quality of songs downloaded from itunes

**random** · October 16th, 2005, 06:51 PM

the itunes songs are originally in 128kbit format is this equivalent to say 192kbits mp3?

**zarquon** · October 16th, 2005, 07:13 PM

Just as tin is equivalent to gold, or piss is equivalent to coke.

**ducttapeBigSexy** · October 17th, 2005, 09:20 AM

I would say it's around that area - I know for a fact that it sounds better then a 128 mp3.

However, keep in mind that if you're converting an iTunes song (by burning it and ripping it), you will lose some quality. It'll still be better then a 128 mp3, but it won't be a true 192 mp3 - but, chances are that you won't be able to notice a huge difference (if any at all).

**zarquon** · October 17th, 2005, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by ducttapeBigSexy

I would say it's around that area - I know for a fact that it sounds better then a 128 mp3.

However, keep in mind that if you're converting an iTunes song (by burning it and ripping it), you will lose some quality. It'll still be better then a 128 mp3, but it won't be a true 192 mp3 - but, chances are that you won't be able to notice a huge difference (if any at all).

Wtf, if your original is 128kbps then no amount of transcode from lossy to lossy, regardless of bitrate will improve the quality. Any reencode will deteriorate the quality.

Only re-encode lossless to lossy, eq flac,wav -> mp3.

Please know what you're talking about before answering.

**crackerjacker** · October 17th, 2005, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by random

the itunes songs are originally in 128kbit format is this equivalent to say 192kbits mp3?

dont pay for music shame on u

**ducttapeBigSexy** · October 17th, 2005, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by zarquon

Wtf, if your original is 128kbps then no amount of transcode from lossy to lossy, regardless of bitrate will improve the quality. Any reencode will deteriorate the quality.

Only re-encode lossless to lossy, eq flac,wav -> mp3.

Please know what you're talking about before answering.

Yes, that's true if you're talking about an mp3. The question was about a 128 kps song purchased from the iTunes Music Store.

iTunes does not release songs in mp3 format - it releases it the MPEG4 compliant AAC format. This is a direct quote from Apple's site about AAC ( http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/aac/ )

AAC compressed audio at 128 Kbps (stereo) has been judged by expert listeners to be “indistinguishable” from the original uncompressed audio source.*
AAC compressed audio at 96 Kbps generally exceeded the quality of MP3 compressed audio at 128 Kbps. AAC at 128 Kbps provides significantly superior performance than does MP3 at 128 Kbps.*
AAC was the only Internet audio codec evaluated in the range “Excellent” at 64 Kbps for all of the audio items tested in EBU listening tests.*

I stand by my advice.

**Stownplayer** · October 17th, 2005, 07:38 PM

and a partridge in a pear tree.......

**White Crow** · October 17th, 2005, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by random

the itunes songs are originally in 128kbit format is this equivalent to say 192kbits mp3?

Arghhh no! The usage of "kbs" stands for the bitrate of the song, or in other words the quality. The higher the bitrate, the higher the quality. I always download 192kbs mp3s for myself, unless the song has more of a complex compostion with lots of musical techniques. Only then I would get songs with even higher bitrates around 256kbs. Thankyou.

**White Crow** · October 17th, 2005, 07:56 PM

Except I use Limewire because it's far more versatile than iTunes, and also it's for free.

**zarquon** · October 17th, 2005, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by ducttapeBigSexy

Yes, that's true if you're talking about an mp3. The question was about a 128 kps song purchased from the iTunes Music Store.

iTunes does not release songs in mp3 format - it releases it the MPEG4 compliant AAC format. This is a direct quote from Apple's site about AAC ( http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/aac/ )
I stand by my advice.

Its true for all lossy compression algorithms, aac mp3 ogg etc. You stand by your advice even though you dont understand a simple thing like lossy compression. I dont give a damn about apples self hyping BS, its still a lossy
audio file, so transcode will degrade the audio. AAC or MP3, it does not matter!

I STAND BY MY ADVICE, cos unlike you i know what i am talking about.

**ducttapeBigSexy** · October 18th, 2005, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by zarquon

Its true for all lossy compression algorithms, aac mp3 ogg etc. You stand by your advice even though you dont understand a simple thing like lossy compression. I dont give a damn about apples self hyping BS, its still a lossy
audio file, so transcode will degrade the audio. AAC or MP3, it does not matter!

I STAND BY MY ADVICE, cos unlike you i know what i am talking about.

Oh yeah, I totally agree with you - that's why I originally wrote:

However, keep in mind that if you're converting an iTunes song (by burning it and ripping it), you will lose some quality. It'll still be better then a 128 mp3, but it won't be a true 192 mp3

But, from tests I've done, I noticed very little quality difference between formats. Don't worry, we're both on the same page here. I personally don't recommend reencoding files if you don't have to, but if it's your only option, I would recommend converting a 128 AAC into a 192 mp3.

**MrAppleford** · October 24th, 2005, 02:23 PM

I do not know the numbers (not an audiophile) but I have never experienced any problem with the quality... however I do not use ulta-highend stereo equiptment.