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

[Sesshi]

At >256K you're looking at near-zero differences in terms of perception for a current-specification MP3 rip vs AAC. AAC does perform basically 'one notch' better at lower bitrates, but as an encoding standard it didn't push the state-of-the-compression-envelope like say ATRAC3+.

It is however the next widely supported standard next to MP3, and it is better at common bitrates. At higher rates though, I'd be inclined to pick MP3 with a decent encoder because there's not as big a storage/quality hit as at, say 128K.

The other big question really is where you use your music, and it's necessary to be as honest / practical about this as possible. Lossless is pretty pointless for portable use - even if you believe you can hear a baby mosquito fart and use highly isolating earphones, the surrounding environment won't let you hear the difference. For home use obviously it makes sense - but once again, only if you're playing it back on something that actually makes a difference perceivable.

 

[Foxer]

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

The initial claim by Apple when AAC was introduced was baiscally a 3:2 AAC:MP3 ratio. That is, a song burnt at 128 kbs in AAC was equivaent of a 192 MP3. I think this is still GENERALLY accepted, although I'm sure there are others who would disagee.

Go with Apple Lossless, if at all possible.

 

[txr0ckabilly]

This is pretty much completely wrong.

i love when people post something like this and do not back it up with anything that is remotely informative.

as for the word file, text files, spreadsheets not degrading- what are we talking about here? 1kb- 100kb? not anything remotely as complex as an audio file. i mean we are discussing the best way to format an audio file without loosing one bit of info so it sounds the best.

you can spout these statements about no file degradation but where's the proof? i genuinely want to know.

i'm honestly not saying that the 101010101 will become 1011001101 when copied to many times. i'm saying that with every copy from one media to another there's that chance of of it becoming 1010__101. i'm speaking as simply as i can here.

in a perfect world, with the perfect computer and the perfect hard drive not one byte of information will ever be lost. but in the real world, where mistakes happen due to any number of reasons, losses can and due occur. hard drive "hiccups", read errors, anomalies on sectors of our hard drives, etc.

if it weren't the case, why would we always be wanting the next/bigger/better/faster (insert digital product name here)?

honestly how many of your libraries are as old as mine? i'm not saying that to brag or say i did it first. i'm just curious if any of you have had to move libraries of audio/video/artwork from one drive to another multiple times over 2 decades.

listen to that first track you ever bought from itunes in late 2001 or early 2002 if you can remember it and then the same track today, providing you've moved that track around a few times, and honestly tell me if they don't sound different. maybe it's a difference in the way that track was mastered then and now. honestly i don't know.

i'm not saying that i've now got static or vinyl scratch noise in the background on my audio/video files but i do have tracks that won't be as loud as the next track in a random playlist. i have had tracks that won't play after copying them. or the occasional track that just has a missing half second or so, maybe even the random skip.

i've brought back a cd to the record shop (nirvana- nevermind) because my cd player couldn't read that copy. but the one i exchanged it for worked fine. all those cd's are being copied from a gold master- maybe it's one in a million- again i honestly don't know, but the mistake was made.

if i'm just speaking out my ass, i apologize but i'm just speaking from what i've experienced. i'm damn near 40 and i may not be up on all the savy tech stuff these days but to come out and just simply say i'm dead wrong- i may not hear as well as i used to but i'm definitely not deaf either- i'm not that old

i didn't post that this morning to start a discussion about file degradation and wether it's true or not. i stated that in an attempt to help people avoid some of the problems and losses i've suffered over the years. avoid the potential for error.

 

[Sesshi]

You don't keep backups

 

[ftaok]

i love when people post something like this and do not back it up with anything that is remotely informative.

snip

I haven't weighed in on this ... mainly because I'm no expert. However, my opinion is that a file is a file is a file. There's really no difference between a Word file vs. an MP3 file vs. an AVI file. It's all just 1's and 0's.

I think the term "degradation" is the sticking point here. I think we can all agree that there can be errors and such where bits of information can get lost, but it's too a degree where the difference is negligible. I suppose that the more often you move the file around, the chances that these errors can occur are greater. It might end up that certain songs have "blips" on them, but it's more likely that the song won't play at all. I don't think degradation is the term to describe this phenomenon ... at least not when it means something else in the analog audio world.

Anyways, it's probably pretty easy to check this out ... although I don't know how to do it. Someone so inclined could rip a CD track, then set up a script to copy/paste the file from one HDD to another about a 100 times. Then compare the two files at the digital level to see if there are any differences.

ft

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

you can spout these statements about no file degradation but where's the proof? i genuinely want to know.

The OS is designed to perform a bit-for-bit copy. The tools (ie: md5 checksums) are openly and freely available to test this yourself.

i'm honestly not saying that the 101010101 will become 1011001101 when copied to many times. i'm saying that with every copy from one media to another there's that chance of of it becoming 1010__101. i'm speaking as simply as i can here.

I'm telling you that, in the digital world, that doesn't happen. When it does, it's a failure of the drives involved, not an artifact of copying the file.

honestly i don't know.

Bingo.

i'm not saying that i've now got static or vinyl scratch noise in the background on my audio/video files but i do have tracks that won't be as loud as the next track in a random playlist.

I'd bet several dollars that this is due to the "loudness war".

i have had tracks that won't play after copying them. or the occasional track that just has a missing half second or so, maybe even the random skip.

These are I/O errors on a hardware level, not an artifact of copying the file.

i've brought back a cd to the record shop (nirvana- nevermind) because my cd player couldn't read that copy.

Again, this is a failure of the physical media or the reading mechanism. You didn't "wear out" your CD by playing it too many times.

 

[txr0ckabilly]

The OS is designed to perform a bit-for-bit copy. The tools (ie: md5 checksums) are openly and freely available to test this yourself.

yep and these work perfectly everytime!

I'm telling you that, in the digital world, that doesn't happen. When it does, it's a failure of the drives involved, not an artifact of copying the file.

didn't i say that?

Bingo.

that's just rude

I'd bet several dollars that this is due to the "loudness war".

i'd never heard of this until this thread, it was mentioned on page 1.

These are I/O errors on a hardware level, not an artifact of copying the file.

didn't the statements of my second post reflect this exact thing verbatim?

Again, this is a failure of the physical media or the reading mechanism. You didn't "wear out" your CD by playing it too many times.

didn't figure it was, since all i did was unwrap the damn disc and put it into the cd player. i didn't even leave the parking lot.



and as for backups.... do you then back the back up up? what about backing that up?

i apologize completely for offending anyone with the word "degradation". it was not meant to be hurtful.

everything that you people have said about hardware failures and hardware issues to explain what i thought i had already explained about hardware failures and hardware issues was the reason for having one dependable hard drive that could be moved from one computer to another and not risk (however small that risk might be) the loss of information by having to copy it to another hard drive by said hardware failures and hardware issues. (that was a grammatically correct, although long winded sentence)

i thought this entire post was about preserving sound quality to its possible best. i just thought hardware issues causing problems with sound quality might fit here.

again my deepest and sincerest apologies....

 

[Foxer]

as for the word file, text files, spreadsheets not degrading- what are we talking about here? 1kb- 100kb? not anything remotely as complex as an audio file. i mean we are discussing the best way to format an audio file without loosing one bit of info so it sounds the best.

...or a .pdf file or quicktime movie. Take your pick. A digital file is a digital file.

I think I'm hung up on "degradation." Do you feel that your old tracks now contain pops, hisses or a general loss of fidelity? I do not see how that can happen with a digital track - those a the legacies of magnetic tape and needles eventually wearing out an LP. Or do your files not play, or do they contain digital "static" - and is that static always at the same place in the same track (otherwise it could be a buffering problem, I suspect.)

I'm not criticizing, I'm very interested in this. My library digital is almost 10 years old and has been moved more times than I can count, as well as re-ripped to higher bitrates on at least two occasions. I'd hate to have to rip almost 400 GB of music again because I keep upgrading my Mac.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

i thought this entire post was about preserving sound quality to its possible best. i just thought hardware issues causing problems with sound quality might fit here.

I think that you're unintentionally blurring the line between sound quality and file integrity.

 

[txr0ckabilly]

I think I'm hung up on "degradation." Do you feel that your old tracks now contain pops, hisses or a general loss of fidelity? I do not see how that can happen with a digital track - those a the legacies of magnetic tape and needles eventually wearing out an LP. Or do your files not play, or do they contain digital "static" - and is that static always at the same place in the same track (otherwise it could be a buffering problem, I suspect.)

I'm not criticizing, I'm very interested in this. My library digital is almost 10 years old and has been moved more times than I can count, as well as re-ripped to higher bitrates on at least two occasions. I'd hate to have to rip almost 400 GB of music again because I keep upgrading my Mac.

please don't get hung up on that word. i swear i'll never use it again.

as i said before- it's not really a sound quality issue unless you consider the occasional "blip", "skip", "bonk", or not playing at all a problem with sound quality.

I think that you're unintentionally blurring the line between sound quality and file integrity.

no blur intended, i am simply talking about preserving audio quality AND file integrity. i came into this post understanding fully about compression and their relationship to sound quality. i was hoping to add to this discussion with a way to to avoid the problems i've incurred moving this library so many times.

once again- i am just suggesting that because massive hd's- both internal and external- are now available and becoming increasingly cheaper by the day, that investing in one to store it all so that it doesn't have to be moved from one place to another can eliminate the problems that can be associated with said moves (yes i know, as i did before, that these would be hardware issues).

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

no blur intended, i am simply talking about preserving audio quality AND file integrity. i came into this post understanding fully about compression and their relationship to sound quality.

Fair enough ... I just think that you've added a new layer of confusion.

Just to be clear, as long as the integrity of the file is not comprimised (by a hardware failure, copy error, etc.), the sound quality will not change. You can copy it a million times and, as long as the file maintains its integrity, nothing changes.

 

[orpheus1120]

Just to be clear, as long as the integrity of the file is not comprimised (by a hardware failure, copy error, etc.), the sound quality will not change. You can copy it a million times and, as long as the file maintains its integrity, nothing changes.

+1.

Incidentally, does anyone know if itunes is able to convert APE files to ALAC if I import them?

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

anyone know if itunes is able to convert APE files to ALAC if I import them?

If you can find an APE plugin for QuickTime, it should work.

 

[orpheus1120]

I don't think such a plugin exists yet. Or is there?

 

[MacLadybug]

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

I use M-Audio IE30 Pro headphones.

 

[MacLadybug]

I use M-Audio IE30 Pro headphones.

I need good headphones for really listening and enjoying my library. As I said earlier, I bought the M-Audios to use with a monitors when I'm drumming... everyone in the band had to get them. But I need some good over the ear or on the ear headphones. Not sure about the sound canceling. Do they produce an audible hiss? Are there any that when the battery dies, they would still work as a headphone even though there wouldn't be sound canceling capabilities?

Got to say this has been VERY VERY educational for me. And by the way, I'm up to 43GB of music now.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

I'm a huge fan of the Sennheiser HD280 Pro and the Sennheiser HD515.

Both can be had for under $100 and both are solid bang-for-your-buck investments. I've been very happy with them.

 

[Foxer]

Headphones:

For my commute, I am currently using Etymotic ER-4P. I love the sound and the fit - amazon sells them for a reasonable price. I also have some Shure 310's, which never fit well no matter which earpieces I used. I used to use Etomtic ER6i, which sounded great, but I had two pairs and each only lasted about 15 months before an earbud went dead.

At home, I use the Sony Studio monitors, which I've used for almost 15 years. They block out sound without any gimmickry and give very nice sound reproduction, although I am sure they are no longer technically state-of-the-art.

Out of consideration of my family, I very rarely listen to music through my stereo any more - I don't even have good stereo speakers (just a surround sound set up for my TV - and thus, I appreciate good headphones.

 

[mousemaster]

I have read this thread with great interest. I have several computers and several Ipods. One of the Ipods is an older 60GB (I think) while I have another that is a Nano (8GB).

My family has several Itunes accounts. I would like to attempt to consolidate that music if possible. How?

I would like to use wav files for my ipod but recognize that this is impractable. For my home stereo, I have just found out through this thread that the lossless format might be best. I would probably fill up the 60 GB ipod with that music.

For my nano though, I would prefer to have a smaller library and would be content using a compression format to allow for more songs.

My question is can an Itunes library on one computer support several Ipods that are using different file formats?

Thanks,

Mousemaster

 

[Victor ch]

I need good headphones for really listening and enjoying my library. As I said earlier, I bought the M-Audios to use with a monitors when I'm drumming... everyone in the band had to get them. But I need some good over the ear or on the ear headphones. Not sure about the sound canceling. Do they produce an audible hiss? Are there any that when the battery dies, they would still work as a headphone even though there wouldn't be sound canceling capabilities?

Got to say this has been VERY VERY educational for me. And by the way, I'm up to 43GB of music now.

Noise canceling (active) plays a big role on trips and as a travel companion since they WILL block out most of the noise since they're isolating due to their operational nature (closed-back circum aural) and they add active noise canceling to the equation. Closed-back over the ear (circum aural) headphones are probably you're best choice cause noise-canceling ones carry a hefty premium price (at least the ones that do work and not just hiss) and might not sound THAT good. BTW avoid brands like Bose please, don't let marketing fool ya'

I'm a huge fan of the Sennheiser HD280 Pro and the Sennheiser HD515.

Both can be had for under $100 and both are solid bang-for-your-buck investments. I've been very happy with them.

I'm unaware of the HD515's but I've heard and thoroughly tested the HD280s. They're quite good, they give a rather good noise isolation and pretty good sound, although, I find such sound to be mechanic and cold (Doubt this makes any sense ). I was in the market for some good $100 headphones for at-home use and those were an option, although I got some Grado's at the end HD280s are probably the OP's best choice if he can't afford different headphones for different needs; they provide good noise isolation, pretty precise sound and are very comfy. I rather have different headphones for different needs, on-the-go, travel and home, but thats just me

Victor

 

[Moriarty]

I need good headphones for really listening and enjoying my library. As I said earlier, I bought the M-Audios to use with a monitors when I'm drumming... everyone in the band had to get them. But I need some good over the ear or on the ear headphones. Not sure about the sound canceling. Do they produce an audible hiss? Are there any that when the battery dies, they would still work as a headphone even though there wouldn't be sound canceling capabilities?

Got to say this has been VERY VERY educational for me. And by the way, I'm up to 43GB of music now.

Headphones: Denon AH-D series. AH-D1000, $128. AH-D2000, $300. AH-D5000, $700. These headphones are godly.

The D1000's are a bit smaller and more portable (though none of them are particularly portable) than their bigger brothers, and come with a shorter cable and an extender, as well as 40mm drivers rather than 50mm drivers.

The D2000 and D5000 have very little difference between them. The D5000's use a higher quality cable and have mahogany earcups, that's just about all.

If you can spare the cash, I would wholeheartedly recommend a pair of D2000's, they are definitely the "sweet spot" - sound almost identical to the D5000's. They are easily driven by my Macbook and iPod Nano and sound incredible, and would probably be even better hooked up to a dedicated DAC/amp.

My D2000's are incredibly comfortable. The clamping force is just enough to form a seal between your head and the soft earpads for the solid, punchy bass, and they have a slightly warm tone with good midrange and strong highs. Overall they might be very slightly harsh sounding, but I can easily find myself wearing them for long periods of time without fatigue.

(ps - the Sennheiser cans are pretty good as well, but (IMO) the Denons are better because their closed design allows for more bass than the open-backed Sennheisers)

 

[MacLadybug]

Thanks...

Headphones: Denon AH-D series. AH-D1000, $128. AH-D2000, $300. AH-D5000, $700. These headphones are godly.

The D1000's are a bit smaller and more portable (though none of them are particularly portable) than their bigger brothers, and come with a shorter cable and an extender, as well as 40mm drivers rather than 50mm drivers.

The D2000 and D5000 have very little difference between them. The D5000's use a higher quality cable and have mahogany earcups, that's just about all.

If you can spare the cash, I would wholeheartedly recommend a pair of D2000's, they are definitely the "sweet spot" - sound almost identical to the D5000's. They are easily driven by my Macbook and iPod Nano and sound incredible, and would probably be even better hooked up to a dedicated DAC/amp.

My D2000's are incredibly comfortable. The clamping force is just enough to form a seal between your head and the soft earpads for the solid, punchy bass, and they have a slightly warm tone with good midrange and strong highs. Overall they might be very slightly harsh sounding, but I can easily find myself wearing them for long periods of time without fatigue.

(ps - the Sennheiser cans are pretty good as well, but (IMO) the Denons are better because their closed design allows for more bass than the open-backed Sennheisers)

I'll look into these.

 

[EmiLy™]

Does the battery life go down with Apple Lossless?
Or is this just my 1st Gen Nano's battery dying.

 

[MacLadybug]

Not sure I can help...

Does the battery life go down with Apple Lossless?
Or is this just my 1st Gen Nano's battery dying.

My iPod Classic is new and most of the time stays plugged into the iPod holster that came in my car, however, when I use it outside my car (very few occasions) I haven't noticed the battery dying any faster than what I would consider normal. Again, new iPod, so a newer battery, not a good comparison. Hopefully, someone else will answer your question. Sorry.

 

[Killyp]

iPods with hard drives will suffer from reduced batterylife when you listen to lossless in comparison to a compressed format. Solid-state or Flash-storage iPods won't, although to be frank, I have enough difficulties telling the difference between 256k AAC and lossless even when listening on good monitors in a studio.