Its a shame that Apple can't satisfy audiophiles with some higher res, even lossless and DSD audio. The real problem with their hardware is also the crappy DACs in their devices.
Its a shame that Apple can't satisfy audiophiles with some higher res, even lossless and DSD audio. The real problem with their hardware is also the crappy DACs in their devices.
Apple doesn't appeal to everyone. If you want better, go buy a Pono player if they're still even selling.
Does Apple still offer normal songs? I thought everything that I purchase now on iTunes are Plus? Am I wrong? ( I only purchase music via iPhone, not Mac)
Everything went Plus around 2009 when Apple announced the new DRM-free policy for all songs and introduced the variable pricing scheme.
Fan-Bloody-Tastic. All the insincere hyperbole from Apple about maintaining respect for an artists musical integrity and then Apple inflict data-reduction across the board. No choice. Just a measly 256kbps. Fine if you like Pop, Springsteen, U2, RAP and Dire Straights. Not nearly adequate enough for well recorded and produced work.
Correction for you – *most* people don't care. But those that do will hear the difference.
It's not that no one cares, it's that no one cares about people that say they can hear the difference. And most importantly, Apple doesn't care. They love music so much they would prefer audio snobs subscribe to a different service better suited to their ears. I'm not criticizing you/them because I'm a video snob and understand that no one wants to hear me go on about how sensitive and great my eyes are and how 1080p doesn't cut it compared to 4k, HDR and uncompressed video.
1080p isn't as good as 4k. (?)
Holy crap you must be some kind of wizard. You're really out on the edge with that one.
Average should never be the standard. It would have been nice to get top quality. Most of us now listen to music purchased from iTunes at home, and it would be nice if we could have the option to get top quality tracks. I am not an audiophile, but even on my inexpensive B&W sustem, I can hear the difference between iTunes Plus and CD. Easily, not even a competition.
Really?
Here is a file I made. It contains segments that are 223 kbps compressed AAC interleaved with the original uncompressed original. If you can identify where the segments are by reporting the relevant time codes, I will believe you can hear the difference you claim to be able to.
The German computer magazine c't did a well designed study using extremely expensive audio equipment and audio professionals as the test subjects. It showed that people did not prefer lossless audio over 256k MP3s any more than chance. And this study was performed 15 years ago, before a number of improvements were made to the psychoacoustics of MP3 encoders. Anyone who says that they can hear the difference is simply delusional.
Apple should just claim its 1024 bits, because no one can tell the difference anyway.
Then people will complain it consumes more data than competitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
Would love to hear from the sensationalists spreading this garbage how they came up with the idea that 320 Kbps mp3 is "better" than 256 AAC.
It's "better" in the same sense that more megapixels in phone camera will always be better irrespective of the sensor, the lens etc. This always be the marketer scaring tactic. I pity anyone who's falling for it.
Comments
Its a shame that Apple can't satisfy audiophiles with some higher res, even lossless and DSD audio. The real problem with their hardware is also the crappy DACs in their devices.
Apple doesn't appeal to everyone. If you want better, go buy a Pono player if they're still even selling.
Does Apple still offer normal songs? I thought everything that I purchase now on iTunes are Plus? Am I wrong? ( I only purchase music via iPhone, not Mac)
Everything went Plus around 2009 when Apple announced the new DRM-free policy for all songs and introduced the variable pricing scheme.
Fan-Bloody-Tastic. All the insincere hyperbole from Apple about maintaining respect for an artists musical integrity and then Apple inflict data-reduction across the board. No choice. Just a measly 256kbps. Fine if you like Pop, Springsteen, U2, RAP and Dire Straights. Not nearly adequate enough for well recorded and produced work.
Bloodshotrollin'red indeed....
Buzz off now.
I imagine that Spotify is using Ogg Vorbis since they don't have to pay a royalty.
That's correct. Spotify mostly uses Ogg Vorbis.
YAY Crappy lossy compression! Way to lower the bar Apple!
Do Apple's competitors (not some niche players) in this sphere offer losslessly compressed streaming? If so, who?
Another person who thinks that AAC and MP3 are the same.
It's like saying a 55" HD TV is better than a 50" 4K TV because the screen is larger.
AAC has a lower bit rate and higher quality than an equivalent MP3 file.
"Standard" is not a mathematical term at all..... Besides, averages are still usually rubbish.
another "rubbish"
everyone take a drink.
Apple doesn't appeal to everyone. If you want better, go buy a Pono player if they're still even selling.
You have got to be kidding!
Bummer- they should at least offer a hi-res option for folks who know their HiFi...
Yeah? How many people would that be?
Apple doesn't appeal to everyone. If you want better, go buy a Pono player if they're still even selling.
You have got to be kidding!
Why does he have to be kidding?
You've got to be kidding...
Newsflash, guys: If something doesn't suit your taste or work for you, go consume something else. Is that so hard?!
Correction for you – *most* people don't care. But those that do will hear the difference.
It's not that no one cares, it's that no one cares about people that say they can hear the difference. And most importantly, Apple doesn't care. They love music so much they would prefer audio snobs subscribe to a different service better suited to their ears. I'm not criticizing you/them because I'm a video snob and understand that no one wants to hear me go on about how sensitive and great my eyes are and how 1080p doesn't cut it compared to 4k, HDR and uncompressed video.
1080p isn't as good as 4k. (?)
Holy crap you must be some kind of wizard. You're really out on the edge with that one.
Bummer- they should at least offer a hi-res option for folks who know their HiFi...
One suspects these might be the same people who swear they can tell the difference between tap water and Evian.
Average should never be the standard. It would have been nice to get top quality. Most of us now listen to music purchased from iTunes at home, and it would be nice if we could have the option to get top quality tracks. I am not an audiophile, but even on my inexpensive B&W sustem, I can hear the difference between iTunes Plus and CD. Easily, not even a competition.
Really?
Here is a file I made. It contains segments that are 223 kbps compressed AAC interleaved with the original uncompressed original. If you can identify where the segments are by reporting the relevant time codes, I will believe you can hear the difference you claim to be able to.
One suspects these might be the same people who swear they can tell the difference between tap water and Evian.
Or OSX and Windows
The German computer magazine c't did a well designed study using extremely expensive audio equipment and audio professionals as the test subjects. It showed that people did not prefer lossless audio over 256k MP3s any more than chance. And this study was performed 15 years ago, before a number of improvements were made to the psychoacoustics of MP3 encoders. Anyone who says that they can hear the difference is simply delusional.
Apple should just claim its 1024 bits, because no one can tell the difference anyway.
Then people will complain it consumes more data than competitors.
Would love to hear from the sensationalists spreading this garbage how they came up with the idea that 320 Kbps mp3 is "better" than 256 AAC.
It's "better" in the same sense that more megapixels in phone camera will always be better irrespective of the sensor, the lens etc. This always be the marketer scaring tactic. I pity anyone who's falling for it.