Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3 (Read 21650 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Which one has better quality? From what I heard AAC is not much better than MP3 at higher bit rates.
I plan purchase some music from one of these stores. If there is a store better than either one of these please tell me.

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #1 –
Buy a few songs and conduct blind ABX tests to determine this for yourself.  Personally, I go with the iTunes Store a good chunk of the time simply because I know the iTunes Plus songs are all encoded at 256kbps using the iTunes/QuickTime AAC encoder.  The Amazon mp3 store uses four different standards for encoding:
  • Lame 3.91 at 256kbps CBR stereo
  • FhG at 256kbps CBR stereo
  • Lame 3.97 -V 0 joint stereo
  • Lame 3.98.2 --abr 256 joint stereo


I would always use the Amazon mp3 store if it would stick with one standard.  The OCD part of me wants to have files (from certain sources) all encoded at the same settings.  That and I am still baffled as to why the Amazon mp3 store forces stereo encoding for two settings.  In fact, I would switch to using the Amazon mp3 store only if it offered -V 0 files using either Lame 3.97 or 3.98.2.  I highly doubt that you are going to hear audible differences between the two at such high bitrates but it might bug you that not every song is encoded using the same settings and encoder on the Amazon mp3 store.

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #2 –
This is the only pertinent listening test that I'm aware of, though it does not include VBR MP3 (nor is it LAME, which seems to be the most widely used encoder on Amazon MP3).

Based on the results of this listening test, one could assume that both MP3 and AAC at ~256kbps will offer perceptual transparency in the majority of cases. Buy from whatever store you feel most comfortable with, because quality differences won't be meaningful.

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #3 –
I was wondering if walmart mp3 downloads are good quality?

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #4 –
Go Go MP3!

Go Go Universality

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #5 –
Quote from: eboyer93 on
I was wondering if walmart mp3 downloads are good quality?

I know nothing about Walmart's downloads, but I've heard mention (here on HA) that they are 192kbps CBR mp3. Don't quote me on that, though.

Also worth mentioning is eMusic, which has a lot of indie-ish stuff, nearly all at Lame -V2. I've never detected a scratched-CD skip or pop with any of their stuff, and I've gotten a lot from there.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #6 –
According to Walmart's website, the majority of their content is encoded at 256kbps with some songs at 192kbps.  My guess is that these are CBR settings using the FhG encoder.  I would not be willing to download a file from their service just to see what settings they use but you can knock yourself out.  The reason why I refuse to buy music from Walmart's mp3 service is, just like their physical stores, they sell only edited music.  You cannot obtain parental advisory material through Walmart's mp3 store and you never know when songs are going to be edited.  I know of one album that doesn't have a parental advisory sticker yet the CD still had one song that was edited (Orgy's Candyass album).

Oh, one plus about the Amazon mp3 store is that you aren't charged taxes (unless you live in a state where an Amazon distribution plant is located).  So an album priced at $8.99 will end up costing you $8.99.  The iTunes Store charges taxes so an album priced at $8.99 will come out higher (just like a song that is $0.99 will actually cost you around $1.02).

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #7 –
so Kornchild2002 do buy from iTunes Plus ever and how do you feel about the quality?
I have a Creative Zen which can play aac files.

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #8 –
The quality is great.  256kbps AAC files are definitely transparent for me.  As I said, you would be best trying to ABX things yourself.  You can always use the iTunes AAC encoder at the 256kbps setting to see if it is right for you.  I don't know if you are going to have issues with album art on your Zen, you might.  I know that, when I had my Zen, I was never able to get embedded album art to show up on it when working with AAC files.  So you might want to stick with the Amazon mp3 store (who I think provides the same perceptual quality, I just don't like having different songs from different encoders at different settings) if album artwork is important.  Additionally, I would stick with the Amazon mp3 store if you use Windows Media Player to manage your content since AAC compatibility is lacking unless you install 3rd party plug-ins (even then AAC support isn't what it should be).

I would also think about what you plan on doing with the files down the line.  For example, I switched to using the iTunes Store completely but then purchased a Honda Civic that could playback mp3/WMA CDs only.  So then I started using the Amazon mp3 store more.  I recently purchased an iPod adapter so that doesn't matter anymore.  mp3 is still the "universal" file format when it comes to hardware and software support.  AAC is steadily catching on but you never know when you might come across a device that doesn't support it.

I think both stores will properly serve you just by looking at the quality of the files they supply.  As I said, I would strictly use the Amazon mp3 store if they used one standard with Lame but they don't and you never know what type of file you are going to get.  Some speculated that you will get -V 0 or --abr 256 songs for newer content but that just isn't the case as there doesn't seem to be any reasoning behind the different songs.

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #9 –
So Kornchild2002 you have never had a problem with sound quality when using amazon mp3.

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #10 –
No I haven't.  I just don't like having files from different encoders and different settings.  I did try ABXing files and I was unable to ABX any of their files from the lossless sources (I downloaded some singles and then later purchased the actual CD).

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #11 –
Quote from: eboyer93 on
I was wondering if walmart mp3 downloads are good quality?

Some may consider Walmart* selling the "clean" version of a song instead of the "explicit" version a quality flaw.

Anyway, assuming Walmart* uses a decent gapless encoder (I'd also call lack of gapless playback a quality flaw), 192 kbps CBR mp3 should be near transparent.
Anyway, to get back to the thread topic, 256 kbps AAC should probably be theoretically better than 256 kbps MP3, but there hasn't been any recent testing since 256 kbps quality hasn't been particularly interesting for quite a while.

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #12 –
thanks i am considering purchasing from amazon mp3.
I plan on buying all the Audioslave albums.

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #13 –
I downloaded the song Revelations by Audioslave and it sounds good.  The file was encoded using lame 3.97 abr 256 kbps.
dbpoweramp says under audio properties that it has a track gain of -9.90 dB what does this mean?

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #16 –
Amazon MP3's tracks are totally transparent for me, and they're far more compatible than iTunes Plus.
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #18 –
Are you sure the file is encoded with Lame 3.97 and not 3.98.2?  The reason being is I haven't come across an abr256 3.97 encode on the Amazon mp3 store yet.  I would like to confirm the version of Lame and the setting used (if you don't mind).  That way I can add it to the list of settings and encoders that the Amazon mp3 store (I currently count four different encoders all using one setting each).
 

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #19 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
(I currently count four different encoders all using one setting each).

For what it's worth, going through my Amazon MP3 downloads, according to foobar2000:
256 kbps CBR no encoder listed (1 song) (EDIT: encspot says "FhG (fastenc or mp3enc)")
Lame 3.97 -V0 (by far the most common)
256 kbps CBR LAME 3.91 (1 album)
EDIT:
I now have a full album of "FhG (fastenc or mp3enc)" and yet another LAME 3.97 -V0
And for what it's worth, it seems that the record labels submit their music to Amazon in mp3 format.
Also,, LAME 3.91? Really?

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #20 –
I have used Amazon MP3 to buy multiple albums.  I have only experienced an issue with one album, Epica's "The Divine Conspiracy".  That problem was not related to encoding quality, however.  Somehow 1-2 seconds of silence got added to the end of each track when this album is supposed to be played gapless.  So during playback you'd here gaps in the music and it killed the experience.  I ended up removing the silence with Audacity and re-encoding using LAME -V0 to try to lose as little quality as possible.  The other albums I downloaded were all excellent quality but  there is different encoders and bit rate settings used.  Some major labels use 256 kbps CBR Fraunhofer while other (mostly metal labels) use LAME -V0 for most of their music.  I can't tell a difference in quality so I'm fine even with the Fraunhofer 256 kbps encodes.

I have also purchased songs from iTunes Plus and I am satisified with their quality as well.  I used Amazon MP3 in the past mainly because they offered DRM-free MP3s vs iTunes' DRM AAC files.  Now that iTunes is mainly all iTunes Plus, this is no longer an issue.

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #21 –
Wow, having a 2-second gap appended to the files, especially on an album for which gapless playback is a relevant concern (i.e., it's supposed to be continuous sound as one song becomes another), is very frustrating.
A likely possibility is that Amazon ripped their mp3's from a cd that was made from iTunes or the like, and automatically added 2-second gaps (why is that still a default, anyway?)
Which would make those Amazon mp3's transcodes, if my theory is correct.

You can use mptrim to automatically trim silent frames from the end of the mp3's, to at least make the gaps minimal (less than 1 frame = 1152 samples of silence at beginning and end of the mp3).
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #22 –
Wow another bad rip from Amazon. Let's not forget the ones mentioned here. The poor quality control definitely outweighs the compatibility advantage, IMO.

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #23 –
Quote from: Teqnilogik on
I have only experienced an issue with one album, Epica's "The Divine Conspiracy".  That problem was not related to encoding quality, however.  Somehow 1-2 seconds of silence got added to the end of each track when this album is supposed to be played gapless.  So during playback you'd here gaps in the music and it killed the experience.  I ended up removing the silence with Audacity and re-encoding using LAME -V0 to try to lose as little quality as possible.

More comment on this issue:

1. If you have the original mp3's it is better for you to keep them and just use mptrim to remove silent frames as I detailed in my post above. Transcoding from V0 to V0 probably isn't very much quality loss, but it's some.

2. It's also quite possible that the files you got were already transcoded. Lots of media-player programs will add 2-second gaps when burning an audio cd, and people frequently do this using lossy sourcefiles for the music.
If you still have the original mp3's that you got from Amazon, I would be interested to see their lowpass signature. If the Amazon mp3's were ripped from an iTunes-burned CD, there should be a lowpass around 16 khz, whereas Lame V0 encode that Amazon used would have a lowpass at a higher frequency, if it were from the original CD.

edit: Ah, screw it, I just bought one of the tracks from Amazon. And converted it to wav file, and - SURPRISE! - there's lowpass around 16 khz. For a Lame 3.97 -V0 encode. And it had a 2-second gap at the end of the track, obviously added.
Translation: these mp3's that Amazon are offering are transcoded.
What a bummer.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

iTunes Plus vs. Amazon MP3

Reply #24 –
I would report that to Amazon then and get your money back.  I have come across a few albums with a 16KHz lowpass but they were encoded at --abr 256 and Lame uses that lowpass level at that ABR setting.  I also don't know if Amazon is the one transcoding here, it all depends on what Amazon does.  I know that Apple sends software to the record companies and they produce the files to post on the iTunes Store.  They will send Apple either Apple lossless files or 256kbps VBR (VBR constrained) files.  Apple will then transcode the ALAC files to 256kbps VBR.  Amazon may have it setup where they send out the software that the record companies use to make these 256kbps CBR/ABR or -V 0 files.  I guess that would be a question to ask Amazon as to what their method is.  I have e-mailed them a couple of time asking if they send the record companies software, if they make the files themselves, and why there are so many different standards being used on their store.