Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Higher Quality iTunes Coming?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
dextertangocci said:
Touche! There really is nothing wrong with the current quality of iTunes music. I am a graduate student in audio engineering, and I've done A/B/X (double blind) testing of 128 kbps AAC VS 1411 kbps AIFF and the difference was similar to a coin toss. When one has no idea what she is listening to, the results are eye opening.
So I get sick every time I hear someone say that "iTunes music is inferior quality because it's compressed." Our ears don't care!
iDrinkKoolAid said:
Exactly, as I was saying in post 99. Our ears can't tell the difference but our hardrives can. Even just going up to AAC 192 would mean a heck of a lot of space when you have thousands of songs. I reckon it would be better to research a better way of encoding at 128
MM2270 said:...
The only downside to it would be that less music will fit on iPods under the new scheme. Apple's "1000 songs in your pocket" claim will have to come with a disclaimer that states it's only true when using the lower quality tracks, etc. Or they'll have to change it to "500 songs in your pocket" or something
Meh, I was only able to get 579 songs on my 4GB Nano and I have about 7607 songs (46.45GB) on my MB.
I wouldkill to have at least 1000 song on my nano.
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
Those who find lossy music unbearable were either blessed with super great hearing or a super fancy set of speakers. I don't hear any difference. I just like my music loud (except on the iPod, where I keep it low as to protect my hearing).
swingerofbirch said:
Hate to break it to you but loud music is harmful to your hearing no matter how you listen to it, iPod or no.
iTMS with ALAC? Looks like finally I would use it for more than sampling music from CDs I intend to buy! At least I would pick up the occasional odd song, obscure stuff, the iTunes exclusives, OOP stuff you can't get on CD for any amount of money & nice words...
I am pretty sensible to the effects of audio compression, and since all my music is stored in ALAC anyway I would have no problem with the regarding disc space.
Couple of things though:
- Apple should finally release an 80GB iPod
- ALAC songs must be allowed to be converted into AAC for less uncompromising iPodders
- single ALAC songs should not cost more than ¢99. Seriously. I'd say reduce the AACs to ¢80 instead. If that's not possible, anything above $1,19 would be a bad idea. Albums should remain at $9,99.
Better quality is always a good thing, let's hope Apple does it, and does it rigth.
At least I would pick up the occasional odd song, obscure stuff, the iTunes exclusives, OOP stuff you can't get on CD for any amount of money & nice words... I am pretty sensible to the effects of audio compression, and since all my music is stored in ALAC anyway I would have no problem with the regarding disc space.
Couple of things though:
- Apple should finally release an 80GB iPod
- ALAC songs must be allowed to be converted into AAC for less uncompromising iPodders
- single ALAC songs should not cost more than ¢99. Seriously. I'd say reduce the AACs to ¢80 instead. If that's not possible, anything above $1,19 would be a bad idea. Albums should remain at $9,99.
Better quality is always a good thing, let's hope Apple does it, and does it rigth.
Bad Beaver said:
ah, yes, and
- NO changes to the DRM, like "you cannot burn ALAC tracks to CD" or any crap like that.
iDrinkKoolAid said:
I agree to a certain extent. if you "test" it the way you do. But to me, I bought "M.I.A. Arular" off Itunes, and then a month later, after listening to it alot, I found a promotional copy of the cd in a bin at a music store for cheap. There was a huge difference in Feel. mostly in the Low end which I honestly didnt expect. but it Hit harder, and felt deeper. and after hearing the difference, I dislike hearing it any other way. even my coworker noticed after I pointed it out.
It may not always be a huge difference but it is there... I dislike more than anything not being able to hear something the way an artist intends.... if you buy the cd... it comes in a way that the artist is at least satisfied with.
Though I have seen Many cds that say something to the effect of "best listened to on vinyl" or something to that effect... and there are many groups that I will only buy on Vinyl for that reason.
for passive use, its no big deal... but for music fanatics... its more complicated.
Wonder if this may be to do with the 'Made in iTunes' thing from a few days ago. As part of a freeby when you buy an album you get a package of track parts from a hit single - encoded lossless. iTunes then allows you mix these parts anyway you like to produce your own re-mix of the track which would be 'Made in iTunes'. Soundtrack embedded in iTunes would allow this. There have been a few commercial CD's linked to websites that have allowed you to do something similar in the past. Never a huge success but good fun for a few mins. If you are going to do a remix that you want to use / listen to again then the tracks must be in lossless or the sound from a double encode @128 would be pretty horrible.
If I'm wrong on this (probably) then my next guess would be that Apple would be starting to sell royalty free music or loops through iTunes.
If I'm wrong on this (probably) then my next guess would be that Apple would be starting to sell royalty free music or loops through iTunes.
Well, if you're a fanatic there is no point in discussing it is there? Even if the music is the same, fanatics wouldn't agree.
I listen to iTunes music on Grado RS-1's, with fully balanced XLR cables into a C.E.C HD53 Class A headphone amp, and trust me when I say the sound quality is so close to a CD that in a blind test anyone would fail.
but yea.. if you're a fanatic, all the power to you.
I listen to iTunes music on Grado RS-1's, with fully balanced XLR cables into a C.E.C HD53 Class A headphone amp, and trust me when I say the sound quality is so close to a CD that in a blind test anyone would fail.
but yea.. if you're a fanatic, all the power to you.
A is jump said:
Yup. Exactly what I was thinking, except that it wouldn't surprise me if new songs had no $0.99 version at all. That way Apple can offer new "popular" content at $1.50 and say - well it isn't $0.99, but that's because we offer it at such higher quality. Older content still at $0.99 - so we really have stuck to our guns here, see?m-dogg said:
Not true. I can pick the 128kbit AAC version in blind tests 10 times out of 10. I start failing consistently (50/50 ratio) at 192Kbit AAC and above.Glass said:
What to listen for in 128kbit AAC compared to lossless: rolled off highs (less energy or completely chopped off cymbals) and flat sounding and thicker than normal vocals. The bass is "not right" either on some tracks, but it's hard to describe the difference.
Edit:
Oh and i also want to point out that the difference is obvious even if I use "mid-fi" gear, such as harman/kardon soundsticks II or UE superfi 5 Pro (whose are considered mid-fi products by audiophiles).
The only thing I notice out of my 192kbps tracks is that they have more volume on the upper end - any audiophiles care to explain that? (I'm genuinely curious.)
You are probably hearing the part of the highs that is usually lost with 128kbit AAC encoding.iGary said:
I don't know... maybe because there is less distortion in the sound the brain hasn't a good scale to determine how loud is too loud.iGary said:
Just a theory though.
princealfie said:Dammit, I don't care about lossless. I want no DRM!
A-Men! I hate wasting CDs just to burn audio and re-rip to mp3 (never mind potential quality loss through this process)
swingerofbirch said:
I encoded my CD collection (500 discs) in lossless. Not too bad really. 500 GIG HD will do it. When I buy a new CD I record it at 196 bit AAC and lossless in two separate accounts. One is for the Ipod, the other fileshares from my server to a PowerBook I keep in the living room as a music player (wireless stream to to optical output of an Airport Express behind my HT equipment stack. Only weak link is singles I purchase at the Music Store. I welcome better quality options.
I personally tried Apple Lossless a while ago for my CDs and very quickly filled a hard drive. I now use AAC at 196. I really can't tell the difference. I don't want to have to buy a 250GB firewire drive just to hold my music. I have enough hard drives already to store my artwork that I do.
I can tell the diference between a 128 and a 196 depending on the song and I can definitely tell the difference on the MP3s I get from eMusic (but they are DRM free and I am not an audiophile). I would welcome 196 AACs but I really can't see the allure of downloading Apple Lossless. The audiophile will still buy the CD and the regular Joe will be stuck waiting for hours to download an album only to have it fill his hard drive.
I can tell the diference between a 128 and a 196 depending on the song and I can definitely tell the difference on the MP3s I get from eMusic (but they are DRM free and I am not an audiophile). I would welcome 196 AACs but I really can't see the allure of downloading Apple Lossless. The audiophile will still buy the CD and the regular Joe will be stuck waiting for hours to download an album only to have it fill his hard drive.
thejadedmonkey said:I remember when my 5 gig iPod had more space on it than my computer's hard drive did!
Oh, and I think that as long as apple can keep the same price point (which, with bandwith and HDD space becoming cheeper by the day they should have no problem doing) it'll be great for everyone. And, maybe- just maybe, I'll start using the iTMS.
Yeah I remember those times but soon there won't be any issue with using Lossless only. The only problem I see now is that an iPod using Lossless would need to have 128MB of RAM to cope with the file size.
And we all know how Apple loves to up the RAM...
weitzner said:well according to the mpaa, we don't own the dvd, we possess a license for the content... since i bought that license for the highest quality available, the content should get updated too.. so upon a return of my dvd, i should get a blu-ray disc. hey even windows users get updates right? i'd just like the dmca to bite someone else in the arse for once
Now that would be funny. But I don't see where it says that you bought the highest quality available. You actually bought the license on the medium available at that time and since you still have the license it's unlikely they'd exchange them.