I am guessing 256kbps will just be the defualt now. Most people don't know that you can import at pretty much whatever bitrate you want and a whole slew of options.
I wonder why they don't use VBR as the standard though. I guess people feel more assured if they see a single number next to all their files instead of a varying number.
iTunes Plus is actually VBR and encodes with the 'best' setting in the encoder, whereas manually selecting 256kbps w/ VBR will use the 'normal' setting that iTunes AAC files have always been. So iTunes Plus should give marginally better results than the regular 256kbps mode.
For me, not very likely, see, I use my Mac Pro as a Media server and have every single CD I own, and some vinyl too, ripped to it as a lossless AIFF file so I can play it back through an obscenely expensive DAC, and then off to the rest of my obscenely expensive audio equipment.
I would bet 10,000 US Dollars you would be able to hear the difference between an AIFF file and the same song at 256kb within 30 seconds.
I'd take that bet. Easily. Unless you're 14 years old and have never been to a rock concert. I know people who have had years of training in knowing EXACTLY what to listen for when it comes to compression artifacts (a couple of them helped encode LAME and OGG which are probably the two standards for lossy encoding) and at 256kbps, they don't get it right more than 65% of the time.
EditL and they're listening through Sennheiser Orpheus's, which would blow away pretty much anything out there with regards to the amount of detail you can year.
I'd take that bet. Easily. Unless you're 14 years old and have never been to a rock concert. I know people who have had years of training in knowing EXACTLY what to listen for when it comes to compression artifacts (a couple of them helped encode LAME and OGG which are probably the two standards for lossy encoding) and at 256kbps, they don't get it right more than 65% of the time.
EditL and they're listening through Sennheiser Orpheus's, which would blow away pretty much anything out there with regards to the amount of detail you can year.
Come on, FJRabon, you're making stuff up. Lossy is lossy. And some people can perceive more than you can. Some people know when they're listening to a lossy music encoding or watching a lossy video encoding.
Yes, 256kbps and the original source are probably very difficult to tell apart...however, for certain kinds of music, the difference is obvious to someone with a trained ear.
I dont think this has been mentioned yet - but the move to 256k default is surely just a ploy by Apple to fill up "dumb" peoples' iPods quicker so that they go out and buy a new one. Devious recession busting plan!
By dumb, I mean the 95% of people who are ignorant of the fact that changing the bit rate for encoding is even possible.
Comments
I am guessing 256kbps will just be the defualt now. Most people don't know that you can import at pretty much whatever bitrate you want and a whole slew of options.
I wonder why they don't use VBR as the standard though. I guess people feel more assured if they see a single number next to all their files instead of a varying number.
iTunes Plus is actually VBR and encodes with the 'best' setting in the encoder, whereas manually selecting 256kbps w/ VBR will use the 'normal' setting that iTunes AAC files have always been. So iTunes Plus should give marginally better results than the regular 256kbps mode.
For you, maybe.
For me, not very likely, see, I use my Mac Pro as a Media server and have every single CD I own, and some vinyl too, ripped to it as a lossless AIFF file so I can play it back through an obscenely expensive DAC, and then off to the rest of my obscenely expensive audio equipment.
I would bet 10,000 US Dollars you would be able to hear the difference between an AIFF file and the same song at 256kb within 30 seconds.
I'd take that bet. Easily. Unless you're 14 years old and have never been to a rock concert. I know people who have had years of training in knowing EXACTLY what to listen for when it comes to compression artifacts (a couple of them helped encode LAME and OGG which are probably the two standards for lossy encoding) and at 256kbps, they don't get it right more than 65% of the time.
EditL and they're listening through Sennheiser Orpheus's, which would blow away pretty much anything out there with regards to the amount of detail you can year.
I'd take that bet. Easily. Unless you're 14 years old and have never been to a rock concert. I know people who have had years of training in knowing EXACTLY what to listen for when it comes to compression artifacts (a couple of them helped encode LAME and OGG which are probably the two standards for lossy encoding) and at 256kbps, they don't get it right more than 65% of the time.
EditL and they're listening through Sennheiser Orpheus's, which would blow away pretty much anything out there with regards to the amount of detail you can year.
Come on, FJRabon, you're making stuff up. Lossy is lossy. And some people can perceive more than you can. Some people know when they're listening to a lossy music encoding or watching a lossy video encoding.
Yes, 256kbps and the original source are probably very difficult to tell apart...however, for certain kinds of music, the difference is obvious to someone with a trained ear.
By dumb, I mean the 95% of people who are ignorant of the fact that changing the bit rate for encoding is even possible.