There is NO DIFFERENCE in Quality between iTunes and iTunes Plus Songs
In a double-blind test, conducted by Maximum PC, they determined that there is no discernible difference between the 256kbps iTunes Plus files and the old, DRM-laden 128kbps tracks. Besides being a double blind test, different headphones were used (Apple’s default iPod earbuds vs. a pair of Shure buds) with 10 music professionals.
Personally I don’t care if there is a quality difference, I’m just glad the music industry is ever so slowly removing poisonous DRM from their media.
Yeah thats all I cared about too. I didn’t have to take a test in order to tell you that there would be no noticeable difference between 256 and 128.
It’s the thought of being higher quality. Not the listening. That’s why all my physical CDs are still lossless
I don’t care; as long as they sound good. Besides, most of the time I’m only listening to music through my iMac’s speakers, so high quality isn’t a must (I import CD’s at 196kbps – not super low, not super high, doesn’t take up too much space).
Actually, the test did say that people were able to tell the difference between the two bitrates. But surprisingly, people were less sure with the high quality Shures (no pun intended) than the stock Apple headphones. But the fact still remains that the difference is almost negligible, and depends on the individual listener.
With a 2.0 audio setup (headphones), it is nigh-impossible to discern the difference between 128 and 256 kbps songs. Thanks for reminding us of that, Maximum PC.
On a 5.1 (or 7.1) setup, the difference would be audible to most, if not all, audiophiles and musicians; maybe even some non-professionals (like me) would hear a dif.
I played both versions back on my stereo at home (reasonably high quality, not audiophile by any means) and I can totally hear the difference. Especially in the drums.
If 128kbps sound the same as the higher. Why in the world offer 256kbps for iTunes Plus?!?!?! SAVE DISK SPACE, just use the 128kbps Apple!!
I used to use lossless for importing CDs, until i saw my available disk space keep going down, I have now converted them all to the standard, 128kbps .m4a
why even be concern with disk space nowadays? Hard drive space is getting lower in price, disk space shouldn’t be a factor over sound quality.
What a crock, higher bitrate audio tracks are nearly always discernable when placed in direct comparison against the same track at a lower bitrate… Of course sometimes dynamics, the overall tone, the instrumentation, what kind of music, all this will play a part in making it easier or harder to distinguish one quality level from another. But that siad, once you know what to listen out for (what kind of characteristic colouration the encoding process lends to particular frequencies or tonal combinations, like a husky male vocal for example) it suddenly becomes painfully obvious, and you don’t want to settle for anything less than a bit-identical copy.
For day-to-day listening to unimportant stuff (and test renders of my own productions), I use alt preset-standard (new method) with lame 3.97, which is alright. At least I know it’ll allocate more bits if it feels it needs it, and the frequency curve sounds nice to my ears. My MP3 player can play FLAC though, so that’s how all my CDs get uploaded.
Urgh, people still BUY music at 128kbps? And LISTEN to it? And are HAPPY with how it sounds?!? I feel incredibly snobbish about my encoding preferences now :D