Re: OT: iTunes Plus
- From: hwh <iimeeltje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 08:26:41 +0200
Richard Evans wrote:
Silk wrote:Scott wrote:I see that iTunes is now offering 256 kbps aac. I know some (but not
all) members here care about audio quality. I would be interested to
know if 256 kbps is necessary or over the top. I have encoded my iPod
tracks (from CD) at 192 kbps which sounds fine to me. In fact it
sounds even better than DAB radio :-)
Marketing, simple. Not only is it "digical innit", it's "more digical, wiv bigger numbers, innit", innit?
Although I find 128k aac to be pretty good, in fact even 96k, to be quite good, I think that for hi-fi listening I would prefer a higher rate. A higher rate helps to ensure that sound quality doesn't suffer if the content happens to be difficult to encode. If needed to encode aac for my hi-fi system, I would use about 256k.
Actually I would prefer to be able to download music with lossless encoding, but it I would think it will be at least a few more years before internet bandwidth improves to allow that.
There are binary newsgroups carrying lossless music. If you have a slow connection just let it run all night.
gr, hwh
.
- References:
- OT: iTunes Plus
- From: Scott
- Re: OT: iTunes Plus
- From: Silk
- Re: OT: iTunes Plus
- From: Richard Evans
- OT: iTunes Plus
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: iTunes Plus
- Next by Date: Re: It would have made an excellent DAB system -- without all the phycoacoustical complexity: NICAM in UHF band...
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: iTunes Plus
- Next by thread: Re: OT: iTunes Plus
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
