320Kps PLEASE...

Hi Amazon team - Please can we have 320kbps MP3's ... 256 VBR is OK but not good enough for playback on better quality stereo systems. Happy to pay a small subsidy for this extra benefit :-)

Overall - well don Amazon for launching a serious contender to Apples long term rip-off

My Amazon downloads have been ripped with the L.A.M.E. encoder (version 3.98) which is considered one of the best. Its 256 VBR is likely to be to be very close to 320 CBR - altough I have not done a recent comparison, as I tend to use AAC.

I've only ever bought two tracks from Itunes. They were both by separate artists and came through at 128kbs and were encoded, so couldn't play in anything other that Itunes. Never again. I must admit that I've had a few 320 albums from amazon but 256 is fine for me. Good luck with your request.

Yes, a better hi-fi will show the difference between 256 and 320, it's just a pitty humans can't hear it. If you are a dog, then I appologise, hold out for the 320 version.

[Deleted by the author on 15 Nov 2012 02:03:59 GMT]

Some humans can 'sense' a difference between 256 VBR and 320 CBR which adds to their enjoyment of the music. This is scientifically recognised though yet to be adequately explained (search the web on how mp3 compression developed to appreciate it involves more than the mechanics of hearing). What is best for each individual will depend on:
1. most importantly, what hearing you have been blessed with and/or degree of auditory damage already incurred,
2. the type of music being listened to, quality of the original recording and/or any subsequent remastering.
3. how you listen to your music, i.e. quiet room or on the move, and
4. how much space you have to store tracks.

MP3 compression isn't without problems whatever software you use to do it, though LAME is excellent. VBR takes a 'best guess' at compression and sometimes makes a mess of it. Listen, for example, to "Save Tonight" by Eagle-Eye Cherry as a .wav file and as VBR. With VBR it sounds like all the musicians are sitting on each others lap, the 'sound stage' is dreadful. On the otherhand, "Between the Wars" by Billy Bragg compressed to 320 CBR is given too much emphasis to the high notes making it painful to listen to.

Generally, the difference I find between 256 VBR and 320 CBR is that the former lacks bass (but again not on every track). A good example is "Layla" by Derek & The Dominos. A poor example would be "Stir It Up" by Bob Marley & The Wailers.
The solution is to try to listen before you buy and for Amazon to offer customers choice.

Some of us are happy with 256, some of us prefer 320, even if we're not supposed to hear any difference.

Amazon - why not give us the choice? Could default to 256, but have an option of 320. Happy to pay an extra few pence to get 320.

Sorry but i can tell the difference on my system no problem. MP3 even at 320 kbps is OK but it sure as hell doesn't come close to CDs 1411 kbps. I only get mp3 versions of things that aren't readily available on CD.
FLAC is the ideal answer but there's not much of it out there only on a few artist sites at the moment. Be nice to have the choice.

In response to Mr Graham's post on the quality of mp3's... eh, I don't think so! I suppose you think an i-pod is the epitomy of true hi-fi. There is a clear difference - lower quality mp3 files are fine for on the move on in the car. Play an mp3 file in an A-B test against a full quality PCM file of the same track on a proper hi-fi and the difference is certainly noticeable.

I find LAME encodings at anything over ~190 kpbs (VBR) very difficult (but not impossible) to distinguish from source FLAC files in most cases. So, although I haven't gone through the motions of sitting down and squinting, my guess would be that hearing the difference between a -V0 (--vbr--new) encoding and -b 320 would be very difficult indeed and not worth the extra file size. I mostly listen at home (Auzentech Prelude, ASIO/Foobar2k, Presonus HP4 headphone amp, Sennheiser HD595s) although I'm after a nice new portable MP3 player for out and about. File size matters with formats intended to be portable, and you can't really re-encode MP3s without serious compromise... so bear this in mind when you go asking for 320 kbps files, which I think 99.999% of people would find impossible to distinguish from 256s (LAME V0) in a blind listening test using high quality electronics.

The option I would like to see Amazon offer is a FLAC download.

As a parting shot, I would say that, although high bitrate MP3s sound great, they nonetheless aren't as good as the CD source signal and this should be reflected in the price. Certainly with classical music, it is often the case that I can purchase the CD more cheaply than I can download the MP3s, which is absurd.

Downloading quality MP3s is great, but it must be quite significantly cheaper than purchasing the CD (which also comes with notes and artwork and can be sold on if I don't like it etc.).

Definitely want to see FLAC or some other lossless compression. The lack of DRM is a massive step in the right direction by Amazon, but it's got to be better than MP3 before I move away from buying CDs (which just get ripped and end up in a cupboard...).

I have just downloaded 4 mp3 tracks which were listed as being 256kbps VBR files.
All of them actually turned out to be under 192kbps.
As I got them by taking advantage of the free mp3 christmas offer I was none too bothered, however if I had paid the full price for these I would have been. As anyone with a functional pair of ears knows, any mp3 track under 320 kbps (256kbps at a push) played on a decent home system (or better still a proper sizeable PA) will not sound that good. One of the main problems with buying compressed audio is the quality of replication. If people are listening on an mp3 player, pc, mobile phone or the like then it won't make a great deal of difference. If I'm buying music then I need the option of playing it out to a crowd, so it needs to sound good with both the top & bottom ends relatively intact. Other mp3 retailers offer the choice of hi-end 320 kbps mp3 files or lossless FLAC files, with the differing quality reflected by two prices. I would suggest Amazon considers this in the future, as when faced with the option of spending 7 or 8 quid on an mp3 release versus a tenner or so on a CD, I for one would opt for the latter.

It's funny watching people delude themselves with their fantasies. Even the most expensive amplifiers don't produce a truly flat and linear output and as for the speakers.. yet you don't hear/read people complaining about how un-flat their equipment is, even though that is something which is manifest compared to the differences between 256 VBR and 320 CBR. No, it's the old argument of because you know there is a difference you also think you can perceive a difference, hence why nobody talks about the former issue. Most of you wouldn't be able to tell if the signal has been band-limited to 15KHz before it was put onto a CD, although no doubt many would offer an opinion without actually trying that as an experiment.

Saying that I would like to see lossless downloads as until there is parity between the quality of a download and a CD I'll forever be uncomfortable purchasing it with a sense of missing out (whether that is an illusion or otherwise) and that's probably the same for a lot of people.

iTunes sells at 128kbps in AAC, which has been shown to be around the same quality as 256kbps in MP3. Raising the bit rate in MP3 above 256kbps doesn't give much higher quality, as the algorithm ignores the top end/high frequencies on a song.

In other words Amazon's 256kbps MP3 = iTunes 128kbps AAC.

There is a fundamental issue here beyond whether you believe you (or anyone else) can hear the difference between different bit rates: the overall sound quality of what you're buying is lower than CD.
SACD and DVD-Audio have both been and pretty much gone and now we're going backwards. I find it astonishing that as video goes HD and Blu-Ray with DTS and DD 7.1, music is getting worse. The same applies with most DAB stations compared with FM.

DAB is currently broadcast at approx. Mp2 levels and sound quality is roughly that of FM 20 years ago, the only conceivable reason to have a DAB radio is if you get a poor FM signal, even then you would be better off spending the money on a decent aerial.
2010 is meant to be the year we switch to DAB Plus (working title) this will at least come up to Mp4 quality. But you current DAB radio will not support this and will become extinct overnight. Bet Dixons didn't mention that when they took your money.
Keep an eye out for Digital Mondial Radio (DMR) this will be rolled out in the next couple of years. It will be broadcast on the old AM wavelength and can reach over huge distances Turkey to Iceland (DAB reaches very short distances - one reason they are not popular in cars, constant re-tuning necessary.) DMR may become the main player but expect problems with DRM issues and literally thousands of stations in many languages and as yet no-one knows what format will be used or if it support stereo.

At A.John

I thinks thats a great idea having the choice to select what type of quality you would like!

It's certainly true that AAC (of which Nero Digital is probably the best example) is more efficient than MP3, but AAC @ 128 kbps = LAME VBR @ 256 kbps? I think not. I suggest you try it for yourself, the software is easy to use and freely available.

High resolution DVD-A music at 24 bits, and 96 kHz is all very well, but how long do you think that would take to download?!

MP3 downloads are fine. LAME MP3 at V0 is very very hard (and often subjectively impossible) to distinguish from CD, the one proviso is that the MP3 must be quite a bit cheaper, that's all. If it isn't, then I'll buy the CD instead which I can encode any way I like.

A 320kbps would be a great choice to have and one I certainly would appreciate. As for those people who state that there's no difference I guess you don't miss what you've never had. - If your playback equipment is inferior it doesn't matter how high the recorded bit rate is you're not going to hear a difference. The quality is, after all, only as good as the weakest link in your playback equipment. A decent separates system easily reveals the differences - even my Granny can tell a higher vs lower bit rate on my 'proper' hi-fi!

Just listen to the same version of a song on play.com (320 Kb/s) it is clearly superior to amazon.

Is Amazon going to take any of this into consideration?

The samples used for preview listening on amazon and probably other sites are not of the same quality as the version you download. probablt 128 or even 64kbps. HMV's preview samples seems to vary depending on your connection speed or the load on the sysem at their end.

As for those saying you can't hear the difference between 256 and 320kbps, you clearly need to listen on a decent system, not some personal mp3 player or a mobile phone. If it's for cheap casual use or a rare album and there's no CD edition I'll buy an MP3, but for serious listening or as a master recording to keep, sorry, but amazon need to start selling lossless files, even if it costs a little more as an option. No booklet in any format supplied is a big downer for me too.

A lossless option would be nice, with the MP3 being cheaper by a healthy amount. Booklets as PDF downloads will hopefully come soon too.

320 kbps. Right, download the latest LAME binary (it's small and free), then download Foobar, then encode a CD at V0 (c. 250 kbps MP3) and then losslessly as FLAC and compare the two. Even those with ears like a dog and serious high-end hi-fis will discover that the MP3 is very hard to distinguish from the original CD.

You might have been able to ABX early Fraunhoffer MP3s at 256 and 320 kbps, but with recent encoders, you would fail. It's hard to distinguish them from the original, let alone higher bit rates.

I'd be surprised if Amazon do take this discussion into consideration as far as lossless is concerned. I expect 320 will appear, but I doubt that lossless, 24/96 will simply because people who care about this sort of thing are in the minority. There are a lot more personal MP3 players out there than there are good quality hi-fi systems.

Offcolour makes some good points - as do others. We must not lose sight of the fact that music we hear live is in an analogue format and not digital. However, the digitised CDs and (now) MP3 files do offer amazing clarity but sometimes at a loss (for lower bit rates) of instrument/vocal separation. I agree with Offcolour, what is the difference betwen DAB and FM apart from the availability of stations - I do think it is hard to distinguish sound qualtity. Also, others focus on the price difference between CDs and downloads - and are right to do so. For downloads there are no packaging costs, distribution costs and the infrastructure to host the download is provided at the expense of the purchaser. This should be reflected in a considerably reduced price for ALL music compared with High Street prices.