Its still WMA
but things are moving in a positive direction. First Real at 192 AAC, then buy.com, and now MSN at 160 VBR WMA. Hopefully this will force Apple to raise their standard to AAC 192.
Full Version: Internet Music Store Quality Improving
Buy.com now offers downloads at 256 kbps. http://www.buy.com/retail/searchResults.as...ore=6&loc=18250
Its still WMA but things are moving in a positive direction. First Real at 192 AAC, then buy.com, and now MSN at 160 VBR WMA. Hopefully this will force Apple to raise their standard to AAC 192.
Its still WMA
but things are moving in a positive direction. First Real at 192 AAC, then buy.com, and now MSN at 160 VBR WMA. Hopefully this will force Apple to raise their standard to AAC 192.
In this listening test, AAC has did better at 128 kbps than WMA which is the dominate format in Internet music stores. Therefore, Apple may not need to increase its AAC bitrate to compete with music stores using 160 kbps WMA. Personally, I'm satisfied with 128 kbps AAC. I don't use Internet music stores but I do rip my CDs to 128 kbps AAC with iTunes.
EDIT: Linked to specific listening test
EDIT: Linked to specific listening test
i think msn's music store is a rip, 160kbps wma for .99..
a better pricing structure would be 160kbps wma for .49, and lossless for .99
as for albums, 4.99 for 160k wma, and 9.99 for lossless
a better pricing structure would be 160kbps wma for .49, and lossless for .99
as for albums, 4.99 for 160k wma, and 9.99 for lossless
double post..
QUOTE(Teqnilogik @ Sep 5 2004, 09:29 PM)
In this listening test, AAC has did better at 128 kbps than WMA which is the dominate format in Internet music stores. Therefore, Apple may not need to increase its AAC bitrate to compete with music stores using 160 kbps WMA. Personally, I'm satisfied with 128 kbps AAC. I don't use Internet music stores but I do rip my CDs to 128 kbps AAC with iTunes.
EDIT: Linked to specific listening test
EDIT: Linked to specific listening test
Unfortunately, you may be right about Apple. I wish iTunes 128 AAC was transparent to me but its not. 160 is most of the time and 192 does the trick about 98% of the time. I encode everything to AAC 192 with backup on DVDs in ALAC. I HOPE Apple is forced to raise their standard but doubt they will. I like using the music store.
But 256 WMA at Buy.com?!!!! Now we are talking about quality levels audiophiles can appreciate - even if it is in their hated WMA format!
to tell you the truth, i don't think even 256k wma matches up to -preset standard
and no, i haven't abx'd this.
and no, i haven't abx'd this.
QUOTE(Teqnilogik @ Sep 5 2004, 06:29 PM)
In this listening test, AAC has did better at 128 kbps than WMA which is the dominate format in Internet music stores. Therefore, Apple may not need to increase its AAC bitrate to compete with music stores using 160 kbps WMA. Personally, I'm satisfied with 128 kbps AAC. I don't use Internet music stores but I do rip my CDs to 128 kbps AAC with iTunes.
EDIT: Linked to specific listening test
EDIT: Linked to specific listening test
The test used 128kbps wma. Are there any reasons you assume it will be the same with 160kbps wma? Did you do your own ABX?
Back to topic, buy.com now has 256kbps.
Hopefully this will create a competition in quality, not just prices.
QUOTE(audioflex @ Sep 6 2004, 05:41 AM)
and no, i haven't abx'd this.
and this is why we ignore your post.
Personally I find anything 192 kbps (that isn't a transcode) & above very good quality.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.