itunes sells 256k songs?

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by aliensarecool, Nov 13, 2012.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    aliensarecool

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
  2. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    #2
    Just reboot the phone, it should work then.
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Location:
    The Netherlands
  4. macrumors 68000

    vastoholic

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa, OK
    #4
    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.
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    adam044

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Location:
    Boston
    #5
    All is 256 DRM free
     
  6. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    Bristol, UK
    #6
    Apple considers 256kbps to be a high bitrate!
     
  7. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2012
    #7
    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.
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    vastoholic

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa, OK
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    aarond12

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Location:
    Dallas, TX USA
    #10
    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.
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    #11
    Like this guy said^

    The 256kb lossless is pretty much perfect, and much better than mp3.
     
  12. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2012
    #12
    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.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Vundu

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #13
    256 is not lossless. AAC uses more compression which also lowers quality.

    V0 is the best balance between size and quality IMO.
     
  14. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #14
    I literally nearly spit coffee all over myself when I read this :eek:

    ----------

    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..
     
  15. macrumors 68020

    teknikal90

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #15
    $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
     
  16. macrumors 603

    Menel

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    ATL
    #16
    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.
     
  17. macrumors 68020

    teknikal90

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors 603

    Menel

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    ATL
    #18
    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.
     
  19. teknikal90, Nov 15, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012

    macrumors 68020

    teknikal90

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #19
    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.
    explain?

    EDIT: anyway, this is all off-topic. Going back to the thread, 256kbps iTunes AAC is AMAZING sound quality for your iPhone.
     

Share This Page