i figured it'd be 320 or whatever
i figured it'd be 320 or whatever
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.
Like this guy said^
The 256kb lossless is pretty much perfect, and much better than mp3.
Just reboot the phone, it should work then.
Actually the AAC could be better, technically as well as audibly.$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.
16bit vs. 24bit provides dynamic range and greater detail.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.
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.