I was wondering which digital music retailer offers the highest quality being itunes versus Amazonmp3 and also how their 256 kbps compares to 320 kbps.
I was wondering which digital music retailer offers the highest quality being itunes versus Amazonmp3 and also how their 256 kbps compares to 320 kbps.
They all sound the same to me on my equipment. All should be transparent for most folks.
iTunes = Apple claims it's CBR, iTunes does VBR but some say it's actually ABR 256Kbps
Amazon = LAME VBR -V 0
Google Play Music = LAME or Fraunhofer CBR 320Kbps
The quality is high, they sound all the same to me. I was more obsessed few months ago with encoders, I now say if it's not for archival purposes over 160Kbps LAME and AAC are both good.
Amazon offered me a €5 rebate on MP3s so I downloaded Feels Like Home from Norah Jones for free. The MP3s were encoded with LAME 3.97 and had a rather low bitrate for -V 0: they range from 191 kbps to 217 kbps. 3 of the tracks have numbers of samples that are not multiples of 588, indicating possible transcodes from MP3. I didn't hear any particular artifacts, though I wasn't paying much attention.
Amazon offered me a €5 rebate on MP3s so I downloaded Feels Like Home from Norah Jones for free. The MP3s were encoded with LAME 3.97 and had a rather low bitrate for -V 0: they range from 191 kbps to 217 kbps. 3 of the tracks have numbers of samples that are not multiples of 588, indicating possible transcodes from MP3. I didn't hear any particular artifacts, though I wasn't paying much attention.
So would you recommend iTunes then skamp??? Since it doesn't sound like amazon offers the 256 kbps definitely as advertised if they were lower. Unless that's what -V 0 means.
LAME 3.97 is almost 6 years old. My own LAME 3.99.5 encodes at -V 0 seem to yield higher bitrates (by 40-50 kbps), closer to 256 kbps. My gripe with Amazon is both that they're using a seriously outdated encoder, and they're possibly transcoding lossy to lossy.
I only have 3 iTunes Music Store files, 2 of which are from the same album, and again, one track is a multiple of 588, the other isn't. Maybe both were sourced from a "high quality" master derived from a CD master (that divides by 588), and one track was altered in a way that resulted in a change in the number of samples, while the other was not. In other words, the number of samples alone is not conclusive evidence of anything, except that they're not straight up encoding lossless CD rips.
FWIW those 3 iTunes files are 265-270 kbps. But I can't recommend any store that only sells lossy in the first place. I'm sticking to CDs for now.
they're possibly transcoding lossy to lossy.
Is that a rumour, or a confirmed fact for X percentage of Amazon's offering?
Amazon = LAME VBR -V 0
Amazon doesn't use the same setting (and same encoders) all the time. Most albums I bought were 3.97 V0 but not all. For example "Stalingrad", the new Album from ACCEPT:
(http://i.imgur.com/OIGPd.png)
It's CBR256 and regular stereo and I was a bit pissed after I bought it. It's not really a problem since it still sounds fine to my ears but I don't get it why they don't use the same settings for all files (AFAIK Amazon makes all MP3-files themselves) or at least put the bitrate in the description of the albums.
Oh yeah: I never bought from iTunes (I don't even have it installed) so I can't say anything about the quality of their files.
and they're possibly transcoding lossy to lossy.
If this is really true, there is something seriously wrong in the digital music market, that pirating files is more reliable than buying music from a shop like Amazon.
The truth is, I have no idea what they're doing, except that they're not selling straight up CD rips.
I never bought from iTunes (I don't even have it installed) so I can't say anything about the quality of their files.
All of their files are 256 kbps AAC from a well-tuned encoder, and thus they are likely to be transparent in almost all non-exceptional cases.
LAME 3.97 is almost 6 years old. My own LAME 3.99.5 encodes at -V 0 seem to yield higher bitrates (by 40-50 kbps), closer to 256 kbps. My gripe with Amazon is both that they're using a seriously outdated encoder, and they're possibly transcoding lossy to lossy.
LAME 3.97 -V0 has lower bitrate than 3.98/3.99 -V0. So, it is not because Amazon transcodes.
In my consideration 3.97 isn't outdated at all. The only benefit of using 3.98 and 3.99 is speed and higher bitrate/quality for V0.
[img ]http://i.imgur.com/OIGPd.png[/img]
(What application is this?)
(Encspot: http://web.archive.org/web/20071211044231/...t/download.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20071211044231/http://guerillasoft.co.uk/EncSpot/download.html) . Or try to find ver. 2.1 somewhere).
(Encspot: http://web.archive.org/web/20071211044231/...t/download.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20071211044231/http://guerillasoft.co.uk/EncSpot/download.html) . Or try to find ver. 2.1 somewhere).
...and http://www.portablefreeware.com/?id=1103 (http://www.portablefreeware.com/?id=1103)
3 of the tracks have numbers of samples that are not multiples of 588, indicating possible transcodes from MP3.
Or MP2, for that matter. As I understand, the big labels like to work with masters in this format. The clipping sensitivity of this format may be a reason for noticeable sonic differences between CD and lossy download versions (occasionally noted for both iTunes and Amazon MP3), though in the days of watermarking (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110809/04114515451/umg-watermarks-audiophile-files-pisses-off-paying-customers.shtml) and "Mastered for iTunes" the number of potential causes has grown.
Overall, if you want to make sure it sounds like the CD, you still are best off with ripping the CD yourself, or otherwise a FLAC download (not official UMG stuff...). Then you can encode it to whatever you want.
So what's the final verdict? Both retailers are good? Or is Amazon worse because they don't use the same encoding for all their music whereas iTunes does? I always believed that the LAME encoder was superior despite what's been said about AAC being superior to an mp3 file.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I bought a lot of classical albums from Amazon and I always try to have them reenable the download just to simulate a scenario where all my music is gone. Since it's not a service/feature they offer you always have to email them few times and they don't even give you the original AMZ file so you can get the full albums, they enable song by song only for one download session. They are not ready for an online music store that competes with iTunes.
Google Play Music. Still have to play with it, they probably have the redownload service/feature enabled.
I know its not the answer to the question but here in germany i first look at "musicload" for downloading music, since they offer "high quality" downloads (PCM in WAV container) for selected albums/tracks and most other files in 320kbps MP3.
If i can't find on musicload what i've been searching for i buy on iTunes.
I never bought music from Amazon, downloaded only some "free of charge" downloads they offer from time to time. So i can't say anything reliable about differences in sound quality between iTunes and Amazon...
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.
But I doubt that they will upgrade it any further. That they did once, from 128/DRM to 256/DRM-free, does not indicate that any further upgrade is at all likely.
In fact, despite my question about your assumption that MP3 is technically superior, I now tend to prefer it myself due to its (hypothetically/historically) higher compatibility (while still being transparent in almost all cases). This is probably not likely to be an issue, as AAC is forcing its way into almost all new hardware, and perhaps I am being excessively cautious, but there it is!
Or from my interpretation, correct me if I'm wrong; both equally good with no discernible difference?
Pretty much.
FWIW, in relation to eahm discussing the ability to re-download previously bought files, I have bought from Play.com several times, and this has always been simple to accomplish. I am unsure whether Play sells its MP3 files at 320 kbps or V0, but either is likely to be more than adequate.
Even if Apple were to start offering higher quality music downloads (i.e. lossless), consumers would likely have to pay an upgrade fee to re-obtain the same content at the new setting. 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. I highly doubt Apple would let iTunes Match subscribers download everything through again at the lossless setting and instead rely on the older setup: charge users an upgrade fee.
Then again, I don't think Apple is going to adopt lossless as a norm for a long, long time. A major provider hasn't stepped up to offer it and public demand is rather low. Most people I know who buy music from the iTunes Store don't even know that it is encoded at 256kbps, doesn't have any DRM, and uses the AAC format. They just want their music and don't care about the ins and outs. The people who actually know about and use lossless are a small niche compared to the general consumers who just buy music.
Keep in mind that Lame encoded files do not play back gapless over Home Sharing on iPod Touches and iPhones. We can only hope Apple fixes this some day as on the iPad and Apple TV gapless works as it should.
Keep in mind that Lame encoded files do not play back gapless over Home Sharing on iPod Touches and iPhones. We can only hope Apple fixes this some day as on the iPad and Apple TV gapless works as it should.
So I take it that iTunes is the best digital music retailer out there? Compared to Amazonmp3 that is?
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 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=93804)
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.
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.
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.
...meaning "last you heard" was early 2009 - the times, they are a changin'!
From kornchild2002's post:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.