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.
New iOS 9 Beta Seed With Apple Music Coming 'Early Next Week'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No one can reliably tell the difference between 256 and 320 (okay, there might be a handful of people in the world who can). 128 and 320? Yes that's possible but anything beyond 192 sounds the same, at least in the most scientific tests conducted (there aren't many).
Here's a study showing that beyond 192kbps doesn't make a difference in quality perception (even for professionals but professionals were marginally better): Pras, Amandine, Rachel Zimmerman, Daniel Levitin, and Catherine Guastavino. "Subjective evaluation of mp3 compression for different musical genres." In Audio Engineering Society Convention 127. Audio Engineering Society, 2009.
Here's another study showing that people cannot reliably distinguish 128kbps from uncompressed CD: Böhne, Hendrik, René Gröger, David Hammerschmidt, Robin Helm, David Hoga, Julian Kraus, Jakob Rösch, and Christian Sussek. "Subjective audibility of MP3-compression artefacts in practical application." Hamburg University, Institute of Musicology, Hamburg, Results of Praktikum Musikpsychologie(2011).
That second study is interesting because the authors hypothesize that part of the difficulty people have is because they are used to listening to compressed audio. Someone who listens exclusively to uncompressed audio might be better at distinguishing but that's a hypothesis not yet supported by research.
While I personally prefer to have compressed music at 320kbps (I prefer uncompressed but not enough to go out of my way to purchase it), it really doesn't make a difference, particularly over 256kbps.
Last edited:
Way ahead of you dude. Just DFU my iPad just because I was impatient. Might go back to iOS 9 when the both the music and news apps come.
Thanks but why did you put the terminal code on an image? Now I to type it manually. #lazy
I don't think so, if you are listening to the car or cheap headphones 320 it's ok, but cd quality is a tremendous improvement even in a decent home theater system and lossless audio like the one in old dvd audio and super cd formats is a whole new dimension even in my modest set up.
Off course f*ck scientific research let's go on your gut feeling…
Mr. Fusion:
U mad bro:
Why would I be mad? Just shaking my head about a dumb remark of low intelligence.
Maybe getting people to think before posting anonymously and hiding behind their keyboard?
And, please post your accomplishments, so we can compare whether Eddie sucks or ............
U mad bro:
Why would I be mad? Just shaking my head about a dumb remark of low intelligence.
Maybe getting people to think before posting anonymously and hiding behind their keyboard?
And, please post your accomplishments, so we can compare whether Eddie sucks or ............
People need to think before they speak/post. You did not get charged. You signed up for a paid service that has a 3 month free trial period. If you don't want to be charged at the end of the trial, go into iTunes and turn off the renewal, just like ANY OTHER subscription service (e.g. magazines) sold through iTunes. Go check your bank/card statement and you will see you weren't charged.
Yes it does work I can confirm had to do this yesterday started downloading straight away
Aac 256 is better than 320 VBR mp3, not sure why you just talked about bitrate like it described everything.
I'm assuming your talking about recent encoders and popular music, because for classical music with circa 2005 encoders you could 100% see the difference even under terrible listening conditions between 128 and 256.
But, that's not what some people here are arguing for. They're whining about not having formats that 99.9% of them couldn't scientifically distinguish in a blind test.
The difference between 256 aac and 320 aac, mostly bats listening with fantastic equipment (rich bats) will see the difference...
Seriously, 256 vs 320 acc cannot be distinguished reliably even by experts even in the best conditions; that's a fact.
A few golden ears in exceptional conditions, with certain type of material will be able to pick a difference, but those people are very few and that kind of equipment and content is also very few.
Most modern music, what you'd mostly get on Beat 1, has been processed to death, with few harmonics left and compresses real well at a relatively lower bitrate anyway.
Could someone with one of those fancy Tweeter things ask Cue (or some other Apple higher-up) about the status of the iOS 9 and OS X 10.11 Public Betas?
He's guessing.
I think we'll see the first public beta on Monday or Tuesday. Things are quite stable from what I've heard and it'll have been another two weeks so beta 3 should qualify for the first public beta.
Last edited:
It's nice that it works.
An alternate, as long as it lasts, is to go to irumble.com/beats1
That's what I'm using on my iPhone for now.
I'm not guessing. I'm pretty sure that was mentioned at or right after the wwdc. Might've read it in an article. Could be wrong
Last edited:
You are! Apple would not have given us a solid date. At WWDC they simply said "Early July" or "July".
Even if 320kbps may be a placebo effect, I would prefer to have the option. I will admit 256kbps vs 320kbps would be difficult to discern in a blind comparison, or probably even over 192kbps in AAC. Most people are used to terrible audio though, and I can easily tell when music is 128kbps. 64kbps AAC on some low-end stereos is surprisingly listenable, but anything under 256kbps for MP3 is lacking.