dull dell, a ralph lauren polo and not a target cotton sale. I love quality and i want something to treasure in music just as if i heard it being recorded in the studio live.

 

[Puppies]

What bitrate and encoder are best if you want basically flawless audio? I read somewhere that at higher bitrates, MP3s actually sound better than AAC, but that seems fishy to me. I'll gladly to 320kb/s in MP3 or AAC if that's what it takes for near flawless audio.

With hard drive prices (and iPod sizes) are good as they are, I don't see any reason to sacrifice. On the other hand, I wish I had some audiophile to tell me exactly where the cut off is for what you can hear. I *THINK* I notice a greater richness in a 320kb/s MP3 or AAC file than a 192kb/s file, but it's not like I have some way to do a blind test or anything.

 

[Geoff H.]

Another "stereotypical audiophile" responds

Puppies asked: "What bitrate and encoder are best if you want basically flawless audio?"

Flawless is obviously a relative term these days.

On an iPod, I think the technical answer would be AIFF (which is 1411kbps). Now obviously that eats up a ton of space, but that's what it takes to "get every last bit" off when ripping from a CD. No matter what Steve J. or anyone else says about (take your pick) 128, 192, or 256 etc. being "CD quality" -- they simply are not.

If you consider CD's "flawless" (and I would certainly not), then you could stop there.

If you really want to get about as close to "flawless audio" at home you really do owe it to yourself to listen to SACD's (or DVD-Audio) which packs about 4x the data density of CD music. Of course at these kind of data rates, a 40gb iPod would hold only about 100 songs (if you could rip the DSD data on a SACD which you can't).

All that said, personally I rip CD's at 320kbps MP3 and am satisfied for casual listening (through earphones or via the home stereo). The 128kbps AAC's I've downloaded from ITMS are "ok" -- sort of like listening to an FM radio.

Bottom line IMHO, for really "flawless" audio at home, the only real choices in formats are SACD/DVD-Audio and analog (vinyl)...

I suppose I've now just about wrestled myself the title of "stereotypical audiophile" for the day with this response .

 

[bbarnhart]

Even the equipment you play your cd's or mp3's or aac's on can make a big difference in how the music sounds. Not all CD players pull the information off the CD the same, amplifiers don't sound the same and not all speakers sound the same. It's really a matter of preference and how much money and time you want to spend. Rip a few CD's a various rates and play them in your equipment and see what you like. When you buy better equipment, you still have your "master" CD that you can re-rip.

 

[iDave]

I used to be a quasi-audiophile and spent too much money trying to get the best sound out of good equipment. Then I seemed to grow out of it. Music for me now is typically just in the background as I rarely take the time to really "sit down" and listen to it carefully.

I believe I am the kind of listener that iTunes caters to. True audiophiles will never (at least in the near future) be happy with digital music that's available online. So, I'm not too surprised that Apple hasn't offered higher bit-rate files. I'd be surprised if they ever do. 128Kbps AAC files sound pretty good, and even if they're not the best, most people don't care.

That said, I respect audiophiles and their wishes for the best sound quality possible in their music. Perhaps someday when bandwidth limitations are overcome there will be online sources for very high quality music.

 

[Puppies]

Thanks Geoff! I’m pretty happy with 320Kb/s MP3s (most of the time I’m going to be listening to music in the car, or on headphones on a computer anyway). If nothing else, you’ve given me the confidence to just go with that bitrate. I swear everyone I knows thinks I’m nuts to use that high. One guy I know frequently goes with LESS than 128Kb/s for music, and swears he can’t tell the difference (he’s even encoded 64Kb files FROM 128Kb files, and says it’s fine).

I don’t know if I would be happy with something below 320, but I’d probably always be wondering about it if I don’t use that high. Any suggestions as to which is better between 320Kb AAC and MP3s? With MP3s, are Joint Stereo and VBR set to the highest quality better than non-VBR (I guess it would make slightly smaller files, with theoretically the same sound quality)?

 

[fraeone]

For me to seriously consider the iTMS they will have to offer something a little better than 128kbps. It's ok, but it's certainly not as good sounding as a CD, and I'm no audiophile.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
5.1 audio indeed does have 6 channels (5 regular and 1 subwoofer). Stereo (2.0) has 2 channels. You can play stereo over a 5.1 system, but you can also get 5.1 music that has all six channels.

Yes, but in this case I was referring to the iTMS and CDs that have been ripped into iTunes, which are all stereo.

Originally posted by iDave
When Steve Jobs introduced the iTMS, he made a big deal about the AAC files sounding better than CDs. It would be surprising if iTMS began offering higher bit rate files but perhaps they're worried about competition offering them and losing customers because of it.

The interesting thing here is that, call me crazy, but I swear that 128 AACs from iTMS sound better than say, 128 AACs that I just ripped. It's possible that there is some enhancement going on, and the music industry preps each song.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Mercury
The interesting thing here is that, call me crazy, but I swear that 128 AACs from iTMS sound better than say, 128 AACs that I just ripped. It's possible that there is some enhancement going on, and the music industry preps each song.

Each AAC on the iTMS is encoded *from the original master tape*.

 

[DarkPhoenixCA]

Originally posted by jywv8
I wholly agree. I purchased a song from ITMS, encoded at 128 kbps, and I think the sound quality is lacking. I was suprised they used such a low bitrate.

I think they should sell 256 kbps files. Or, if people are worried about filesizes, they should at least give you the option of choosing a higher bitrate if you want it.

I think the type of music has a lot to do whether you find lower bit rates acceptable, as well. I listen to a lot of club/house/electronica music, and I find it hard to distingusih between 128 AAC and 192 AAC, which is what my library is encoded at. I'm not sure if I would notice any difference in going up to 256.

I have noticed there is some variation on the tracks I've purchased from iTMS. For example, the dance mixes of Whitney Houston's "Love That Man" sound perfect, while Vivian Green's "Fanatic" sounds a little more muted (nothing terrible, just a bit more muted).

Any comments?

 

[Geetar]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Each AAC on the iTMS is encoded *from the original master tape*.

I'd take these claims with a sack of salt. At the bit rates available, you could vary the compression and normalisation quite a bit (my pun this time) from the CD release values and you'd have trouble telling.

Anyway, we've heard these"From the Original Masters" stories before (Mo-Fi and other companies purporting to offer re-mastered CDs from the originals) that turned out to be 3rd and 4th gen safety copies. A lot of record companies have"lost" a lot of their older catalog's original tapes and won't admit it, or don't seem to care.