Is anyone else annoyed that the billing for iTunes 8.1 implies that before 8.1 you couldn't rip CD's at the 256kbps iTunes Plus AAC? Why did they say this? Is it just for those people who are clueless about this stuff, since if 8.1 is your first install the default will be 256kbps?
I ripped my entire library at 256kbps AAC (cbr). I have an Apogee Duet and Grado SR225 headphones and I can only just barely tell the difference between Apple Lossless or linear, and 256 AAC. Same goes for my home stereo system with Energy Pro 22 speakers and NAD 2200 amp and 1240 preamp and Rotel CD player. I don't have the best equipment in the world, but it certainly is good enough for these listening tests.
Now, 128kbps is another story. I can definitely hear a difference between that and 256 or ALAC or linear.
So, I'm glad that Apple bumped the default setting to 256, but I find their wording rather inaccurate and the implications straight out wrong. More than that, they don't tell you that the default setting has been changed so that now songs will take up almost double the space vs. 128. That's a rather important detail.
Ah, whatever, I suppose that most people will figure all this out for themselves. I just find the confusing wording to be strange and unnecessary.
What does everyone else think?
I ripped my entire library at 256kbps AAC (cbr). I have an Apogee Duet and Grado SR225 headphones and I can only just barely tell the difference between Apple Lossless or linear, and 256 AAC. Same goes for my home stereo system with Energy Pro 22 speakers and NAD 2200 amp and 1240 preamp and Rotel CD player. I don't have the best equipment in the world, but it certainly is good enough for these listening tests.
Now, 128kbps is another story. I can definitely hear a difference between that and 256 or ALAC or linear.
So, I'm glad that Apple bumped the default setting to 256, but I find their wording rather inaccurate and the implications straight out wrong. More than that, they don't tell you that the default setting has been changed so that now songs will take up almost double the space vs. 128. That's a rather important detail.
Ah, whatever, I suppose that most people will figure all this out for themselves. I just find the confusing wording to be strange and unnecessary.
What does everyone else think?