[DSchwartz88]

So i've been using the iTunes Match service which is in beta at Apple. I just got my Westone 3's ad they are awesome. Normally I would be listening to 320kbps mp3 files on my iPhone. However when you download or stream tracks using iTunes Match they are AAC 256kbps files (either matched or files that you uploaded and they converted for you). 
 
Am I missing out on some quality here? Is the difference between those two file formats going to be noticeable in my Westone 3's? 
 
Thanks for any help!

 

[imackler]

It all depends on an individual's ears. Some say they can hear a difference while others can't. I think though that, in general, the users of this forum would tend to say you are missing something between 256 and 320. Comparing 320 to lossless gets sketchy, but again its all based on personal abilities and preference. I honestly can't tell a difference between 320 and lossless, though almost all my music is in lossless.  But for me, a 256 file can sound less full/have less depth, but the most noticeable parts of the recording will be preserved the most in the encoding. Also, you'll notice the difference more in more complex music. The W3 is good enough to hear the difference. Maybe if you are doing some serious, intent listening, you may notice the difference. But during studying, transit etc., you would probably be less likely to, especially since the W3 are very engaging and fun.
 
You could always try a blind test (have a friend help) between three different files, one 256, one 320 and why not one lossless. Listen for a good minute and go back and forth. Try to see which is the 320 vs 256 and then ask yourself whether the portability is worth sacrificing the difference in quality. Either way you go, I bet you'll be surprised and feel better about your choice.
 
That being said, I'm impressed Apple is matching at 256. That is at least an option for me. Anything less than that, I'd rather not bother.

 

[cypren]

It's also worth noting that bit-rates are not directly comparable between different codecs. AAC uses a more advanced compression algorithm than MP3 and can typically produce better audio fidelity at a lower bit rate.
 
Anytime you're dealing with lossy compression in broad strokes (as opposed to evaluating it on an individual song basis) any statements of quality are going to be pretty subjective, but from what I've read there's a fairly broad consensus that 256kbps AAC or WMA is roughly equivalent to 320kbps MP3 in sound quality. They certainly sound equivalent to me.
 
I've been pleased overall with the audio quality I get from iTunes Match -- it's certainly better than I was expecting, and realistically, if you're using it for listening on the go, any loss in quality is likely to be eclipsed by ambient environmental noise anyhow. If I'm listening at home in a "pure" environment where I can really hear every detail, I'm probably going to be using locally-stored lossless tracks.