iTunes, has anyone else noticed...
#1
iTunes, has anyone else noticed...
...how shockingly pants the music quality is?
I've just downloaded my first albumn, and though, hmmm, where's the base, so I grabbed "Abilene" by Shryl Crow to compare it with a track I mave already ripped to mp3 from my cd collection.
I couldnt believe how bad the iTunes version was!
What are they playing at? 128kbps aac's when I run my mp3's at 256kbps
I think this will be the first and only purchase from there, if they all come out like this Has anyone else noticed this, or is it just me?
Also, some of the albumns on there are more expensive than www.play.com !
I gotta be missing something obvious here, my amp isnt registering any bass! Is this all just designed for people with ipods and headphones?
Comments welcome
Jules
I've just downloaded my first albumn, and though, hmmm, where's the base, so I grabbed "Abilene" by Shryl Crow to compare it with a track I mave already ripped to mp3 from my cd collection.
I couldnt believe how bad the iTunes version was!
What are they playing at? 128kbps aac's when I run my mp3's at 256kbps
I think this will be the first and only purchase from there, if they all come out like this Has anyone else noticed this, or is it just me?
Also, some of the albumns on there are more expensive than www.play.com !
I gotta be missing something obvious here, my amp isnt registering any bass! Is this all just designed for people with ipods and headphones?
Comments welcome
Jules
#3
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No surprise that iTunes sounds bad - as you say, it's designed for portable use with headphones.
Freak: I'm surprised you're finding 320kb/s MP3s sound bad - I wonder whether you're doing a proper controlled experiment here. It could well be that your PC's sound card (or whatever else you're using to decode them) is bad. Try burning a few to an audio CD and then play that back to back with the original in your CD player - you might be surprised. I use 160kb/s as a compromise between quality and portability.
Freak: I'm surprised you're finding 320kb/s MP3s sound bad - I wonder whether you're doing a proper controlled experiment here. It could well be that your PC's sound card (or whatever else you're using to decode them) is bad. Try burning a few to an audio CD and then play that back to back with the original in your CD player - you might be surprised. I use 160kb/s as a compromise between quality and portability.
#4
Jason, try grabbing a track you already have on CD and compare the difference?
Jules
Jules
Last edited by judgejules; 25 July 2004 at 02:55 PM. Reason: cant really "see" the difference with music ;)
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: JFK/LHR
Posts: 3,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AndyC_772
Freak: I'm surprised you're finding 320kb/s MP3s sound bad - I wonder whether you're doing a proper controlled experiment here. It could well be that your PC's sound card (or whatever else you're using to decode them) is bad. Try burning a few to an audio CD and then play that back to back with the original in your CD player - you might be surprised. I use 160kb/s as a compromise between quality and portability.
On a home system its acceptable yes, but on a club system its a big no no- sounds terrible ( i cant help but look at things from my professional perspective)
Im just not a big fan of mp3- it has its uses, as mentioned above. But if people are selling ****e mp3s with a really low bitrate then thats not a good thing.
#6
Scooby Regular
I'm with Freak on this one. MP3, by definition is horrendous. Good enough for portable use or car, but nowt else. (speaking in my professional capacity )
Haven't downloaded anything from I-Tunes though. Well, not yet.
Dan
Haven't downloaded anything from I-Tunes though. Well, not yet.
Dan
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Father Jack Hackett
Computer & Technology Related
6
03 August 2005 06:52 PM