Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › I think all itunes songs are in the 200s kbps...does that make a huge difference in song quality?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I think all itunes songs are in the 200s kbps...does that make a huge difference in song quality?

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 

I don't really wanna buy cds and I don't wanna d/l albums illegally any more so my only option is to buy songs digitally but someone gave me a link of comparison of online music stores and I was suprised to see most of them didn't have 320kbps like itunes and amazon.  So should I buy from itunes if I want to buy songs digitally even though it's not the best quality?

post #2 of 32

Well iTunes use AAC. Common knowledge is that AAC has better quality than MP3 for a given bit rate.

 

Can't you download songs in the ALAC format from iTunes?

post #3 of 32

iTunes is 256k AAC, not 320 or 200.  And it's perfectly fine/ indistinguishable from WAV/CD/Lossless on all but the highest of high-end rigs. And even then, nobody has been able to prove that they could consistently and reliably tell the difference.  But don't take other people's word for it.  Just take a CD that you already have, read it down and encode it at 256k (AAC or MP3), and see if you can tell the difference.

post #4 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimLaroux View Post

Well iTunes use AAC. Common knowledge is that AAC has better quality than MP3 for a given bit rate.

 

Can't you download songs in the ALAC format from iTunes?



I dunno I'm not familiar with this.  So songs in itunes are better than any MP3? 

post #5 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mkubota1 View Post

iTunes is 256k AAC, not 320 or 200.  And it's perfectly fine/ indistinguishable from WAV/CD/Lossless on all but the highest of high-end rigs. And even then, nobody has been able to prove that they could consistently and reliably tell the difference.  But don't take other people's word for it.  Just take a CD that you already have, read it down and encode it at 256k (AAC or MP3), and see if you can tell the difference.


 

So all songs on itunes are great quality?  I wasn't familiar with these kind of things so I think I will now buy a bunch of albums on itunes.

post #6 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheChosen0ne View Post


 

So all songs on itunes are great quality?  I wasn't familiar with these kind of things so I think I will now buy a bunch of albums on itunes.


I would say that they are equal to their CD counterparts (ie, same pressing, same master, same mix) for 99% of people.  If you want to take the test a bit further, just buy a few songs @1.29 each from the store and compare them to CDs that you already have.  Again, don't take my word for it.  For all I know, you might be one of those people who can distinguish 24/192 recordings from CD on their laptop speakers.  ;-)

post #7 of 32

Even better than buying them from the store and comparing them is to just rip the songs yourself for free, of course.

 

256k/s is perfectly fine for virtually all people. If you ever get to the point where your system is expensive enough to tell the difference you will DEFINITELY also be able to afford rebuying your music on cd or vinyl.

post #8 of 32

I'm loving the sanity in this thread.  I don't know about anyone else but I don't need 24/192 encoding in order to have a moving musical experience.  If the music is speaking to me and I am in the mood to hear it, the experience works with boomboxes, 8 track players in old beaters, my headphone rigs at home and work, my main system, and my iPod while mowing the lawn, traveling, or beating on my V-drums.  Sure it's great fun to listen to hi-rez digital and analog on high end equipment but for me, the amazing ability of small, portable players to provide really good sounding music reproduction while I am outside of my lisening room is a wonderful thing.

post #9 of 32

iTunes uses Advanced Audio Codec (AAC) at 256kbps. Technically AAC is superior to MP3.

 

I bought a few out of print albums on iTunes and they sound fine. They are supposedly transparent. I can't tell the difference. If you can, you're probably fooling yourself, or you have a very expensive system.

post #10 of 32
I have a very good system and AAC 256 sounds exactly like the original CD to me.
post #11 of 32
I read on HA that lossy encoders assume a flat frequency response on playback, so one is less likely to detect artifacts when using such (usually higher end) systems.
post #12 of 32

I think more people need to be aware of lossless music, I mean it's not till recently I only found it and the difference between that and mp3 is quite noticeable.

post #13 of 32

Lossless is great for using as a master when you don't own the CD, but for playing in iPods, iPads, and even in home media servers, AAC is better.

post #14 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lbc213 View Post

I think more people need to be aware of lossless music, I mean it's not till recently I only found it and the difference between that and mp3 is quite noticeable.


That's an interesting statement, as nowadays it might not be uncommon for people to never have owned a CD.

post #15 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mkubota1 View Post


That's an interesting statement, as nowadays it might not be uncommon for people to never have owned a CD.



Indeed, my advice though is go with 320k .mp3 .AAC might be better but it's apple exclusive, so unless you plan on using iPod forever I'd stick with .mp3s although I don't buy from iTunes so I don't know if you can download .mp3s :/

 

But with regards to a CD player, CD's are always best if you can get ahold of them!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › I think all itunes songs are in the 200s kbps...does that make a huge difference in song quality?