2. digital
  3. 1316558390

Has anyone did a blind test on iTunes AAC vs CD/Lo

I cannot tell a difference on any system I listen to between an iTunes download (256 aac) vs a CD track or lossless 16/44. Now my living room system is low to mid fi (Pioneer Elite). My small studio has Yamaha HS series monitors which are pretty revealing IMHO. I've also listened thru my Grados (Pioneer Elite headphone jack). I can hear artifacts in the MP3's I've listened to (slight swishy XM radio sound). But the 256 AAC sounds just as good. 98% of my music purchases are CD's. I like physical media...but the iTunes downloads sound identical. Please chime in
aberyclark
aberyclark OP
1,355 posts
 
I've only heard a 128 Mp3 and there is a big difference over CD. I've never tried a 128 AAC
realremo
460 posts
 
AAC 128 vs. Redbook on my system... Its not even close. Redbook wins by a long shot. I'll pick the 128kbps rip every time in every blind test, I'll bet. I don't see how anyone can say 128kbps is 100% transparent. But like Shadorne says, you have to know what to listen for. I guess not everyone can (or wants to) tune into those lost details at the low and high end, that is where I hear it. I also hear it during lapses in the music where the song is reduced to a single instrument, like a guitar riff or a bass drop, or a sound effect. Low bit-rate rips kill detail in those passages.
Consider that the bit rate of a lossless AIFF runs at 1411kbps, this is 11 times the bit rate of a 128 AAC. Just like in video compression, quality is all about the bit rate. How much data can the codec push. I rip apple lossless.
aberyclark OP
1,355 posts
 
Realremo, I do not think anyone disagrees about 128 AAC. 256 AAC is the resolution in question.
More to discover