Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Systems iTunes Plus

At 256k just how close to CD quality are we getting from the new iTunes DRM free service?

n mttr wht th lssy hrstc s, yr stll tlkng bt lssy msc. why nt d t RGHT nd jst ffr lsslss? sms slly t d n ntrmdt stp, n?

ddy

I am a "lossless" snobOf course, why would anyone spend all that money on the best kit in the world only to feed it the "garbage" of lossy music.

But are we close to the online streamed lossless nirvana I have in my head or is it still a few years away? Is downloading 256k music that far away from downloading Apple Lossless or FLAC Lossless?

Perhaps I should ask Apple.

Before I knew any better, I ripped my CD collection in MP3 at 192k. It sounds pretty good from SB via G68 or F80 - I would have to be listening critically to notice any difference. From iPod, Its not so good and the iPod would appear to be the limiting factor rather than the quality of the rip.

I still rip at same settings via iTunes as its convenient. Im not going to rerip my collection. But my Squeezebox is a convenience item. So this suite me fine.

So if its 256k against a like for like codec at 192k, unless you were listening critically, I think you would have to be pretty anal to diss it. And 256k may even do it for critical listening too.

I agree with Ian. Keep in mind at 256k you get about 3:1 compression. With lossless codecs you get around 2:1 compression. So you are very close to lossless. It also doesn't cost much more space to go lossless over 256k MP3.

CD is 1,400 kbps. lossless compression can get you to 750 kbps on average. so figure 256 kbps is throwing away 2 of every 3 bits.

doody.

Doody,

I don't think you can look at it that simply.
If that were the case it would sound horrible and it simply doesn't. 256k to my tired old ears is indistinguishable from lossless (but I still rip lossless).

You could make the same argument with AC3 to MLP and it simply doesn't line up.

There isn't 16 bits of audible significance in every sample. Which is why MP3, DD, DTS work.

Most of the 'critical listening' blind test I've read about say that AAC 128 and MP3 192 are equivalent quality. And AAC 256 is indistinguishable from lossless by nearly everyone. No doubt a tiny few exceptional ears exist and of course can depend a little on the source type of music - but for my $.02, AAC256 reaches that pinnacle for me. I'll continue to rip at Apple Lossless, but I'll purchase now on iTunes AAC256 as equal to CD; Saving and disk buys for multichannel and those special DVD-A/SACD occassions that have more to do with the production/mix source quality.

Just finished converting the library to iTunes plus - turned out to be about 128 songs - Can't wait to see the Beatles stuff come on....

ken

I tend to agree with Ian's take on this in terms of what you will hear. I think if you sat down with top gear and listened really closely you will notice it also if you compare CD via Trifield to lossy@256 you will notice it because Trifield will do more with the full PCM version. That said- note that AAC is a newer codec and I think its supposed to be a better codec at the same bit rates as MP3 so comparing AAC 256 is probably better done to MP3 320.


That said- Ill still buy the CDs or the less expensive itunes 192 tracks because Im a snob on this one. for me its either that I am buying something I want the quality and want to listen to many times (CD) or a top 40 track for iPod listening/ wife requests (itunes). But thats just me.

best regards,
Jerry

as..usy..mr..dy..s..right ))

i'm happy to flush the audible differences argument and just argue value for dollar.

at these prices, it's usually cheaper to just buy the CD and rip it. you get ALL the bits for the same or less money and you (IANAL) get MORE rights than you do with the digital download purchase.

doody.

good points Doody - although the new AAC256 on iTunes is DRM free....