Skip to main content

Topic: iTunes versus Amazonmp3 versus 320 kbps (Read 28564 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
iTunes versus Amazonmp3 versus 320 kbps
Reply #25
But I doubt that they will upgrade it any further.

I'd say things are up in the air...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=93804
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
iTunes versus Amazonmp3 versus 320 kbps
Reply #26
So I take it that iTunes is the best digital music retailer out there? Compared to Amazonmp3 that is?

You have been told sufficiently numerous times that these stores are unlikely to differ in audible quality and that the decision depends upon which format and player (hardware/software) you wish to use, to which I would add your preferred shopping interface (i.e. a multi-product website, Amazon, vs. a media-only application, iTunes) and/or payment method. It is now up to you to decide based upon all this information; no one else can make a decision for you, as much as you seem to want that.

  • DonP
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
iTunes versus Amazonmp3 versus 320 kbps
Reply #27
I always believed that the LAME encoder was superior despite what's been said about AAC being superior to an mp3 file.
Why is that?

Hypothetically superior, mind you: at bitrates such as these, it is very unlikely that any given combination of listener and sample will reveal an audible difference.


In most cases, listening to the original download, yes.

If you want lower bitrate copies for your portable DAP, then you'd be better off starting with the highest quality possible even if it is beyond what you can detect.

To the original question, there are some vendors who distribute lossless, but won't have the broad catalogs of Amazon and itunes. 

  • DonP
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
iTunes versus Amazonmp3 versus 320 kbps
Reply #28
Sorry to ask, but I must; the OCD part of me just has to know, which digital music retailer would you recommend then? Amazon mp3 or iTunes? Or from my interpretation, correct me if I'm wrong; both equally good with no discernible difference?

iTunes 100%. The music will always be there for you to be redownloaded whenever you want to after you delete it. If they upgrade the quality, you get the better quality.



Nice of them to tell their customers.  Last I heard from them there was a per song fee to re download without DRM so they've been off my radar screen.

  • mixminus1
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
iTunes versus Amazonmp3 versus 320 kbps
Reply #29
...meaning "last you heard" was early 2009 - the times, they are a changin'!

From kornchild2002's post:

Quote
That is what Apple did back when 256kbps was adopted for a small set of record companies and then when it was widely adopted. People had to pay $0.30 per song and $3.00 for each album to upgrade from the 128kbps DRMed files to the 256kbps DRM-free versions. Fast forward many years later and Apple now offers that same functionality through iTunes Match at $25 a year.

...and that $25/year is only necessary if you want to have music you never bought from iTunes available in iCloud - *all* music you've ever purchased from iTunes is freely available for redownloading, currently at 256kb/s AAC.
"Not sure what the question is, but the answer is probably no."

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
iTunes versus Amazonmp3 versus 320 kbps
Reply #30
Isn't it also true that the fee also includes matching of tracks you didn't purchase through iTunes?

If you want lower bitrate copies for your portable DAP, then you'd be better off starting with the highest quality possible even if it is beyond what you can detect.

I don't believe that does too much to prevent smearing that might otherwise be inaudible. Transcodng should be avoided if at all possible.

13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

iTunes versus Amazonmp3 versus 320 kbps
Reply #31
Apple started offering free downloads of previously purchased music a while back (maybe 4-5 months?) so that you can download any previously purchased song for free again.  The same holds true for most movies and TV shows and that will likely change once more studios get behind it.  So Apple has that benefit in that you can easily access past purchases and download them again for free.

iTunes Match is a supplementary service that isn't required for downloading previously purchased content (which is free).  Instead, iTunes Match will scan your iTunes library, try to match songs (and songs only) to ones in the iTunes Store, and allow you to download them at the same 256kbps DRM-free AAC standard.  If it can't find a song in the iTunes Store to match to, it will upload it to your iCloud account.  I believe it can store 20,000-25,000 songs as part of the $25 a year subscription.  iOS 5 devices work with iCloud as well though that functionality is severely limited in that you can't stream songs off of iCloud through an iOS 5 device, you can only download them to the device (iTunes can download and/or stream though).  I subscribed to iTunes Match mainly because I had a bunch of older songs from the days when illicit downloads weren't a touchy subject and openly supported.  I also had some songs for which I lost the original CD and some of my CD rips were damaged.  So I was able to cycle out those songs with 256kbps DRM-free AAC versions.  I don't think I am going to renew my membership.

  • DonP
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
iTunes versus Amazonmp3 versus 320 kbps
Reply #32
Transcodng should be avoided if at all possible.


Except if you are transcoding from lossless.  That's my point, better to avoid buying lossy even if you can't hear artifacts at that lossy rate.


iTunes versus Amazonmp3 versus 320 kbps
Reply #33
I just asked my father do you prefer lossy format like Mp3, AAC or a lossless format. He had no idea what i was on about. He just buys his music from iTunes and presses play. The very vast majority of people would be in the same boat. The need for lossless is really irrelevant for the majority of people.

iTunes versus Amazonmp3 versus 320 kbps
Reply #34
Transcodng should be avoided if at all possible.


Except if you are transcoding from lossless.  That's my point, better to avoid buying lossy even if you can't hear artifacts at that lossy rate.


Thank you all for your information guys. My question has been answered.