[groovyd]

i'm especially curious about the new Rush 'remastered for itunes' set and does it have higher bit rate or precision then my 16/44 cd rips?  I would love to get that set if the sound is better but not if it is the same.

 

[hogger129]

I find that 256 AAC is so close to CD quality that it doesn't pay to buy the CD unless it costs less.

 

[rjohn]

  i'm especially curious about the new Rush 'remastered for itunes' set and does it have higher bit rate or precision then my 16/44 cd rips?  I would love to get that set if the sound is better but not if it is the same.

 
It's 256 but it's supposedly mastered better and it probably sounds better.

 

[dizzyorange]

Yeah people who say there's a big difference seriously need to do ABX.  In most case where people can tell the difference, it as an above poster put it, in absolutely perfect conditions with a track you're very familiar with, and even then you'll still guess wrong some of the time.
 
I used to be one of those "of course there's a difference" people... until I did ABX, and found I had to repeat very specific portions of songs over and over again to tell the difference, and even then I would be wrong about 20% of the time.  
 
The funny thing is when I do the test in a non-blind fashion, the FLAC sounds better in every way.  There seems to be better spatial definition, more ambiance, better highs, tighter bass.  But as soon as you blind yourself to which is which, it's amazing how those differences almost all disappear.  
 
It's also quite sad when you hear people say "FLAC is almost as good as CD." when they are exactly the same thing.  These are the same people who believe putting CDs in the freezer makes them sound better.  
 
The human mind is easy to trick.
 
You have to do a blind ABX test, or otherwise you're deluding yourself.
 
Of course, I'm talking about well-encoded lossy formats.  Apple's 256 AAC is certainly well-encoded.  LAME 320 and v0 (or even v3) is also excellent.
 
If you're downloading 320 files from random places on the web (like mp3skull), be aware lots of those files aren't encoded from proper lossless sources.  It's easy to rip a song from youtube and encode it 320.  Of course in that case it's not gonna sound so good.

 

[hogger129]

  Yeah people who say there's a big difference seriously need to do ABX.  In most case where people can tell the difference, it as an above poster put it, in absolutely perfect conditions with a track you're very familiar with, and even then you'll still guess wrong some of the time.
 
I used to be one of those "of course there's a difference" people... until I did ABX, and found I had to repeat very specific portions of songs over and over again to tell the difference, and even then I would be wrong about 20% of the time.  
 
The funny thing is when I do the test in a non-blind fashion, the FLAC sounds better in every way.  There seems to be better spatial definition, more ambiance, better highs, tighter bass.  But as soon as you blind yourself to which is which, it's amazing how those differences almost all disappear.  
 
It's also quite sad when you hear people say "FLAC is almost as good as CD." when they are exactly the same thing.  These are the same people who believe putting CDs in the freezer makes them sound better.  
 
The human mind is easy to trick.
 
You have to do a blind ABX test, or otherwise you're deluding yourself.
 
Of course, I'm talking about well-encoded lossy formats.  Apple's 256 AAC is certainly well-encoded.  LAME 320 and v0 (or even v3) is also excellent.
 
If you're downloading 320 files from random places on the web (like mp3skull), be aware lots of those files aren't encoded from proper lossless sources.  It's easy to rip a song from youtube and encode it 320.  Of course in that case it's not gonna sound so good.

 
 
 
When people say "FLAC is almost as good as CD," I would seriously question what they're using for playback, or if they used a secure ripper like EAC or dbPa.  CD ==> FLAC = CD.  I have heard some people say that playback is not perfect, and that FLAC should only be used for storage purposes, but I think it's a load of BS unless you're on a really old computer whose memory and processing power are not up to task.
 
256 AAC is pretty dang good.  I have some fantastic examples that I have purchased through iTunes in the past when I just wanted a couple odd and end songs.  I prefer lossless more for theoretical reasons than anything.  And if I like the entire album, whatever I'll go spend $12 and get the CD.
 
I would amend my previous statement also to say that CD is also worth buying if you want the physical product (like if you are a collector) or it's a better mastering, etc.  Because I'll go out to the used bookstore that sells used CD's and I'll get old ones from the 80s and 90s because newer ones are victims of the Loudness Wars.

 

[MattiaFalsetti]

FLAC is the best, however the 256Kbps AAC sounds well.

 

[cdvsmp3]

  It obviously won't sound as good as cd quality or flac. It'll sound decent though.

I would not be so sure about it... Try this blind test: http://cdvsmp3.wordpress.com.

 

[lextek]

I've been enjoying iTunes Match since it came out. Always thought it sound good. It's to easy to buy music from iTunes. That almost instant gratification. I have been buying more CDs(used/cheap) lately. NAD a crazy notion of buying a turntable again. Thing I'll just get a Mac Mini......