Give it up Leo, you're wrong, follow the links to the original article: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/itunes_256_vs_128_bit?page=0%2C0
QUOTE So we decided to test a random sample of our colleagues to see if they could detect any audible difference between a song ripped from a CD and encoded in Apple's lossy AAC format at 128K/s, and the same song ripped and encoded in lossy AAC at 256Kb/s. QUOTE
They were testing the same track ripped from the same CD using iTunes AAC encoding, NOT USING iTunes PURCHASED TRACKS. They were testing iTunes encoding capabilities, not the quality of iTunes purchases. Just give it up before you get called out more and more.
Jon.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:58 AM, Leo Mauler [email protected] wrote:
Hey Jon? Remember that E-mail where you discovered that I "hadn't read" the passage about the DRM metadata? Here's a quote from *that E-mail*, where I quoted the link supporting my comment about the "no difference in quality" between iTunes and iTunes Plus:
"According to MaximumPC, which listen-tested iTunes DRM 128K AAC files against iTunes Plus DRM-Free 256K AAC files when iTunes Plus first came out, there's not a noticable difference between the two types of music files."
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/06/04/itunes-vs-itunes-plus-an-audible-difference/
Apparently you, Jon Pruente, choose to just rant not to actually read.