iTunes sound quality

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
69,845
Reaction score
38,391
Location
Behind the grassy knoll
I have to spend quite a bit of time on the really boring part of the internet.
When doing so I usually listen to music (usually via iTunes) using either Sure or Bose in-ear earphones.
However, I have always found something lacking in the sound iTunes produces.

Some time back I discovered iWow, for iTunes - quite a difference to the sound, bass is tightened up, at the higher treble end, the sound seems to sparkle as opposed to a near hiss!

Anyone else use iWow here ?
 
$25?

Did you try the built in graphic equaliser?
 
I used to a long time ago but that was three macs ago. I did find that when removing it, the sound got worse than it was before it was installed. As did others.

Dunno how good it is these days but not worth the $ is what a lot of folk think. I dunno. Jury is still out...
 
I've never used it (or found the Mac/iTunes' sound lacking) but it reminds me of the mp3pro codec, which was supposed to improve regular mp3 sound quality. All it really did was filter out the stuff that sound bad on crappy computer speakers. Snake oil.
 
Off topic - if use iTunes to import a CD directly ... will I have the MP3, or will it go straight to the iFormat?

The reason I use WMP to rip to MP3, and then add to the library is so that I still have the MP3.
 
Off topic - if use iTunes to import a CD directly ... will I have the MP3, or will it go straight to the iFormat?

The reason I use WMP to rip to MP3, and then add to the library is so that I still have the MP3.
It depends what import settings you've chosen.
 
Oh - didn't know there were settings .... thanks!
 
I figured out yesterday how to change the import settings from mp3 to aac to create rintones for the iPhone. Works a treat.
 
Off topic - if use iTunes to import a CD directly ... will I have the MP3, or will it go straight to the iFormat?

The reason I use WMP to rip to MP3, and then add to the library is so that I still have the MP3.

I can't imagine why you would want MP3 over AAC. The latter offers noticeably better sound quality at the same bitrate (i.e. same file size) than MP3. MP3 is nearly two decades old...
 
I can't imagine why you would want MP3 over AAC. The latter offers noticeably better sound quality at the same bitrate (i.e. same file size) than MP3. MP3 is nearly two decades old...

It doesn't always matter how old things are - remember the 2012 Apples come with a decade old USB system and optical drive system , yet no one worries about them :/

As for the reasoning on MP3 choice - MP3 is still the de factor standard for sound - cars, TVs, DVD players, media streamers, Blu Ray, portable music etc all play MP3 as standard. I can take my collection anywhere and play on just about any device I find without an issue.

If I wanted real quality, I'd go with FLAC over AAC anyhow
 
It doesn't always matter how old things are - remember the 2012 Apples come with a decade old USB system and optical drive system , yet no one worries about them :/
Why would we worry? You're the one making predictions about next year's hardware.
 
As for the reasoning on MP3 choice - MP3 is still the de factor standard for sound - cars, TVs, DVD players, media streamers, Blu Ray, portable music etc all play MP3 as standard. I can take my collection anywhere and play on just about any device I find without an issue.

In other words, it's the lowest common denominator. Fair enough. I tend to choose hardware/players/whatever that can handle more than the absolute minimum. That doesn't mean sticking to Apple kit though: my 5 year old low-end Nokia can play AAC files.

If I wanted real quality, I'd go with FLAC over AAC anyhow

Lossless will always win over lossy. That's not really the issue here.
 
Have you tried Boom? search for it on AppStore. I have found though that on Lion I am getting excellent sound from Itunes versus what I was getting on Snow Leopard so I no longer have Boom installed.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X