Higher BitRate AACs?

[illumin8]

Originally posted by MorganX
This is good to see. With 384k 5.1 WMA at bumusic and 160k WMA at musicmatch, Apple is not waiting around to respond.

Seeing them compete in such a timely manner builds my confidence that Apple won't be giving up and is in this for the long haul. That alone makes me feel better continuing to buy AACs.

That's a good point, but 384k 5.1 is not very good quality sound... Basically, you only have 64k for each channel (6 discrete channels), so sound quality should suck ass.

I think 128 AAC is probably superior to 160 WMA also.

Way to go on the 192 AAC AAPL! (hehe... enough abbreviations for ya?)

 

[nickysfuture]

I think this would be great. Most of the time, the 128kbps tracks I've gotten from them have sounded pretty good, but there are times when I can really hear the compression and it's kind of irritating. I recently knocked my iBook onto the ground and broke the HD, and while I had my iTMS tracks backed up, I had to re-rip everything else, so I decided to go AAC. I did a whole bunch of blind tests, and 192 seemed like the sweet spot where I couldn't really differentiate between an AIFF and AAC on headphones (which is 99% of me listening to stuff I've ripped). 160 was ok, but where there were a lot of cymbals going on, I would say, "oh, that's the compressed one." I couldn't tell much of a difference between 192 and 256, and when I could it was a toss up as to which one I thought was which. So, if this is true, and they start getting more indie bands on (I noticed in the last update that they had some tracks from Kill Rock Stars bands like Bratmobile and Sleater-Kinney, albeit with odd choices about what to put up), this will be completely awesome.

 

[MacSlut]

Originally posted by rog
Hmm, the AACs from iTMS are supposedly from original source material so they sound better. Also, there are different AAC encoders so not all 128 bit AACs will sound the same even from the same source. Everything I've gotten form iTMS has sounded great to me. My ears and an iPod, often used on public transportation or noisy areas, are not good enough to really detect dramatic differences in sound anyway unless it's otherwise silent and I'm concentrating on the music. So I kind of think 192 would make me less likely to buy. Takes longer to download, takes up more space on my iPod.

...SNIP...

I couldn't disagree with you more. 128K AAC does sound a lot better than 128K MP3s and I was surprised by the quality of the 128K AACs on iTMS, but they are still noticeably degraded by the low data rate compression. I think a lot of people not hearing the difference don't know what to listen for, don't have quality systems, or have poor hearing. I think most simply are listening to a song and thinking it sounds "yummy" without doing an A|B test.

For me, I can't stand the sound of 128K MP3s...it's almost painful. I get really annoyed when I see articles referring to these as "standard". They sound like a cat caught on a screen door.

128K AACs sound a bit "yummier", but are still lacking. It's certainly something I consider when buying the CD versus going to iTMS.

I'd definitely be more inclined to download if they were 192K (or even higher). I really thought Apple would launch with 192K... I'm surprised they didn't.

As far as bandwidth, with a reasonable connection the difference in time is really negligible. Those with slow dial-up connections really shouldn't be dragging the rest of us down.

I applaud Apple for getting access to original masters and using high quality encoders, but this is all the more reason to be doing this with higher data rates, not lower ones.

Years from now, the only copies of some of these songs may be what came from iTMS. Have you ever tried to get an OOP song off the Net only to find the only available copy is some extremely low data rate, poorly encoded file?

Think about the future folks, it will be better to have slightly higher data rates than what may be convenient now so that in the future when bandwidth and resources improve we can enjoy the same high quality files as opposed to wishing we hadn't thought 128K was good enough considering the bandwidth or drive space.

I gotta wonder if Apple does this, how it will implement it... It's easy enough to say that Apple could just offer multiple versions with different data rates and formats (MP3, WMA, and AAC), but that could be tricky from an interface perspective.

It kinda makes sense though, perhaps Apple is thinking about offering just 192K data rates, but with MP3, WMA and AAC.

 

[MrMacMan]

MacSlut I think they should have started higher, maybe 160... but thats other story.

Choices would be good...

I think the problem with this is bandwidth, if everyone starts downloading the highest for quality apple might have a small problem with more money going into bandwidth and such...

 

[Puppies]

Semi-related question, why the heck dosen't Apple let you set the AAC encoder in iTunes to "Best" quality like you can through Quicktime/iMovie? Yeah, it takes longer to RIP, but who cares? I'm only going to rip my CDs once, and I'd like the best quality audio no matter how long it takes. Actually considering using iMovie to import all my CDs with the higher quality settings, but that would be such a pain...

 

[cbrantly]

Choose Custom...

Just choose custom and set it to whatever you want.

 

[Puppies]

Nope, choosing custom in iTunes dosen't let you select the encoding quality, only the bitrate. Quicktime (and iMovie exporting to Quicktime) lets you use a higher quality encoder, which takes longer, but presumably does a better job at a given bitrate. Since I'm only encoding this stuff once, I want to use as high a quality as possible, regardless of the time it takes.

 

[iamtiger]

Dont worry too much about the quality of the encoding using itunes AAC. The most important determinant is to use the automated controls and changing the bit rate per song. The bit rate is the single biggest and usually only determinant of quality of the AAC file using itunes that you can do.

 

[utilizer]

It's about time!

Even though 190k sounds a bit medicore, I'm all for it! Only concern I have is whether or not those of us who have already purchased music at iTMS can go back and download these at the higher bitrates. And if so, how much would this "bog down" their network? (I've really answered my own question as I write this out and it just clicked in my mind that with the additional capacity for meeting the other 97% of the market, Apple would have easily appeased them, as well as their loyal following by not charging us Apple users for higher bitrates!)

 

[Stella]

Nothing.

And really, why should it?

If I buy a product and it gets upgraded, I don't expect to receive the new product for free.

Within the price that you pay for each tune, you pay for the cost of the bandwidth. Why should Apple give away bandwidth?

Originally posted by Lord Bodak
Wonder what this would mean for already purchased music...

 

[Vlade]

Good, apple needs more options, even though I may stay at 128 kbps due to iPod space.

 

[bignumbers]

You know, this whole discussion makes me think of a feature I've always thought about every time I put music on my iPod (or old Nomad IIMG used now and then).

I'd love to have two mirror libraries, each with different bit rates. I have good speakers on my Mac, so I'd like the higher bitrates there. But I'm usually listening to MP3 players in noisier invironments - mowing the lawn, etc, where I'm unlikely to hear the difference between 96K and 192K. And of course MP3 player space is finite, where local HD space is more plentiful.

So I think iTunes 5 should support two mirror libraries, with the lower bitrate library automatically re-ripping from the better (or rip twice when ripping the CD). When you upload to an MP3 player, you'd have your choice which to use.

I think that would be very nifty indeed.

 

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by 1macker1
So is it the format or the bit rate which provides the better quality.

No matter what kind of lossy compression you use, more bits get you closer to the original signal.

MP3 vs. AAC: There's a quirk in all MP3 encoders (some are better than others, but they all do it) that leads to the perception of strange extra noises being introduced into the sound. Some music doesn't seem to be hurt at all, but other recordings end up with really annoying artifacts. You're more likely to notice them if you know the uncompressed song well, and it's also more noticeable the longer you listen to MP3 (I guess that familiarity really does breed contempt!).

AAC, at least with Apple's encoder, seems to be a lot better at making lossy compression work as advertised -- "less important" parts of the signal prefer to go missing, without the tendency to leave bizarre artifacts behind. Again, this can be disturbing if you're familiar with the source material, but you may never notice it if you don't listen to music in an otherwise quiet place. In that sense AAC is better than MP3, but it can be a disappointment.

Some of the sounds removed might even technically be defects, but were included intentionally. Any automated process is going to run into problems with those.

Adding bandwidth (higher bit rate) allows the encoder to be less aggressive in removing sounds, which in turn allows it to be more generous in leaving the "could be noise, could be signal" decisions to the listener's brain.

 

[MorganX]

Originally posted by illumin8
That's a good point, but 384k 5.1 is not very good quality sound... Basically, you only have 64k for each channel (6 discrete channels), so sound quality should suck ass.

I think 128 AAC is probably superior to 160 WMA also.

Way to go on the 192 AAC AAPL! (hehe... enough abbreviations for ya?)

384k WMA sounds great in 2Ch and 5.1. After 128k I can discern no difference between AAC and WMA. Above 128k MP3 sounds slightly better to me than both.

I really don't think sound quality is going to be much of an issue once everyone is past 128k.

The ease of use of iTMS is its biggest advantage. Buying off BuyMusic wasn't hard at all, but it wasn't transparent either. I prefer iTMS.

Can't have it all, iPod supporting WMA would be having it all ;>

I'd have to say if iTMSfW does MP3 and/or WMA this would be an open and shut iTMS win on both platforms. If it's AAC only anything could happen.

 

[MorganX]

Another score for iTMS

I almost forgot, though I like the sound quality of 5.1 WMA, I'll never buy from Buymusic.com again. Their protected WMAs download with no id3 tag info, and you cannot add it.

This is unacceptable and practially makes them useless to me other than burning a CD. If I can't categorize and sort it, I don't need it.

 

[savar]

Originally posted by MacSlut
I couldn't disagree with you more. 128K AAC does sound a lot better than 128K MP3s and I was surprised by the quality of the 128K AACs on iTMS, but they are still noticeably degraded by the low data rate compression. I think a lot of people not hearing the difference don't know what to listen for, don't have quality systems, or have poor hearing. I think most simply are listening to a song and thinking it sounds "yummy" without doing an A|B test.

I disagree with you. I am a musician, I write music, and I transcribe songs for my band to cover them. I've taken introductory music theory, trained my ears to hear specific intervals, scales, and chord progressions. And my AAC files sound fine to me. I don't hear a difference.

I listen to music on cheap headphones with my iPod while walking to class or at work, and I listen to music in my room by hooking up an iMic to my mid-range HiFi. Maybe if I had much superior equipment, the difference in sound between various bitrates would be more obvious, but my two setups introduce more noise than I can imagine the encoding ever doing.

At 64 or 92 kbs, a lot of songs do have some noise on them, but at 128Kbps I think its well past the point of being the weakest link.

It comes down to the difference between audiophiles and the average listener. An audiophile is strictly interested in reproducing signals with the highest possible s/n ratio, while the average user is just interested in the music. An audiophile would be pleased to hear a 150W amp reproduce Jim Carrey's "most irritating sound in the world", everybody else just wants to hear their favorite band rocking out.

I prefer to have more songs, shorter download times, and the simplicity of just one option when I click "Download". If Apple goes to 192Kbps only I will stop downloading from iTMS. My 5GB iPod is already at the limit and I don't want to start taking more songs off of it for that .5% of the population that has the equipment to appreciate the difference.

 

[dongmin]

Originally posted by savar
I prefer to have more songs, shorter download times, and the simplicity of just one option when I click "Download". If Apple goes to 192Kbps only I will stop downloading from iTMS. My 5GB iPod is already at the limit and I don't want to start taking more songs off of it for that .5% of the population that has the equipment to appreciate the difference.

if Apple was smart, they'd offer both 128 and 192. Why not offer the lower bandwidth version? Better on their servers and little or no added work on their part.

 

[jywv8]

Originally posted by savar
It comes down to the difference between audiophiles and the average listener. An audiophile is strictly interested in reproducing signals with the highest possible s/n ratio, while the average user is just interested in the music. An audiophile would be pleased to hear a 150W amp reproduce Jim Carrey's "most irritating sound in the world", everybody else just wants to hear their favorite band rocking out.

I disagree. I'm an average listener. And just as I can hear the difference in quality when I listen to same CD played on my car stereo and my home stereo, I can hear the difference between a 128 kpbs and a 256 kpbs AAC file (although, not all the time) on the same speakers. And it makes a difference to me.

I think, rather, it comes down to what you are going to do with your music files. If you're, say, a big iPod user, then, yeah, you are going to care a lot about the file sizes. But, for someone like me, who primarily listens to their music on their home computer, then, you know, I could really care less about whether a song is 5 MB or 10 MB. I'm more interested in getting the highest quality recording.

 

[chickengrease16]

great news if this be true. ive bought about 50 songs from iTMS already, and most of them, while i can bear to listen to them, dont sound the best through any nice sound system. 192 would be a lot better. and yes, for those of you that might be wondering, i'm one of those people that cant stand listening to even 256 kbps mp3s, although sometimes if the ripper doesnt do the "fast" setting like so many people are tempted to do and actually spends more CPU time encoding it, they usually are okay.

 

[Geetar]

Originally posted by savar:
"I am a musician, I write music, and I transcribe songs for my band to cover them. I've taken introductory music theory, trained my ears .....

An audiophile is strictly interested in reproducing signals with the highest possible s/n ratio, while the average user is just interested in the music."



You are joking? Resolution mean nothing to you? If S/N ratio were all there was to music, then very lossy codecs would be fine- all the discarded info could be HF above, say, 10.5KHz (thus also doing away with that troublesome tendency of steep, badly-designed 44.1KHZ brickwall filters to push their audio detritus back into the ....er....audio band) and LF below 115Hz., and sound levels below, say, -55dB below Full Scale. After all, as you say, audiophiles are only in search of a noise-free experience.

I hope you know this, and were just over-simplifying .


[After all, it was in just such a way (the promise of no more scratchy noise between or during tracks) that the early and truly gawdawful CD players enticed people away from vinyl. Poorly-implemented filters and (as you might say) only about 12 bits of resolution, which would yield a poor S/N ratio, made these an excruciating experience. A bit like lo-rate MP3s]

Getting back to your original contention, your spatial cues, your stereo field, your timing cues and your reverberation tails could all be annihilated to good advantage. And let's not forget the upper parts of the harmonic profile of a good chunk of the orchestra (I'm a bassist and guitarist, by the way and even I care!) But of course- pause for applause- there'd be NO NOISE!

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Congratulations, Geetar! You've just won the Stereotypical Audiophile of the Year Award! Congratulations!

 

[Geetar]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Stereotypical Audiophile

I hope that was a VERY bad pun...

 

[Phil Of Mac]

No, it was a very good pun.

 

[iDave]

I hope, if Apple decides to offer 192Kbps files, they continue to offer 128K files too. There should be a preference you can set in iTunes for the kind of files you prefer to buy. I'd get the 192s. Any suggestion of a price difference would be nonsense.

 

[mproud]

If we do see 190/192 kbps AAC, Steve Jobs will say something like:

"When we first started, the iPod had a then impressive 5 GB hard drive. But since then, users now have anywhere from 2 times to 8 times that amount of space..."

The main reason for going with a lower rate is obviously for advertising. You can then advertise that you can fit more songs on your iPod.

Nowadays, since the size of these hard drives are so large, the number of songs able to fit on there is not so important anymore. From a marketing perspective, if you say "5,500 songs" or "6,500 songs" people are going to barely even notice.

Besides, the selling point now is really the space of the hard drive, as opposed to the number of songs. Apple has described their iPods, in general, as 10, 20, and 40 GB models whenever possible, instead of 2,500, 5,000, and 10,000 songs.)