I already have, they sound like crap. Look man, I'm into very high sound quality, I have tube amplifiers that power the mids and high speakers and a seperate transistorized (no microchips) high current amp that powers the woofers (due to tubes have a slower slew rate and microchips can't handle high current) and tube preamps, with a tube cd player (I also have a turntable for certain music). Don't tell me that an MP3 plying high bitrates can sound good because they don't. The only reason MP3 and the such are a big hit is due to fact you can load over 1,000 songs (depending on how many gb's you have) on a very small platform, whereas the old cd walkman was large and could only handle 1 cd. But even with CD's not all CD's are created equal. My daughter listens to a lot of youth related music (teeny bobber) and when played in my system you can hear digital clacking going on that on her little boom box it's missing, vs higher grade CD's that clacking is gone. Some recording studios especially Telrac (the worst) just put out cheap quality sound.

Basically, if you want true CD quality from the files on your iPod or music server, you must use WAV or AIF encoding or FLAC, ALC, or WMA Lossless. Both MP3 and AAC introduce fairly large changes in the measured spectra, even at the highest rate of 320kbps. There seems little point in spending large sums of money on superbly specified audio equipment if you are going to play sonically compromised, lossy-compressed music on it.

It is true that there are better-performing MP3 codecs than the basic Fraunhöfer—many audiophiles recommend the LAME encoder—but the AAC codec used by iTunes has better resolution than MP3 at the same bit rate (if a little noisier at the top of the audioband). If you want the maximum number of files on your iPod, therefore, you take less of a quality hit if you use AAC encoding than if you use MP3. But "CD quality"? Yeah, right!


http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...fidelity/print

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/03/04...sound-quality/