iPod Attn Audiophiles... I could use your expert advice.

[RainCityMacFan]

I'm guessing that iTunes can play the LAME files, but can an iPod?

Yeah, of course. But they aren't called "LAME files." LAME is the encoder, not the file format.

But I prefer Max since it uses LAME to encode and it encodes/converts into more formats.

However, be aware that sometimes, the production itself sucks arse. Like for example, Metallica's new album has horrible mastering (loudness + compression) so even if you rip to Apple Lossless, it will still sound like crap.

 

[Moriarty]

Yeah, of course. But they aren't called "LAME files." LAME is the encoder, not the file format.

But I prefer Max since it uses LAME to encode and it encodes/converts into more formats.

However, be aware that sometimes, the production itself sucks arse. Like for example, Metallica's new album has horrible mastering (loudness + compression) so even if you rip to Apple Lossless, it will still sound like crap.

True. Here's a waveform amplitude comparison: the left track has basically been made as loud as possible, which flattens the dynamics and makes it sound terrible.

The right-hand track is a proper recording! It's not only the file quality, but these days a lot of pop-rock music is badly mastered like the top track, in order to get the loudest CD possible, with complete disregard to sound quality. I hope this trend dies off soon!

Note both these were sourced from Apple Lossless which was ripped directly from the CD (but converted to .wav so Audacity would handle it), so there shouldn't be any noticeable compression artefacts.

Although thankfully I have yet to see a jazz/classical recording "compressed" like this (I think it's called brick-wall compression). It's mostly modern stuff that pimply little teenyboppers listen to that has been murdered, which I don't listen to anyway

 

[opivy1218]

I'm guessing that iTunes can play the LAME files, but can an iPod?

LAME files are mp3's. So yeah, iPods can play them.
And to with the LAME converter, I didn't look at it, but by the name I guess it's obvious that it converts to LAME mp3's? This isn't a really good idea to do, unless the file your converting from is a lossless or wav or AIFF. If it's a lossy format (mp3, m4a, ogg, etc.) then converting to another lossy format will result in a transcode.

 

[RainCityMacFan]

LAME files are mp3's. So yeah, iPods can play them.
And to with the LAME converter, I didn't look at it, but by the name I guess it's obvious that it converts to LAME mp3's? This isn't a really good idea to do, unless the file your converting from is a lossless or wav or AIFF. If it's a lossy format (mp3, m4a, ogg, etc.) then converting to another lossy format will result in a transcode.

True that.

Another lossless format that is popular is FLAC wiki(Free Lossless Audio Codec)

However, you can transcode into another lossy format if the bitrate is higher in the original file (I'm not a diehard audiophile, so PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong). For example, you can encode a 320kbps mp3 into a 128kbps AAC to save file size. It is also said that 128kbps aac sounds like a 256kbps mp3 (I never tested this, since I encode into 320kbps AAC/MP3 exclusively).

If size is not an issue for you but you still care about it, 320kbps AAC/MP3 is pretty good. If you don't give a crap about size, Apple Lossless (AIFF/WAV seems too big for the iPod buffers). If you want an equilibrium between quality and size, perhaps 256kbps AAC?

 

[MacLadybug]

Me Too... and by the way... I'm done!

I have nothing to add, but just wanted to say thanks to all of those sharing their obvious wealth of information on audio in this thread. I just learned a tonne! Thanks again!

First thanks to all for the information. Very helpful indeed!

It took all last night and until dinner time tonight, but I'm done. All my cds imported as Apple Lossless. About a quarter to one third of my collection is stuff I've downloaded from Napster and then converted and dumped into iTunes. The best I can get that is Mp3 320 Kpbs. I have the same formats on my iPod and iPhone I have not compressed anything for my iPhone.

The verdict is that my iPod sounds so amazing with my good headphones that it almost makes me cry! With the iPod headphones, much better than before, noticeably improved. Same with my iPhone although I've found a couple of tracks that only sound good with my good headphones. I've had no trouble playing and/or pausing and resuming play with the Lossless files as stated earlier. Now I want/need an amazing sound canceling over the ear headset I think. Haven't plugged the Pod into my home stereo yet, but I'll let you know how it sounds.

Right now I've got 35GB (2028 tracks) of music on my iPod, I've got more to import, but this was the important stuff. It actually didn't take as much room as I thought. This is ALL genres of music... I listen to EVERYTHING ... Classical, Christian Rock, Alternative, Hard Rock and on and on.

It was a pain to do, but I'm soooo thrilled with the outcome. Thanks again you all!!!!!!

 

[Victor ch]

I just skimmed the thread and couldn't find out what headphones (or other audio equipment) you're using. I find Lossless fat better than AAC @320 (many say you can't hear the difference but I can with my equipment) that's why my library is on the 60Gbs as we speak hehe

Back to the point, what headphones (or other audio equipment) are you using?

Victor

 

[opivy1218]

True that.

Another lossless format that is popular is FLAC wiki(Free Lossless Audio Codec)

However, you can transcode into another lossy format if the bitrate is higher in the original file (I'm not a diehard audiophile, so PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong). For example, you can encode a 320kbps mp3 into a 128kbps AAC to save file size. It is also said that 128kbps aac sounds like a 256kbps mp3 (I never tested this, since I encode into 320kbps AAC/MP3 exclusively).?

Nope, converting from one lossy format to another will result in quality loss no matter what. You may not be able to tell the difference, but it will still happen.

 

[RainCityMacFan]

I just skimmed the thread and couldn't find out what headphones (or other audio equipment) you're using. I find Lossless fat better than AAC @320 (many say you can't hear the difference but I can with my equipment) that's why my library is on the 60Gbs as we speak hehe

Back to the point, what headphones (or other audio equipment) are you using?

Victor

Can you tell me the equipment you're using tho?

 

[Victor ch]

Can you tell me the equipment you're using tho?

Sure,

Speaker-wise:The "big" setup: NAD C315BEE hi-fi stereo amplifier with a pair of Klipsch Reference 52's floorstanders; hooked via goldplated banana plugs with 99.9% OFC copper cable. All of this plays music (Lossless mainly) streamed thru an AirPort Express (that make things sound better IMO). This whole setup set my back ~$1.3K and was worth every single penny
I used to have some el-crap-o Bose 2.1 speakers but I got rid of those and bought a pair of M-Audio Studiophile's for the desktop, they're not hi-fi but given their price they're quite amazing and play very loud (they're multi-purpose too haha).

Headphones-wise: A pair of Bang&Olufsen A8s (absolutely amazing) some stupidly bought but super comfy and noise-canceling pair of Bose QC2s, and I have a pair of Grado SR80s on the way and will probably buy some Sennheiser HD's within the next months just for the sake of it

I should stop buying things like these and start focusing on my bass playing, band members might get mad if I don't buy the proper amplification and come in with some new headphones instead But meh, to each its own.

Victor

 

[RainCityMacFan]

Damn that's some fine stuff you got there haha

Just wondering tho, how much songs do you have that equals to 60 GBs? I'm thinking about Lossless but space is a bit of a problem when it comes to files that big.

Thanks
KJ

 

[Victor ch]

Damn that's some fine stuff you got there haha

Just wondering tho, how much songs do you have that equals to 60 GBs? I'm thinking about Lossless but space is a bit of a problem when it comes to files that big.

Thanks
KJ

Thanks man

Songs as in the whole library (including non-lossy) 3317, only Lossless:1811 and thats 53.3 of those 60.7 Gbs. Im sure many will insist that you can't tell the difference but I insist I can, even if its barely noticeable Also, some of those songs (roughly 300~) came from CD's not owned by me so I went for the best available since there's the chance I won't be able to re-encode them.

Macs nowadays (and PCs too) come with lots of GBs, mine has a modest 120GB hdd so Im kinda running out of space, but if you have 160GB+ you will be fine, if you choose otherwise AAC@320 will be the safest bet. Big hdds are cheap this days, i should get a 250GB one

Note: Im sorta of a self-proclaimed audiophile, serious ones stick to their fancy magnetically-suspended turntables (and analog setups )with old Tannoy/B&W/Wharfdale/etc. speakers and all off the matching equipment, that, according to them, is the shizznit of audio reproduction. Im extremely pleased with my equipment and prolly won't add much (as a 16yr old I can't afford much).

Victor

 

[txr0ckabilly]

i am by no means the audio expert that most of you seem to be but i would like to add one point. no matter what format you use for encoding, digital audio quality will diminish with time and transfers. some of the music in my library for 10+ years, although they were .wav at one time, definitely doesn't sound as good as it used to. these tracks have been moved from one HD to another over the years and with every move they lose just a little bit of the original quality they had.

in order to "future-proof" your library (if you don't have the original c.d.'s/vinyl stored for backup) is to get one large external HD and designate that as your library for the next 5 or so years. edit the tags and album art and be done with it. i wish i had seen this as an applicable solution 15 years ago but then i would have had to resort to zip discs and tape drives back then.

with the available external HD capacities available now, this should be your best bet in preserving your library for as long as possible. remember that all HDs will eventually fail, but they usually pop up with anomalies and drive-read errors to give you ample warning before they do.

 

[Julien]

i am by no means the audio expert that most of you seem to be but i would like to add one point. no matter what format you use for encoding, digital audio quality will diminish with time and transfers. some of the music in my library for 10+ years, although they were .wav at one time, definitely doesn't sound as good as it used to. these tracks have been moved from one HD to another over the years and with every move they lose just a little bit of the original quality they had...

Obviously not a computer expert either (not that I am). If you start with *lossless (I use Apple Lossless) it will not matter how many times you copy, move, play or even convert to another lossless format. The file will reman exactly the same and there will be no diminishment in SQ. If what you are describing happened then spread sheets, data bases and word files would also change over time and no digital information would be reliable.

* Even if you start with a lossy file as long as you make no conversion (other than converting to lossless) it will also stay exactly the same no mater how many times it is coped or moved.

 

[RainCityMacFan]

Obviously not a computer expert either (not that I am). If you start with lossless (I use Apple Lossless) it will not matter how many times you copy, play or even convert to another lossless format. The file will reman exactly the same and there will be no diminishment in SQ. If what you are describing happened then spread sheets, data bases and word files would also change over time and no digital information would be reliable.

Haha I'm no expert either but what Julien says, I believe is to be true. However, there are those "freak" accidents or occurrences where, who knows?, a hard drive head might accidently make a small scratch or an error on the platters. etc.

Now I'm just wondering, if you can get dropped frames by copying over files to a different volume by using a USB (assuming that the music file is lossless), is it the same for audio? Either way, I doubt that the quality is that different... Maybe it's your speakers?

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

i would like to add one point. no matter what format you use for encoding, digital audio quality will diminish with time and transfers.

This is pretty much completely wrong.

 

[davidjearly]

This is pretty much completely wrong.

Agreed. The only way this is possible is if you are transcoding the file over and over. Simply copying a file from one hard drive to another, without making any alterations to it, will not affect the quality at all.

 

[Foxer]

i am by no means the audio expert that most of you seem to be but i would like to add one point. no matter what format you use for encoding, digital audio quality will diminish with time and transfers. some of the music in my library for 10+ years, although they were .wav at one time, definitely doesn't sound as good as it used to. these tracks have been moved from one HD to another over the years and with every move they lose just a little bit of the original quality they had.

Digital files do not "degrade" over time like old audio cassettes being bootlegged around the dorm. Unless something goes wrong, all transfers will maintain the exact fidelity of the original. If something DOES go wrong while transferring, the result would probably be a file that iTunes couldn't open. Either way, you won't have a file that has degraded.

Think about it - you transfer word processing and spreadsheet docs all the time, and words and numbers don't dissappear with each move. Audio files and productivity files (and all files) are all the same, from the computer's point of view.

 

[gnasher729]

* Even if you start with a lossy file as long as you make no conversion (other than converting to lossless) it will also stay exactly the same no mater how many times it is coped or moved.

The last point is important if you don't like DRM on your music bought from the iTunes store: Select music with DRM, burn an audio CD, then import the CD in Apple Lossless format. The file size grows enormously, but you get 100% exactly the same music, with no copy protection.

 

[gnasher729]

However, you can transcode into another lossy format if the bitrate is higher in the original file (I'm not a diehard audiophile, so PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong). For example, you can encode a 320kbps mp3 into a 128kbps AAC to save file size. It is also said that 128kbps aac sounds like a 256kbps mp3 (I never tested this, since I encode into 320kbps AAC/MP3 exclusively).

The loss in quality adds up. Let's say for arguments sake that 320kbps mp3 = 2% quality loss, and 128kbps AAC = 5% quality loss. If you import a CD into 320kbps mp3, then convert to 128kbps AAC, you have a total loss of 7%. If you convert back to 320kbps mp3, you would add another 2% for a total loss of 9%. (I pulled the numbers out of nowhere, they are just there to illustrate the concept).

You are correct insofar as CD->320mp3->128AAC is _not much_ worse than CD->128AAC, while CD->128mp3->128AAC would be _a lot_ worse. And a conversion CD->128mp3->256AAC would be completely pointless, since the result is much larger and a tiny bit worse than 128kbit mp3.

 

[Julien]

The loss in quality adds up. Let's say for arguments sake that 320kbps mp3 = 2% quality loss, and 128kbps AAC = 5% quality loss. If you import a CD into 320kbps mp3, then convert to 128kbps AAC, you have a total loss of 7%. If you convert back to 320kbps mp3, you would add another 2% for a total loss of 9%. (I pulled the numbers out of nowhere, they are just there to illustrate the concept)...

Actually it's much worse that the percentages you suggest (which are subjective since we are talking perceptual). Each type of codec (MP3 and AAC) has it's on unique sets of algorithms (and weaknesses) to process the signal. When you transcode you compound each codecs weakness and this lowers the audio quality precipitously.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

The last point is important if you don't like DRM on your music bought from the iTunes store: Select music with DRM, burn an audio CD, then import the CD in Apple Lossless format. The file size grows enormously, but you get 100% exactly the same music, with no copy protection.

^ This assumes that the burn and rip processes don't introduce errors, but is otherwise accurate.

 

[Consultant]

AAC is MP4.

MP4 is over 10 years NEWER than mp3.

If you must compress, use AAC.

If you have space, use loseless.

 

[madmaxmedia]

I use AAC in iTunes because it's as good a codec as any, and is much faster than mp3 encoding in iTunes. LAME is a good choice if you want to use mp3. The mp3 format is much older, but LAME is a current encoder that does a much better job than older mp3 encoders.

If you have the space, go for Apple lossless or 320kb or whatever you want. I would recommend you rip a few albums in different formats, from 128kb all the way up to Apple Lossless, and then do some detailed listening yourself.

It's easy to make blanket recommendations, but really you should decide for yourself what is the best choice for you. If you don't have a ton of music, then Apple Lossless is not a compromise because you can fit it all on your new iPod anyway. For those with really large music collections, they will have to decide what is the best compromise.

The better your headphones, the more likely you'll notice the differences between different bitrates. If you're using even say decent $50 to $100 earbuds you may not notice the difference between 192kb AAC and Apple Lossless. But it's really up to your individual ears, that's what you should count on to make your decision after reading all the great information in this thread.

 

[RainCityMacFan]

Just wondering but is there s difference between 320kbps AAC or Mp3 or etc?

 

[dXTC]

I currently use 192kbit AAC. My old library was mostly 192kbit MP3, but I re-ripped my CDs. I would have loved to have gone lossless, but then I only have a 4Gb nano and not much in the way of hard drive storage space. The fact that I have numerous extended remixes and trance tracks doesn't help either.

Some time ago, I wrote to Apple Feedback suggesting that the transcoding option that is available for iPod shuffle users (the option to convert to 128kbps AAC on the fly during sync) be made available for all iPod models. No response so far...

Just wondering but is there s difference between 320kbps AAC or Mp3 or etc?

Yes, they're subtle to many people, but there are differences. AAC and MP3 have their own algorithms for determining what parts of the music gets discarded. AAC's algorithm is often considered superior to MP3's in that respect.

The above statement holds true for files encoded with the same bitrate. Files with a higher bitrate usually sound truer to the original source, because less music data has to be discarded.