Filed under: Audio, iTS, iTunes
iTunes vs iTunes Plus: an audible difference?
With the arrival of iTunes Plus and DRM-free 256kbs AAC files Maximum PC decided to put the higher encoding rate to the test. Running a double-blind experiment with ten subjects and both Apple's included earbuds as well as high-end Shure SE420 canalphones, the results were disappointing. Overall, while most of the subjects did prefer the higher bit rate encoding, "there wasn't a tremendous distinction between the tracks encoded at 128Kb/s and those encoded at 256Kb/s. None of [of the subjects] were absolutely sure about their choices with either set of earphones, even after an average of five back-to-back A/B listening tests."Personally, I'm skeptical. I listen to quite a bit of classical music and jazz, and I'm very much more inclined to buy these at the higher bit rate. Maximum PC concluded that the lack of DRM and not audio quality is the most important aspect of iTunes Plus (though they don't think it's worth 30 cents a track). So, dear TUAW readers, what do you think? Can you hear the difference between 128 and 256kbps AAC?
[via uneasy silence]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
lloydh said 11:14AM on 6-04-2007
I've recently had a high end sound system put in my car and with a big sub and a lot of volume it's blisteringly obvious the difference even between 192kbps and apple lossless! I think I've wheened out all my 128kbps tracks!
Seriously could tell which of my tracks were 128kbps without looking when listening on my mac through a pair of Harmon Kardon Soundstick IIs!!!
I don't know if Apple's 256kbps tracks haven't been ripped properly but to me the difference is significant!
Reply
KeynoteKen said 11:21AM on 6-04-2007
I've yet to see any double-blind tests that show people can clearly tell the difference. I'd like to see 5 "I can tell the difference" bloggers conduct a double-blind test with some of their own and some "other" music to see if it all comes down to how well you knew the music before going into the test. This, I think, would answer the question of why most tests come up as "there's no difference" but in some limited circles, people claim to be quite good at telling the difference.
Reply
non sequitur said 11:21AM on 6-04-2007
Heck yes I can tell a difference. There is a huge difference from the updated version of LCD Soundsystem to the old 128Kb/s. On the Gorillaz album, it's a big difference as well. I am a guy who rips his music in Apple Lossless if I do go out to buy an album, so I guess one could say I can hear a difference. I really enjoy the new higher quality stuff, because it doesn't sound as compressed. It just sounds better.
Reply
tundraboy said 11:25AM on 6-04-2007
Wrong methodology. They ripped the same CD track using iTunes at 128 and 256 kbps. What they need to compare are the plain-vanilla iTunes version and the iTunes-
Plus version of the same track.
What they tested is the quality of iTunes encoding, not the quality of iTunes store downloaded music. Sheesh.
Reply
Marc Heijligers said 11:30AM on 6-04-2007
The differences between encodings can be very obvious, I did quite an extensive informal "study":
http://www.hifivoice.com/ipod/
The sound quality will also depend on the encoding quality. If you have 24h to encode a file to 128kbit/s, you can do it in such a way that the outcome is much better compared to a 12-encoding. Some sources in the field mentioned to me that the record companies have better encoding algorithms in their possesion. This might bring 128 vs 256 closer to eachother.
Reply
Jon said 11:33AM on 6-04-2007
Hard to trust a bunch of listeners whose auditory canals have been blown out by years of high-volume earbud listening. :-)
Reply
required said 11:42AM on 6-04-2007
Are people actually paying more for itunes?
Reply
oomu said 11:49AM on 6-04-2007
who cares.
the sound quality is nice, but I'm thrilled by the lack of DRM. I hated that.
Now I bought again some stuff I can use on my linux box or my mac at job without to think about "authorization"...
I exploded that because I gave some old mac to my familly, I have my mac at job, a powermac at home, a macbook pro and so on.. and still I want to be free to listen the same music when I boot on linux to do some programming job. The real important stuff : I can read the very same file on any systems (and yeah linux) without hack or stupid cd burning.
so yes, I happily pay 30 cents more.
Reply
Justin said 12:07PM on 6-04-2007
How many of those 10 subjects were audiophiles? I've definitely noticed a lot more depth and detail in all the songs I upgraded. Tiny guitar riffs I'd never before heard, an extra vocal track in the background, etc. However, I'm not a casual listener- I use Shure EC420 earbuds and pay attention to every waveform of a song. For most people, I'm sure the difference is negligible, but for people that really care I'm sure the difference is worth the extra change.
Reply
required said 12:09PM on 6-04-2007
"I happily pay 30 cents more"
there is a word for that, something along the lines of lollipop
Reply
Paul said 12:10PM on 6-04-2007
The difference for me is in the loudness. Laptops (even Macbook Pros) don't have very good built-in speakers, so 128kbps doesn't get very loud. But I downloaded a 256kbps track, and it was much louder.
Reply
Matt Carrell said 12:19PM on 6-04-2007
There's no audible difference between 128 kbps and 256 kbps AAC. MP3 on the other hand, the difference is clear, but it's based on much older compression mathematics. At 128 kbpsm, AAC sounds more like 196 or 256 kbps MP3s.. So if I understand this right, people are paying an extra 30 cents for the right to move their files to any number of devices or computers for playback any way they please.. and to waste double the hard drive space for no apparent audio advantage.
Reply
Bob Mc said 12:35PM on 6-04-2007
I'm amazed at the sound quality of a 128Kb/s file. I can tell a difference, but it's very slight. I've read that iTunes adds special processing that improves the sound quality, so an iTunes track will sound different than a track ripped directly from a CD.
Reply
mkumemr said 12:37PM on 6-04-2007
Well I am an 53 years old pro (classical) musician and in spite of all messages here, I am not able to tell any difference between the 128 and 256. maybe its because of my decaying ear functionality but I rather am interested in the quality of the recording. And here are HUGE diffs indeed. So amho this is far more important for the listening experience than all the fuzz about the encoding rates.
mk
Reply
JP said 12:38PM on 6-04-2007
OK the difference is a little difficult on my iPod Hifi, but then it's designed to make even the worst quality song sound a million dollars. On headphones the difference is a little clearer. But I agree that the key thing here is DRM-free. It's important to support this kind of pro-free trade initiative
Reply
Dirk Spiv said 12:41PM on 6-04-2007
I've never understood why anyone would pay more than 25 cents for a lossy song. I can buy a CD and have full quality .WAV files and physical backup in the original CD for the same price as an iTunes purchased file. Lossy junk is lossy junk, DRM or not.
Reply
boss sauce said 12:44PM on 6-04-2007
The report mentions "back-to-back" listening, but a more telling test would be to let the users switch at will between two samples to determine which sounds better. btw brushes on cymbals in live recordings are great for revealing audio compression artifacts-- they sound squishy.
Reply
Wilbur said 12:53PM on 6-04-2007
Doesn't anyone listen to real stereo systems anymore?
As good as the Shures are, if you do this type of test through a regular stereo system with real speakers, the differences are very obvious.
Reply
Harm said 12:57PM on 6-04-2007
Check this out:
http://homepage.mac.com/marc.heijligers/audio/ipod/compression/experiment/experiment.html
Reply
Greg said 1:01PM on 6-04-2007
For me, the better question is: why is this disappointing. I've been in the high end audio business, and I know there are folks who can tell the difference, but if your primary listening device is an iPod and even very good earphones [I use Etymotics and Westones], it seems to me most people are unlikely to tell the difference. So, I repeat, why is this disappointing? For most folks, this is actually good news I would think. The cheaper music is for the most part good enough.
Reply