Wow...Amazon vs. iTunes

[callmemike20]

I just decided to give Amazon's mp3 store a try. I was going through and saw the Bruce Springsteen album "Magic" that I recently bought on iTunes. I played a preview and noticed that the quality was a lot better than iTunes. What is the difference? You would think Apple would be on top of their game when it comes to quality. I'm starting to wish I bought these many albums that I bought off iTunes on Amazon instead.

There's probably a bunch of threads on this already, but I wanted to share my experiences.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I think that's because the stuff on amazon is encoded at 256kbs and itunes (except itunes plus) is at 128kbs.

 

[callmemike20]

Wow...only 128? I didn't know that. I don't think I'm going to buy music from iTunes again. I'll just use it for movie rentals (unless someone knows where I can rent HD movies online).

 

[NightStorm]

Yes, but remember it is AAC 128kbps, which is more a more efficient codec than MP3 at the same bitrate.

That said, I do think MP3 256kbps sounds better than AAC 128kbps.

 

[callmemike20]

More efficient? Whatever that means...

Music doesn't work, it plays. I want the best quality. It's only a song, not a huge program.

 

[clevin]

AAC is only better than MP3 at lower bitrate (<128kbps). At 256kbps, I don't think AAC has any significant advantages in quality at all.

And ITMS is more expensive..... spend more for less quality......

Thank for the info tho, now lets see how those ppl who claim ITMS has better quality music respond.

 

[aristobrat]

You would think Apple would be on top of their game when it comes to quality.

IIRC, the studios rip it themselves and give it to Apple/iTunes for distribution.

 

[squeeks]

More efficient? Whatever that means...

Music doesn't work, it plays. I want the best quality. It's only a song, not a huge program.

...more efficient meaning it dosent a better job at compressing to that bit rate, losing less quality than MP3

 

[Eraserhead]

At 256kbps, I don't think AAC has any significant advantages in quality at all.

That is mainly because at that bitrate you can't tell the difference between AAC/MP3 and CD quality anyway.

Remember AAC is equivalent to "mp4".

 

[Sijmen]

Note that the iTunes Plus songs are all 256 Kbit/sec.

 

[tersono]

That is mainly because at that bitrate you can't tell the difference between AAC/MP3 and CD quality anyway.

Remember AAC is equivalent to "mp4".

Who can't tell the difference? I certainly can - with ease. 🙄

 

[dejo]

Who can't tell the difference? I certainly can - with ease. 🙄

Curious then: can you tell the difference between 256kbps AAC and 256kbps MP3?

 

[Eraserhead]

Who can't tell the difference? I certainly can - with ease. 🙄

Are you sure it isn't the placebo effect, like expensive speaker cable sounds better too?

EDIT: If you have really good ears and an excellent sound system you can probably tell the difference, but that does put you in a tiny minority (<1%).

 

[NightStorm]

More efficient? Whatever that means...

Music doesn't work, it plays. I want the best quality. It's only a song, not a huge program.

😕

The encoder has to work, so efficiency is a big deal. I can produce a 320kbps MP3 (or AAC for that matter) that will sound like complete garbage if made by an inefficient encoder. Efficiency means it can provide better sound at lower bitrates than an equivalent MP3... i.e. a 128kbps AAC will sound better than a 128kbps MP3 (and higher bitrates, but it becomes more subjective as the MP3 increases in bitrate).

In the end, perceived audio quality arguments are some of the most subjective you'll find on the Internet, so much so that I tend to try and stay away from them.