iTunes vs. Amazon.com

[J_UNTITLED]

Which outlet for mp3s offers the overall better quality in terms of the songs themselves: iTunes (or iTunes Plus) or Amazon.com?

[Hamburglar]

i think quality wise...itunes and amazon are similar if not the same 128kb is the standard and has been the standard for a long time. Its hard to tell a real difference in quality after that, at least for my untrained ears they 128 and 196 sound pretty similar.

I would recommend using iTunes as its the largest internet music retailer (almost largest retailer period right behind wal-mart). They have the most choices and often have music released on their as iTunes exclusive. Amazon's music download service is still relatively new.

[Galley]

Protected iTunes tracks are 128Kbps AAC.
Non-protected "iTunes Plus" tracks are 256Kbps AAC
Amazon sells nothing but 256Kbps MP3 (encoded with LAME).

[iNCREDiPiNOY]

I prefer Amazon Unbox! I can download media to any Computer that has Unbox Software.

[JasonR]

I hate iTunes and iPods because of their proprietary software. I wish they would just let you copy and paste whatever you want onto their device. I mean seriously you can find a device that does the same in a better way for 100 dollars or more cheaper. Give me a break....

[actionhank]

Amazon all the way.

All of their songs are DRM free MP3s @256 kbps. iTunes has copy-protected AAC @128 kbps. They charge roughly the same prices

iTunes however, I think, has a bigger selection. So I would check amazon 1st, if they don't have what you're looking for then go over to iTunes.

[J_UNTITLED]

Originally Posted by Galley

Protected iTunes tracks are 128Kbps AAC.
Non-protected "iTunes Plus" tracks are 256Kbps AAC
Amazon sells nothing but 256Kbps MP3 (encoded with LAME).

Is 256kbps AAC better than just 256kbps?

[aygie]

iTunes 100%

[TheRealBob]

Originally Posted by J_UNTITLED

Is 256kbps AAC better than just 256kbps?

Yes, in theory. MP3 is an audio standard created to go with the MPEG-1 video standard, and AAC is an audio standard created to go with the MPEG-4 video standard. A lot of progress was made between the time MP3 was created and AAC was created, so, everything else being equal (encoder quality, source quality, etc.), AAC should sound better at the same bit rate.

Having said that, that's just in theory. 256 Kbps MP3s encoded with LAME sounds very good, so many people might not notice any improvement with 256 Kbps AACs.

[Clark Kent]

I prefer using Amazon for the very limited amount of digital music files I buy.

[J_UNTITLED]

Originally Posted by TheRealBob

Yes, in theory. MP3 is an audio standard created to go with the MPEG-1 video standard, and AAC is an audio standard created to go with the MPEG-4 video standard. A lot of progress was made between the time MP3 was created and AAC was created, so, everything else being equal (encoder quality, source quality, etc.), AAC should sound better at the same bit rate.

Having said that, that's just in theory. 256 Kbps MP3s encoded with LAME sounds very good, so many people might not notice any improvement with 256 Kbps AACs.

So, technically, there's supposed to be an improvement with 256 kbps AAC but it may very well just be a load of bull and totally subjective?


Either way, 256 kbps is better than the "standard" 128kbps, right?


I wish I didn't have to use MP3s as they obviously are inferior in quality when compared to CDs but when you like a song or two but not necessarily an artist/band's entire album, it's pretty much the only option you have outside of wasting your money on buying the full CD (no one seems to make singles on CDs much anymore).

[Blu Haze]

Amazon. The better they do the better the Blu prices go

[Cordre69]

Apple is the fruit of the devil so...Amazon.