itunes quality

Message

b@man · #1 Post by **b@man** » Fri 31 Mar 2006, 9:36 am

So there are no mixes on the three formats i think. So you can get it perhaps through downloading from itunes. I heard from madonna and new order fans that the quality isn`t good. But was does this mean. I think ripping a cd with 256 kbps is near cd quality and 320 is cd quality.

Does this mean that the mp3`s from itunes are perhaps 128kbps or 160??? If this is the case than i don`t understand it. When i pay for a download track than i want cd quality.

Can someone confirm this.

TheGardner · #2 Post by **TheGardner** » Fri 31 Mar 2006, 9:42 am

I still have the feeling all those so called 'downloading pages' (iTunes ect...) are a beguilement to the downloaders, who easily can get the files anywhere from the net - for free!

b@man · #3 Post by **b@man** » Fri 31 Mar 2006, 9:48 am

But when the mixes only exist in a not so good quality on itunes and when you get them for free from somewhere else than they are this bad quality files from itunes.

! · #4 Post by ! » Fri 31 Mar 2006, 11:03 am

Before I wiped my computer t'other day I had WMA/MP3 converter that would let you pick what what quality you wanted your music files to be, I had all mine at 128kbs because it's good quality and dosen't take up as much space on your comp!

When I wanted to burn to a CD I'd just convert the files to 320kbs!

Now, I can't remember what the bloody thing was called

fluffmoln · #5 Post by **fluffmoln** » Fri 31 Mar 2006, 11:22 am

What, you made your 128kpbs files into 320kbps? If that's what you did, you oughta know that that kind of transcoding does no good to the music. If a music file is ripped at 128 from the start, it doesn't help if you then convert that file to a better bitrate, as the original file is so worthless to start with. In fact, you lose even some more in quality by doing so.

Like so:
"Transcoding
Many people think they can improve the sound quality of their MP3s by "transcoding" them from one bitrate to another (eg. 128kbps to 192kbps). This is NOT the case.

Taken from http://forum.dbpoweramp.com

What is transcoding?

Transcoding is the process of converting one compressed format file to another. For example, a MP3 converted directly to Ogg Vorbis or Ogg Vorbis converted to Wave then to MP3 are both examples of transcoding.

Why is it bad?

The process of converting a song to a lossy format like MP3 or Ogg Vorbis involves the removal of audio data in the effort to reduce the file size. The removal of this data not only enables the reduction in file size but also in quality. Once the data has been removed it cannot magically be reintegrated into the file. It's gone for good, and by transcoding a file all you are doing is increasing the actual file size and not the bitrate or sound quality.

Converting an MP3 to OGG or WMA converts a file that already has lost a lot of quality and takes more quality away since OGG and MP3 are also lossy processes. Think of it as copying a copy.

This is also true for reencoding which is for example converting an mp3 to mp3. Reencoding will always deteriorate the audio quality, even if you are converting a 128Kbit/s mp3 to a 320Kbit/s mp3. This happens because the mp3 is decoded to a wave then is encoded to a 320Kbit/s mp3. This recompresses the Wave and takes away or filters more audio data for compression purposes.

So when you find a new, better audio format, don't convert all your files to that format because you think you'll be getting better quality, you'll be getting inferior quality instead. The best way to convert your existing compressed music collection is to re-rip from the CD directly to that new format."

Sorry if I sound like a goody two-shoes, but I, like so many others, hate low bitrates. So here's for that Japanese remix maxi-single happening!

b@man · #6 Post by **b@man** » Fri 31 Mar 2006, 11:40 am

But which quality have download mp3`from itunes or any other pay per download page??? If you get an 128kbps file for which you must pay than good night because you can`t improve the quality.

TheGardner · #7 Post by **TheGardner** » Fri 31 Mar 2006, 12:02 pm

thats right! I think most of the files on iTunes are encoded with 128kBit. For the money you have to spent there - they better should be encoded in 320kBit...

Never can understand why people use the wrong encoders. I can encode a file in 128kBit and it always would have a great quality! But 192kBit is common for most of the people I think.

fluffmoln · #8 Post by **fluffmoln** » Fri 31 Mar 2006, 12:04 pm

Doing some googling, I find the most common answer to the quality being 128kbps in AAC. Which is just a little bit fancier than normal mp3 encodes, but still pretty meager quality-wise.

Oznerol · #9 Post by **Oznerol** » Fri 31 Mar 2006, 12:04 pm

! wrote:Before I wiped my computer t'other day I had WMA/MP3 converter that would let you pick what what quality you wanted your music files to be, I had all mine at 128kbs because it's good quality and dosen't take up as much space on your comp!

When I wanted to burn to a CD I'd just convert the files to 320kbs!

Now, I can't remember what the bloody thing was called

This is a very common error...if you have a 128kbps mp3, the quality will ever be 128!! even if you convert it into WAV after burning! You can´t generate again the missed quality..like fluffmoln said, if you re-encoded at mp3 (even at 320) you´re losing mpre quality, and the result will be worst than the original 128 file...
It´s like if you want to improve the quality of a newspaper pic, doing a hi-quality photocopy...the dots will always be there...

I think if you pay for a download, you must have the choice to download it at the quality you want, even in a WAV format! but it´s not the case, isn´t it?

One of the crowd · Fri 31 Mar 2006, 12:17 pm

TheGardner wrote:thats right! I think most of the files on iTunes are encoded with 128kBit. For the money you have to spent there - they better should be encoded in 320kBit...

Never can understand why people use the wrong encoders. I can encode a file in 128kBit and it always would have a great quality! But 192kBit is common for most of the people I think.

Depends on what you are encoding.

All my PSB stuff Ive ripped into 256. There are some things done at 320

However, most non PSB stuff is at 192 and anything less than 128, FORGET!

b@man · #11 Post by **b@man** » Fri 31 Mar 2006, 12:17 pm

So it looks like that we must buy silly quality versions of the remixes. That`s annoying. And if you want them for free you can download them from edonkey but it will also a 128kbps quality because the only source which exists is itunes.

The only hope is that the mixes will someday appear on a japan CD or a USA CD.

When looking on the tracklisting from fundamentalism i get the impression that the reason for including mixes from MINIMAL, SODOM SHOW and Psychological is that there will be no mixes released on the three format of future releases.

Ronald42 · #12 Post by **Ronald42** » Fri 31 Mar 2006, 12:24 pm

May I yet again point you to this site http://jthz.com/mp3/

Nothing more to say

b@man · #13 Post by **b@man** » Fri 31 Mar 2006, 12:35 pm

I understand what you mean. I don`t want to rip any mp3`s or convert something to something. I know when you have a 128 version that you can`t improve the quality.
It`s like having a picture from 1920 and you can`t make it looking like a picture from 2006. It depends on the source.

What i want to say is that if you pay to download for example the I`m with stupid mix from Max Tundra you get a 128kbps version from itunes. So that is the quality you have. This mp3 can`t be improved by convcerting it to 192, 256 or 320kbps.

So i only wanted to say that i am dissapointed that you ONLY get such a low quality download version.

Technotrancemix · #14 Post by **Technotrancemix** » Fri 31 Mar 2006, 1:05 pm

fluffmoln wrote:What, you made your 128kpbs files into 320kbps? If that's what you did, you oughta know that that kind of transcoding does no good to the music. If a music file is ripped at 128 from the start, it doesn't help if you then convert that file to a better bitrate, as the original file is so worthless to start with. In fact, you lose even some more in quality by doing so.

this what a lot of people don't realise

canveyboy · #15 Post by **canveyboy** » Fri 31 Mar 2006, 1:24 pm

i have 'purchased' (shock) 2 albums this year from msn music, El Presidente which came down at 192kbps VBR and McAlmont & Butler which came down at 128kbps CBR.

I have also downloaded individual tracks from MSN Music and they were ALL 128kbps.

If the people concerned want us to PAY for downloads then they bloody well better sought out their quality first. I'm not paying for downloads ever again...too risky, i dont want to wait for an album to download ever again just for it to be 128kbps.

Make the quality 192 / 256 / 320kbps then we'll be talking. until then...