320kbps vs 1411kbps through Cyrus

[JamesOK]

Well, Ive been doing a few experiments over the last few days, specifically around the iTunes setup on my Mac mini in to my shiny new (and pretty brilliant) Cyrus 8xpd.

I have the Mac connected to the Cyrus via USB (and therefore through the Cyrus built in DAC). Originally I was assuming my iTunes library would need upgrading to Lossless or AIFF to get the most out of the new amp, but after a lot of experimentation I can pretty safely say there is little to no audible difference between 320kbps and 1411kbps (AIFF) in my opinion.

As an example - Ive just imported Arctic Monkeys Favourite Worst Nightmare in both AIFF and Apple Lossless the first track Brianstorm is as follows

320kbps - 6.6MB

1411kbps - 28.7MB - AIFF

1067kbps - 21.8MB - Apple Lossless

Theres 13 tracks on the album, so an album at 320kbps would be around 85M, AIFF 364MB and Lossless 286MB, quite a big difference in storage space.

Does anyone have any views on the quality of iTunes digital music? Has anyone else done similar comparisons? I am quite surprised by my findings, as I was expecting there to be a reasonable (if subtle) difference. At this rate I shall be keeping everything at 320kbps and saving myself GB worth of space. Until I get my CD player then iTunes will probably take a back seat. []

 

[AlmaataKZ]

I have been doing same comparisons recently (320kpbs mp3s, 256kbps AACs from itunes store and CD rips in apple lossless).

my finding was that there is very very little difference between 320mp3 or 256aac and the cd rips. however the small difference is there, I mainly notice it in the speed of bass (especially since I got the C4 sub) and a little bit in the treble. the differenc eis very subtle and you only notice it if you do a direct comparison and actually look for a difference. I fully agree that in most normal listenting situations it does not make a (practical) difference.

similarly, there is very little practical difference between lossless CD rips and 24/96, however, again, it is (jsut) noticable.

I think it is just nice to know that you have a very high quality source signal, can utilise the full potential of your (current or future) ssytem. I see not reason not to use losslesss when when storage space is so cheap.

when it comes to portable devices, though...

I sometimes synch to ipod compressed at 128kbps (the only bit rate that itunes does automatically during synching) and sometimes I synch in full-rez lossless. Now, here the difference is very clear! Very easy to hear, especially that headphone listening helps to get the details. And that is why I want a 128 gig ipod! or, at least, an option to convert to AAC on the fly during sunching at higher bit rates, eg 256 kbps! How difficult it is for apple to include this!!!??

 

[Gerrardasnails]

JamesOK:
Well, Ive been doing a few experiments over the last few days, specifically around the iTunes setup on my Mac mini in to my shiny new (and pretty brilliant) Cyrus 8xpd.

I have the Mac connected to the Cyrus via USB (and therefore through the Cyrus built in DAC). Originally I was assuming my iTunes library would need upgrading to Lossless or AIFF to get the most out of the new amp, but after a lot of experimentation I can pretty safely say there is little to no audible difference between 320kbps and 1411kbps (AIFF) in my opinion.

As an example - Ive just imported Arctic Monkeys Favourite Worst Nightmare in both AIFF and Apple Lossless the first track Brianstorm is as follows

320kbps - 6.6MB

1411kbps - 28.7MB - AIFF

1067kbps - 21.8MB - Apple Lossless

Theres 13 tracks on the album, so an album at 320kbps would be around 85M, AIFF 364MB and Lossless 286MB, quite a big difference in storage space.

Does anyone have any views on the quality of iTunes digital music? Has anyone else done similar comparisons? I am quite surprised by my findings, as I was expecting there to be a reasonable (if subtle) difference. At this rate I shall be keeping everything at 320kbps and saving myself GB worth of space. Until I get my CD player then iTunes will probably take a back seat.

There are a few questions that need answering here. For one, have you looked into the processing that iTunes does as default? If not, this might be the reason why you hear no real difference between 320kbps mp3s and lossless files - for me the difference is fairly obvious. From what I can gather, iTunes does not send the files to the DAC in a bit perfect state.

Another question is did you try another album, from a different genre maybe? I love the AM and they are on of my favourite bands. However, their recordings are not what I would choose to do testing of equipment.

 

[JamesOK]

Gerrardasnails:JamesOK:
Well, Ive been doing a few experiments over the last few days, specifically around the iTunes setup on my Mac mini in to my shiny new (and pretty brilliant) Cyrus 8xpd.

I have the Mac connected to the Cyrus via USB (and therefore through the Cyrus built in DAC). Originally I was assuming my iTunes library would need upgrading to Lossless or AIFF to get the most out of the new amp, but after a lot of experimentation I can pretty safely say there is little to no audible difference between 320kbps and 1411kbps (AIFF) in my opinion.

As an example - Ive just imported Arctic Monkeys Favourite Worst Nightmare in both AIFF and Apple Lossless the first track Brianstorm is as follows

320kbps - 6.6MB

1411kbps - 28.7MB - AIFF

1067kbps - 21.8MB - Apple Lossless

Theres 13 tracks on the album, so an album at 320kbps would be around 85M, AIFF 364MB and Lossless 286MB, quite a big difference in storage space.

Does anyone have any views on the quality of iTunes digital music? Has anyone else done similar comparisons? I am quite surprised by my findings, as I was expecting there to be a reasonable (if subtle) difference. At this rate I shall be keeping everything at 320kbps and saving myself GB worth of space. Until I get my CD player then iTunes will probably take a back seat.

There are a few questions that need answering here. For one, have you looked into the processing that iTunes does as default? If not, this might be the reason why you hear no real difference between 320kbps mp3s and lossless files - for me the difference is fairly obvious. From what I can gather, iTunes does not send the files to the DAC in a bit perfect state.

Another question is did you try another album, from a different genre maybe? I love the AM and they are on of my favourite bands. However, their recordings are not what I would choose to do testing of equipment.

Hmm, good questions Gerrard. Is it actually possible to change that processing? Like I said, I am surprised I heard no difference, so maybe your line of questioning is on to something. As for the albums, yes I've tried a few. Gorillaz Plastic Beach, Massive Attack Heligoland, and Also Nirvana Unplugged. Nirvana Unplugged I thought I could hear a difference, this is in a lower bitrate 256kbps.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

JamesOK: There are a few questions that need answering here. For one, have you looked into the processing that iTunes does as default? If not, this might be the reason why you hear no real difference between 320kbps mp3s and lossless files - for me the difference is fairly obvious. From what I can gather, iTunes does not send the files to the DAC in a bit perfect state. Another question is did you try another album, from a different genre maybe? I love the AM and they are on of my favourite bands. However, their recordings are not what I would choose to do testing of equipment.

I think I do get 'bit perfect' signal. For me, the difference is obvious also, it jsut small. Not 'night and day' kind in practical terms. My observation is based on a variety of albums.

 

[Gerrardasnails]

JamesOK:Gerrardasnails:JamesOK:
Well, Ive been doing a few experiments over the last few days, specifically around the iTunes setup on my Mac mini in to my shiny new (and pretty brilliant) Cyrus 8xpd.

I have the Mac connected to the Cyrus via USB (and therefore through the Cyrus built in DAC). Originally I was assuming my iTunes library would need upgrading to Lossless or AIFF to get the most out of the new amp, but after a lot of experimentation I can pretty safely say there is little to no audible difference between 320kbps and 1411kbps (AIFF) in my opinion.

As an example - Ive just imported Arctic Monkeys Favourite Worst Nightmare in both AIFF and Apple Lossless the first track Brianstorm is as follows

320kbps - 6.6MB

1411kbps - 28.7MB - AIFF

1067kbps - 21.8MB - Apple Lossless

Theres 13 tracks on the album, so an album at 320kbps would be around 85M, AIFF 364MB and Lossless 286MB, quite a big difference in storage space.

Does anyone have any views on the quality of iTunes digital music? Has anyone else done similar comparisons? I am quite surprised by my findings, as I was expecting there to be a reasonable (if subtle) difference. At this rate I shall be keeping everything at 320kbps and saving myself GB worth of space. Until I get my CD player then iTunes will probably take a back seat.

There are a few questions that need answering here. For one, have you looked into the processing that iTunes does as default? If not, this might be the reason why you hear no real difference between 320kbps mp3s and lossless files - for me the difference is fairly obvious. From what I can gather, iTunes does not send the files to the DAC in a bit perfect state.

Another question is did you try another album, from a different genre maybe? I love the AM and they are on of my favourite bands. However, their recordings are not what I would choose to do testing of equipment.

Hmm, good questions Gerrard. Is it actually possible to change that processing? Like I said, I am surprised I heard no difference, so maybe your line of questioning is on to something. As for the albums, yes I've tried a few. Gorillaz Plastic Beach, Massive Attack Heligoland, and Also Nirvana Unplugged. Nirvana Unplugged I thought I could hear a difference, this is in a lower bitrate 256kbps.

I only use iTunes to transfer files over to my iPhone - for this very reason. If you can turn the volume up on your Mac whilst the song is playing through your stereo, you will know that iTunes is doing something.

Some others will come on here and explain in more detail/defend iTunes to the death!

 

[AlmaataKZ]

itunes is known to be easier to get to output bit-perfect. although win can also do it (but needs plug-ins).

it does not need to be any, though. the files can be played on 'hifi' type of players, e.g. Linn DS, Squeezebox, NaimUniti etc. with essentially the same 'difference' or 'no difference' results.

 

[roten]

Gerrardasnails:I only use iTunes to transfer files over to my iPhone - for this very reason. If you can turn the volume up on your Mac whilst the song is playing through your stereo, you will know that iTunes is doing something. Some others will come on here and explain in more detail/defend iTunes to the death!

Have you tried setting the volume to max in iTunes? I am not sure, but believe that the volume control in iTunes is software. So iTunes will "process" the music file to set the chosen volume - and max volume is "as encoded" - so file will not be processed

I believe this is how the volume control on iPods work as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong

 

[Craig M.]

gerrard always says this!

on a mac, itunes is bit perfect as long as the itunes volume is set to 100%.

it doesn't do any processing. not defending it to death, just stating a fact.

 

[Gerrardasnails]

Craig M.:
gerrard always says this!

on a mac, itunes is bit perfect as long as the itunes volume is set to 100%.

it doesn't do any processing. not defending it to death, just stating a fact.

Sorry guys - I don't have a Mac and Craig I do remember you saying this before - I just forgot. At least the OP might not have had his volume at 100% and he now can try this?!

 

[Gerrardasnails]

chebby:
Isn't the thread subject more to do with this...

JamesOK:...but after a lot of experimentation I can pretty safely say there is little to no audible difference between 320kbps and 1411kbps (AIFF) in my opinion.

...than whether or not certain lossless formats are technically 'bit perfect' and - if so - on which platform?

A lot of people have come to the same conclusion regarding Spotify (in 320kbps) and pretty much given up on CD.

For some people 'enough' is good, and for some (the 'critical' listeners*) even the ultimate 24bit / 192khz studio master quality files will be improvable.

*People who are on an endless quest for audio perfection in every single bit of the system including plugs and fuses and who sit at the apex of a perfect triangle between their speakers straining to hear every nuance and micro detail.

I hear what you are saying Chebby but if the OP is doing something or not doing something that may be causing him to hear no difference, we are just trying to help. On a good system like his, I would expect a listener to hear a discernible difference between mp3 and lossless files. My other half spots the difference immediately and she has no interest in HiFi.

 

[chebby]

Gerrardasnails:On a good system like his, I would expect a listener to hear a discernible difference between mp3 and lossless files. My other half spots the difference immediately and she has no interest in HiFi.

320k AAC is not a typical MP3 file. It actually sounds very good.

I have tested 320k AAC vs ALAC using iMac/optical and PC/USB with rips from Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs Gold remastered CDs of Santana and Roy Orbison. Also with Apple lossless and 320k imports of the Dunedin Consort's 'Messiah' and Thomas Tallis' 'Spem in Allum' downloaded originally from Linn records in CD quality.

On both iMac and Laptop I used settings recommended on the Benchmark technical website in both cases.

There really isn't a lot in it even through decent headphones.

That is what the OP said too. "Little or no difference".

 

[pwiles1968]

I have done a similar thing recently but with an Airport Express.

My CD Player Marantz CD600Ki digital out goes to my AV6003 Amp where I decode the audio (I found it sounds better like this), so comparing a CD to the output of the Express was really easy, plugged the SPDIF in to the amp, line up the CD and the MP3 and switch between the two sources.

I personally did hear a difference between CD and 320kb MP3 to me it was pretty obvious, but when I ripped the CD to Lossless in iTunes and repeated the test I found little or no difference so for me this meant there was a differene between MP3 and Losless.

For reference I was using bonnie Prince Billy to do the assessment, it is a simple Vocal acoustic piece but recorded well and has lots of ambience I guess you would call it, I just got more sense of the space around him with the lossless.

--------------------------------

I Have worked out a couple of things recently to try and help with audio out from a PC, as above make sure iTunes Volume is 100% but if you are on a PC/MAC and altering Volume Mixer changes the Output at the amp then you have make sure that main volume is at 100%, also make sure the PC/Mac sound card does not have any settings such as EQ or other 'enhancements', if it does make sure they are all off, there may be an additional Volume control for SPDIFF out again 100%. Altering volume in the Digital Domain reduces the resolution of the signal and can reduce audio quality.

In iTunes when you rip make sure the Use error correction is switched on and under playback Turn OFF sound Check and sound enhancer to my ear it sounded better with these off so I guess that iTunes may be doing some processing with them on.

 

[JamesOK]

chebby:
Isn't the thread subject more to do with this...

JamesOK:...but after a lot of experimentation I can pretty safely say there is little to no audible difference between 320kbps and 1411kbps (AIFF) in my opinion.

...than whether or not certain lossless formats are technically 'bit perfect' and - if so - on which platform?

A lot of people have come to the same conclusion regarding Spotify (in 320kbps) and pretty much given up on CD.

For some people 'enough' is good, and for some (the 'critical' listeners*) even the ultimate 24bit / 192khz studio master quality files will be improvable.

*People who are on an endless quest for audio perfection in every single bit of the system including plugs and fuses and who sit at the apex of a perfect triangle between their speakers straining to hear every nuance and micro detail.

Its a good point well put Chebby. For me, my 1st choice would certainly be to use the Cyrus CD player that I dont yet have. However, as a decent stop gap, and given the nice functionality (iPod Remote etc) the iTunes at 320kbps is certainly good enough.

 

[Anonymous]

tested with a chord QBD76, using optical, usb and bluetooth.

the margin is huge and 320 sounded rubbish in comparison to lossless. Optical was best

 

[JamesOK]

pwiles1968:
I have done a similar thing recently but with an Airport Express.

My CD Player Marantz CD600Ki digital out goes to my AV6003 Amp where I decode the audio (I found it sounds better like this), so comparing a CD to the output of the Express was really easy, plugged the SPDIF in to the amp, line up the CD and the MP3 and switch between the two sources.

I personally did hear a difference between CD and 320kb MP3 to me it was pretty obvious, but when I ripped the CD to Lossless in iTunes and repeated the test I found little or no difference so for me this meant there was a differene between MP3 and Losless.

For reference I was using bonnie Prince Billy to do the assessment, it is a simple Vocal acoustic piece but recorded well and has lots of ambience I guess you would call it, I just got more sense of the space around him with the lossless.

PWiles,. thats exactly the same conclusion as me. My Arcam CD82 through Coax still sounds better than iTunes at any bit rate. Just not as good as the Cyrus 8SE.

Oh and I am using iTunes on full volume.

 

[chebby]

woollyjoe:tested with a chord QBD76, using optical, usb and bluetooth.
the margin is huge and 320 sounded rubbish

Then you have been gouged.

For £3000+ I would expect a DAC like that to be capable of making the most of different levels of compression. How does anyone listen to BBC iPlayer radio (AAC+) for instance (or Spotify) if their DAC makes it sound like rubbish.

I would rather own a good 'all-rounder' that can play nicely with a range of sources. (Otherwise you may as well just get a £3K CD player.)

 

[Alec]

chebby:320k AAC is not a typical MP3 file. It actually sounds very good.

Indeed, its isn't any kind of MP3, typical or otherwise.

I have not experimented much with Apple formats as I'm a PC.

Some will notice the difference between 320kbps MP3s and lossless files and consider it, therefore, to be significant, and so consider it worth making sure their files are ripped in a higher bitrate.

I think I can hear a difference, but I do not consider it particularly significant for my needs (I'm certainly not a critical listener).

I do rip in lossless, however, but only because I have the HDD space, and I know i can't get better than lossless (so i do it as a psychological thing), unless i try 24/96 stuff which im not really interested in doing.

OTOH, i download from Amazon and itunes and am happy with the sound of those downloads. Indeed, as i have less space for CDs, I may download more and more.

 

[Andrew Everard]

chebby:Then you have been gauged.

Measured?

 

[chebby]

Andrew Everard:
chebby:Then you have been gauged.

Measured?

Oops. Corrected.

Thanks.

 

[JamesOK]

al7478:chebby:320k AAC is not a typical MP3 file. It actually sounds very good.

Indeed, its isn't any kind of MP3, typical or otherwise.

I have not experimented much with Apple formats as I'm a PC.

One of the worst judged advertising campaigns in my opinion! The way Microsoft trounced it with their "I'm a PC, so what?" ads was brilliant.

al7478:

I think I can hear a difference, but I do not consider it
particularly significant for my needs (I'm certainly not a critical
listener).

I think thats the point isnt it. Theres nothing wrong with trying to get every last drop of quality out of your setup, and to equal that, theres nothing wrong with being happy to accept it may not be 100% as the CD intended, but still, its very good.

 

[Alec]

JamesOK:al7478:chebby:320k AAC is not a typical MP3 file. It actually sounds very good.

Indeed, its isn't any kind of MP3, typical or otherwise.

I have not experimented much with Apple formats as I'm a PC.

One of the worst judged advertising campaigns in my opinion! The way Microsoft trounced it with their "I'm a PC, so what?" ads was brilliant.

al7478:

I think I can hear a difference, but I do not consider it particularly significant for my needs (I'm certainly not a critical listener).

I think thats the point isnt it. Theres nothing wrong with trying to get every last drop of quality out of your setup, and to equal that, theres nothing wrong with being happy to accept it may not be 100% as the CD intended, but still, its very good.

The pic rings a bell but...

And yes i entirely agree wiuth your last paragraph. As i hinted, practical concerns like CD storage space must also come in to play.

As you may or may not kow, get a bit irritable osmetimes at these theoretical discussions because...well...theoretical is teh operative word.

Blimey, I need to write for a living, eh?

 

[chebby]

.

 

[chebby]

.