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

[MacLadybug]

I'm moving from an 8GB Nano to a 160GB Classic and will now have room for all of my music, photos, videos and movies. I'm new enough to Mac that the more I learn the more I want to do things over... more correctly. So when it comes to iTunes, I could use some expert advice so that I don't have to import and re-import my stuff. I realize my questions are elementary, but I want to do it right:

1. Now that space is not a concern, what format and bit rate is best and why? My meager 8GB is Mp3 at 192 Kbps.

2. Can my existing library be converted to a better quality and bit rate? Will it sound better? Or would it have to be imported at a higher bit rate and format for me to hear a difference.

3. Is a Time Machine back-up to an external hard drive enough to reproduce my iTunes library should the worst happen or should I do something else as well?

Thank you all in advance for your advice and for taking the time to indulge my "beginner" questions.

[greenday123]

1. I rip everything in 320 kbps MP3, i believe that is the best because it works in nearly an player, its very flexible, and 320 kbps is the best quality possible for MP3. If your looking for something more quality, encode in Apple Lossless.


2. Nothing in your library will be able to be converted to a better rate, once its encoded, its encoded and its quality can not be made better.

3. A time machine back up will restore all of your itunes music, settings, play counts, etc.. but at the same 192 kbps bit rate.

[MacLadybug]

Could you explain the difference between Apple loseless and Mp3?

[slate1]

Could you explain the difference between Apple loseless and Mp3?

MP3 is a lossy format - it reduces the file size by removing supposedly inaudible "pieces" of the digital music stream. No matter how you slice it - you're not hearing all the nuances of the music in an MP3 format. If you want a copy as close to the source material - use Apple Lossless. It's what it says it is - a bit for bit duplicate of your original CD.

That being said - consider how you're going to listen. Personally, I use 320kb MP3's for casual listening in the car and on my ipod. For serious listening - it's pure analog all vinyl all the time on my home rig! I've transfered hundreds of LP's to 320kb MP3's for the car and am quite happy - I'm sure you'd find the same for your CD's.

[greenday123]

Apple Lossless is a extremely high quality form of audio. If you really want great quality, Lossless is the way to go, and it will work on basically just your iPod and in iTunes. The bit rate of Apple Lossless is 1041 kbps. And it takes up quite a bit of space, a 2:30 long song is 20 MB.


Mp3 is the standard for all players, it is the most flexible music format, has good compression, and works in virtually any music player imagineable. The highest mp3 goes is 320 kbps 6.1 mb for the same 2:30 long song.

With that being said, if you want a pretty much exact replica of the music off the cd rip with lossless, but for an iPod i would rip at 320 mp3, your never gonna be able to tell the difference between the two on an iPod unless your using expensive headphones.

[huck500]

Could you explain the difference between Apple loseless and Mp3?

Apple lossless compresses the audio without destroying any information, so it will sound exactly the same as the original file, and is smaller, but is still pretty big. Mp3 makes the file much smaller, but destroys some information.

The big question is whether or not you can tell the difference between a file encoded in 320kbps mp3 and the original (or lossless)... it's an endless debate, but seemingly no one can do it in a blind test.

People are willing to suspend disbelief to incredible levels when it comes to audio, though... just encode a couple of files both ways and listen to them, and if you can't tell the difference, go with mp3.

[Bobioden]

I personally think the Apple AAC encoder is the best choice with iTunes. I have never had a problem playing any of my CD's in any CD changer, player etc.. I have read that anything above 256 kbps is just wasting space, unless you go lossless. So all of mine are AAC 256 kbps.

[donga]

i thought a lot about this choice too, a few years ago.

i ultimately switched from 320 kbps mp3 to 192 aac, and recently 192 aac with vbr.

i thought a lot about the file sizes (320 is ginormous) and the audio quality. to me aac sounded better than mp3 at the same bit rate. the thing is that now i'm locked into ipod gear, unless i rerip my library again.... i am very happy with my choice though

another note, what you use (headphones/speakers) you use to listen makes a big difference in audio quality too

[Moriarty]

1: If you have the space, rip all your music in Apple Lossless. Or AIFF/WAV if you really have lots to spare, these two are the absolute best, though probably completely indiscernible from Apple Lossless anyway.

It will be a royal pain to rip all your music into lossless format in another 5 years when you might actually be able to fit all your music on a single iPod in Lossless format.
It is much easier to compress your music and transfer it over to the iPod and then delete the compressed files, therefore keeping a "lossless" version on your computer.

A system is only as good as the weakest link. Do not let the file format of the music ever be that weakest link, because it's a real nuisance to re-rip everything.

My experiences with audio formats: I recently did a test on my stereo setup, which is reasonably high-end, but purposefully warm-sounding (I do not like harsh stereos). This could impact these results slightly because it might hide a few imperfections, but probably not to a very significant degree.

128kbps AAC VBR: doing a direct comparison, I could tell a difference between this and the original CD. The sound is slightly more harsh on the high-end and instruments are not quite as warm and natural sounding.

256kbps AAC VBR: almost indiscernible from the original CD.

Apple Lossless: Cannot tell the difference.

When you are listening to an iPod through head/ear-phones, going beyond 256kbps AAC is pointless. If you are short of storage space, you would be very hard-pushed to tell the difference between 128kbps and a Lossless file on an iPod anyway, so go for 128 if you need to.

But I cannot stress this enough. Rip your music in the highest quality you can fit on your computer. In another 5 years time an iPod will probably fit your whole collection in AIFF files anyway, so don't restrict the quality you will hear in the future based on the storage capacity of today's iPods.

2: No, you can't just convert your music to a higher bit rate and magically get higher quality sound, because that quality isn't there in the first place. Your best bet is to re-import everything at Apple Lossless, and then compress these files to AAC files at the highest bit rate you can fit on your iPod, transfer them over, then delete the compressed files. Keep the Lossless files on your computer for future use.

3: A Time-Machine backup is basically making a copy of your library onto an external drive, so if anything happens to your computer's drive, you can restore everything exactly as it was since the last backup. If you think having only 1 backup is secure enough, then that's all you need. And TBH, short of a fire burning your house down, there's virtually no chance of both your drives going bust at once and you losing everything. Keep a surge protector on your equipment anyway, just in case!

Hope this helps.

[quasinormal]

One problem with using Apple Lossless on an iPod is that the iPod's cache is too small for the larger files.

For me when i used Apple Lossless on my 2nd Gen Nano, this meant when I stopped in the middle of a song, it started on the next track when restarted.

An old thread talks about it here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=85227)

i strongly agree about AAC being a superior codec to MP3.

[KJmoon117]

I personally think the Apple AAC encoder is the best choice with iTunes. I have never had a problem playing any of my CD's in any CD changer, player etc.. I have read that anything above 256 kbps is just wasting space, unless you go lossless. So all of mine are AAC 256 kbps.

I agree that AAC is a lot better. I my rip CDs or convert my FLACs into 320kbps AACs. Although many say 320kbps is an overkill, space isn't much of a concern for me and it's a lot smaller than a lossless file.

Now for those who don't agree, AAC is designed to be the successor of and is ten years older than Mp3. AAC works with a built in VBR, so I'm assuming that 320kbps, the quality will be at constant high quality throughout the whole song.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

[MacLadybug]

I knew I'd done it wrong. Looks like I need to start over with my music. Is it possible to guesstimate how much space 10GB of Mp3 music would take up if it were in Lossless format? Any ideas? That would help me figure if I can do this right or not. I was following you all fine comparing the Mp3 to Apple Lossless... now I'm hearing AAC and AIFF. Please explain those formats so I can better understand.

What is on my computer also plays through my home stereo/theatre system. So I understand the concept that I need the best quality for that. The music on my iPod I use mainly for learning/practicing music. I use M-Audio IE30 Pro headphones. I play drums and I can hear the lows very nicely with those. (I also had to get those for a Hear-Back sound system for performing)

My plan then will be to re-do everything at the best possible quality level... Lossless if I have the space and then convert to AAC(?) for my iPod. What's VBR?

Now if I don't have room for Lossless, what's the next best thing to store it on the computer? With 160 GB for nothing but music on the iPod space is no concern... it's my MacBook that I am thinking about... but I think I'm good there too.

[ftaok]

I knew I'd done it wrong. Looks like I need to start over with my music. Is it possible to guesstimate how much space 10GB of Mp3 music would take up if it were in Lossless format?Well, assuming that all of your MP3s are at 192 kbps and that Apple Loseless encodes at 1041 kbps ...

This means that the Apple Lossless files are 5.4 times bigger. So your 10GB collection now becomes 54GB.


now I'm hearing AAC and AIFF. Please explain those formats so I can better understand.AAC is essentially an "MP4", if you will. It's a better format for music, but you can still hear difference between AAC and the original CD. For your information, music from the iTunes store is at 128 kbps AAC, while iTunes Plus files are 192 kpbs AAC.

My plan then will be to re-do everything at the best possible quality level... Lossless if I have the space and then convert to AAC(?) for my iPod. What's VBR?VBR means Variable Bit Rate. Basically, a VBR encoder will analyse a song and adjust the bit rate accordingly. Theorectically, if a song has sections that are complex, the encoder will bump up the bit rate .. conversely, if the song has silent (or simple) sections, the encoder will turn down the bit rate.

Now if I don't have room for Lossless, what's the next best thing to store it on the computer? With 160 GB for nothing but music on the iPod space is no concern... it's my MacBook that I am thinking about... but I think I'm good there too.Personally, I can't really hear the difference between a good AAC or MP3 vs. the original ... but it's not like I have great audio equipment either. I would suggest encoding a few songs at a bunch of different settings/formats and then see which one works best for you. You'll have one more data point to help you decide what's best in terms of audio quality vs. hard drive space.

If you run out of room on your Macbook, you could always buy an external HDD or swap the internal HDD with a bigger drive. It's very easy to change the hard drive on a Macbook.

[MacLadybug]

It all makes better sense to me now. Apple guides always give you options but they don't go into much detail on the definitions and the details that help you decide the options you want. You have all helped a lot in that arena. I feel much better informed and really ticked that I need to re-do my library. I knew when I did it I fouled up, I had that feeling.

Here's one more question... I've heard that you don't want to move your iTunes file that everything will get messed up... but can you open iTunes on your laptop but have all your music stored on an external drive? Not that I want to, but just to better understand how iTunes works. Right now it's all in the Music folder in my Home.. right? So if the music were somewhere else, where are the settings to direct iTunes to look for it in another folder or drive? Or is this even possible or advisable? Like I said I'm not thinking about doing it now, but when my music library gets too large, that may be a consideration... that or the new hard drive FTAOK talked about.

[greenday123]

Im not quite sure what you mean, but if you open iTunes on a laptop and all of your music is on an external drive (I'm assuming you mean without the drive connected), iTunes will work fine, all your music will still show up. It just won't play, because iTunes doesn't know where it is. It is possible to set up iTunes with a different music folder once you have set it up with one, go into preferences and it should be under Advanced, if you change the itunes folder, it will keep all of your current music in the library, but when you decide to rip a new cd or purchase a song from itunes it will store in the new location. So when your library gets too large, i would advise getting an external drive and continue storing music on that.

[MacLadybug]

So when your library gets too large, i would advise getting an external drive and continue storing music on that.

That's what I was wondering about... storing the music somewhere else when this drive won't handle more. I was under the mistaken impression that it was a bad idea to store your music on a secondary drive. Which made no sense when I would hear about some people's giant iTunes collections.

I can figure this out now. I just have to set the time aside for the "do-over".

[greenday123]

Yeah, its no worse storing your iTunes library on an external drive than on your internal drive, infact my iTunes library is stored on an external :)

[Moriarty]

I knew I'd done it wrong. Looks like I need to start over with my music.

You haven't done it wrong. You just haven't got the best sound quality possible.

Is it possible to guesstimate how much space 10GB of Mp3 music would take up if it were in Lossless format? Any ideas? That would help me figure if I can do this right or not. I was following you all fine comparing the Mp3 to Apple Lossless... now I'm hearing AAC and AIFF. Please explain those formats so I can better understand.

Yes. Sort of. The bitrate (the space it takes per second of audio) of Apple Lossless depends on the complexity of the music, but an average track is probably about 800 kbps. When you see bitrates written as kbps, as they usually are, this means kiloBITS per second. There are 8 bits in a byte. So 800 kilobits per second equals 100 kilobytes per second - 0.1MB per second of audio. 0.1 * 3600 = 360MB per hour (roughly) for Apple Lossless. Adapt this to other bitrates to find out how much space your music will take up at a given quality level.

If you have 10GB of 192kbps MP3, it will take approximately (800/192)*10 = 42GB in Lossless. This might vary depending on the sort of music you have, so with a format that is not a fixed bit rate, it's just a guesstimate.


What is on my computer also plays through my home stereo/theatre system. So I understand the concept that I need the best quality for that. The music on my iPod I use mainly for learning/practicing music. I use M-Audio IE30 Pro headphones. I play drums and I can hear the lows very nicely with those. (I also had to get those for a Hear-Back sound system for performing)

My plan then will be to re-do everything at the best possible quality level... Lossless if I have the space and then convert to AAC(?) for my iPod. What's VBR?

Now if I don't have room for Lossless, what's the next best thing to store it on the computer? With 160 GB for nothing but music on the iPod space is no concern... it's my MacBook that I am thinking about... but I think I'm good there too.

If you play it through your home stereo, you DEFINITELY want Lossless format. It's indistinguishable from the original CD, and because it's a digital file, even more future-proof. If you re-rip your music, make sure you turn "error correction" on, so if it has trouble reading a CD because of a scratch or dirt, you are less likely to have anomalies in the ripped track.

VBR is "variable bit rate". You can turn it on in the Import Settings menu by going AAC encoder > Custom. It assigns more data to the more complex parts of a song while giving less data to less complex parts, therefore improving overall quality for a given file size. But the average bit rate for the whole track is maintained at the average you set, ie, 128kbps.

But if you will only have 40-50GB of music, you won't need to compress it at all. You could fit all the Lossless files easily on a 120GB iPod Classic. So if you haven't already bought a 160GB, a 120GB would do fine.

The next best thing: MP3 is a "universal" format. Almost anything can read MP3. If you're after maximum compatibility, go for the highest quality MP3 you can fit, and use VBR. If you are only going to be dealing with things that can read AAC, like iTunes and iPods, then AAC is better because it's encoding is more efficient, ie, a 128kbps AAC sounds as good as a 160kbps MP3.

[Moriarty]

It all makes better sense to me now. Apple guides always give you options but they don't go into much detail on the definitions and the details that help you decide the options you want. You have all helped a lot in that arena. I feel much better informed and really ticked that I need to re-do my library. I knew when I did it I fouled up, I had that feeling.

Here's one more question... I've heard that you don't want to move your iTunes file that everything will get messed up... but can you open iTunes on your laptop but have all your music stored on an external drive? Not that I want to, but just to better understand how iTunes works. Right now it's all in the Music folder in my Home.. right? So if the music were somewhere else, where are the settings to direct iTunes to look for it in another folder or drive? Or is this even possible or advisable? Like I said I'm not thinking about doing it now, but when my music library gets too large, that may be a consideration... that or the new hard drive FTAOK talked about.

Yes, it certainly is possible to run an iTunes library off an external drive. I'm doing it right now :). Of course, iTunes says it can't find the library when the drive isn't connected.

BUT, with a 250GB drive in your Macbook, unless you have a lot of other stuff, your music should all fit easily in Lossless format, because it shouldn't take more than about 50GB, possibly even 40GB or less depending on the type, and complexity, of music you listen to.

Just FYI, here's how you move your library to an external drive:

1) Find your "iTunes" folder inside your "Music" folder.
2) Copy and paste it over to your external drive.
3) If iTunes is open, quit it. Reopen it again while holding down the "Option" key.
4) Select "Choose library", navigate to the copied library on your external drive, and select the "iTunes" folder.

If you ever want to change libraries, just hold the option key while opening iTunes. Keep the old library there, or a Time Machine backup of it, at least while you make sure nothing has gone wrong during the transfer, and your music files play OK, etc.
But nothing should go wrong, it keeps all your music, all your album art, and all your settings. It's an exact copy of how it was, just on a different drive.

[opivy1218]

Use EAC and LAME and rip it to V0.
Actually, if you're on a mac I think theres someway you can use the LAME encoder inside of iTunes.

[KJmoon117]

Use EAC and LAME and rip it to V0.
Actually, if you're on a mac I think theres someway you can use the LAME encoder inside of iTunes.

Yup, the iTunes-LAME converter (http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/8837)~

Yet I just get AIFF/WAV/LossLess files and convert them down to 320kbps AAC using Max (http://sbooth.org/Max/). Max also uses LAME3.97...

Amazing program...

[ftaok]

Yup, the iTunes-LAME converter (http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/8837)~

Yet I just get AIFF/WAV/LossLess files and convert them down to 320kbps AAC using Max (http://sbooth.org/Max/). Max also uses LAME3.97...

Amazing program...

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

[omgwut]

Honestly, if pure audio quality is your thing, set iTunes to import your music with Apple Lossless and forget about the bitrate garbage. I did this with my entire CD collection a few months back. It took a few hours, but it was worth it. A 160GB Classic is freaking huge, don't worry about space (Well, I don't know how BIG your library is but, still). Apple Lossless is great.

And if you're worried about not being able to move your lossless music over to work with other devices or platforms besides iTunes and iPod, there are freeware utilities and plugins out there that you can use to convert it over to lossless FLAC quickly and easily.

MP3 is obviously kind of the universal standard as its the best format around when you just want to make sure your music works EVERYWHERE -- ripped CDs, any music device, whatever -- but that's not what I do, so I don't bother with that.

[ChrisBrightwell]

1. Now that space is not a concern, what format and bit rate is best and why? My meager 8GB is Mp3 at 192 Kbps.

Apple Lossless. MP3 and AAC, regardless of bitrate, are destructive. Apple Lossless is not.

2. Can my existing library be converted to a better quality and bit rate? Will it sound better? Or would it have to be imported at a higher bit rate and format for me to hear a difference.

Converting a 128 Kbps MP3 to a 256 Kbps MP3 will almost always result in a REDUCTION OF SOUND QUALITY. Start with the original source.

3. Is a Time Machine back-up to an external hard drive enough to reproduce my iTunes library should the worst happen or should I do something else as well?

This is all about personal preferences, but having a copy on the iPod and a copy on a backup disk should be sufficient for most folks.

[blurredline]

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!

[KJmoon117]

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! :eek:

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 :D

[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.

[KJmoon117]

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 (http://flac.sourceforge.net/) wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec)(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]

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 (http://flac.sourceforge.net/) wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec)(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.

[KJmoon117]

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 :p
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 :D

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 :p But meh, to each its own.

Victor

[KJmoon117]

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 :rolleyes: 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 :p

Note: Im sorta of a self-proclaimed audiophile, serious ones stick to their fancy magnetically-suspended turntables (and analog setups :rolleyes:)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.

[KJmoon117]

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.

[KJmoon117]

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.

[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 :confused:

[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" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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' :rolleyes:

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 :rolleyes:). 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 :p 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:D

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 (http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AH-D1000K-Headphones-Black/dp/B000MVJ1UM/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1224987552&sr=8-1). AH-D2000, $300 (http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AHD2000-Performance-Over-Ear-Headphones/dp/B000MVEC0Q/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1224987555&sr=8-1). AH-D5000, $700 (http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AHD5000-AH-D5000-Reference-Headphones/dp/B000MVEC10/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1224987558&sr=8-1). 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]

Headphones: Denon AH-D series. AH-D1000, $128 (http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AH-D1000K-Headphones-Black/dp/B000MVJ1UM/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1224987552&sr=8-1). AH-D2000, $300 (http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AHD2000-Performance-Over-Ear-Headphones/dp/B000MVEC0Q/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1224987555&sr=8-1). AH-D5000, $700 (http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AHD5000-AH-D5000-Reference-Headphones/dp/B000MVEC10/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1224987558&sr=8-1). 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]

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.

[MacLadybug]

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.

So, are you're saying that her Nano needs replacing? The Nano is a flash storage right?

[scott523]

I have a question about this too.

What would be the next best source if coding Apple Lossless from CD's isn't an option (I threw mine out after a 'poor' (poor compared to your audiophile standards) import to iTunes :x)?

I don't suppose coding iTunes Plus quality (btw it's 256kbps; I heard someone say 192kbps in this thread) to Apple Lossless would do any good, right?

[Tosser]

I have a question about this too.

What would be the next best source if coding Apple Lossless from CD's isn't an option (I threw mine out after a 'poor' (poor compared to your audiophile standards) import to iTunes :x)?

I don't suppose coding iTunes Plus quality (btw it's 256kbps; I heard someone say 192kbps in this thread) to Apple Lossless would do any good, right?

Nope. The thing with lossy formats (MP2, MP3, MP4/AAC) is that it truly is lossy. If ripping a cd to 128kbps, you have just tossed 10/11ths (≈91 percent) of the information away to never be introduced again. At double the kb, 256kbps, you have tossed away more than 80 percent of the information. You cannot reintroduce that lost information in any way, form or fashion. It's gone forever.

What do you mean you threw out your lossless rips after a poor encoding? Where you transcoding from MP3/4 to lossless, or was it a direct rip from CD?

[scott523]

Nope. The thing with lossy formats (MP2, MP3, MP4/AAC) is that it truly is lossy. If ripping a cd to 128kbps, you have just tossed 10/11ths (≈91 percent) of the information away to never be introduced again. At double the kb, 256kbps, you have tossed away more than 80 percent of the information. You cannot reintroduce that lost information in any way, form or fashion. It's gone forever.

What do you mean you threw out your lossless rips after a poor encoding? Where you transcoding from MP3/4 to lossless, or was it a direct rip from CD?
Yeah.. basically the bolded above was what I did before tossing out my CDs. This was like 3-4 years ago when I didn't know any better. :x

So any better alternative or only CDs can be turned into Apple Lossless?

[Tosser]

Yeah.. basically the bolded above was what I did before tossing out my CDs. This was like 3-4 years ago when I didn't know any better. :x

So any better alternative or only CDs can be turned into Apple Lossless?

Well, even 128kbps mp3s can be turned into lossless. However, it wont be better than the "original" 128kbps file. So, no, you will never get any better sound than what you already ripped to. That's the problem with lossy formats. They're absolutely not future proof. If you want something that will last you, you will either have to use uncompressed or one of the lossless formats. This way you will have a proper original you can encode into anything you might choose in the future. Just keep the original uncompressed/lossless files. Oh, and back them up.

[Joetang]

so there's no way i can convert my songs already in itunes to a higher bitrate right? say lossless or 320kbps mp3s?

the only way for me to do this is by ripping it from a cd again?

[peapody]

so there's no way i can convert my songs already in itunes to a higher bitrate right? say lossless or 320kbps mp3s?

the only way for me to do this is by ripping it from a cd again?

That's correct. Cr*p in, Cr*p out as they would say.

[SactoGuy18]

I would "re-rip" your entire CD collection at 256 kbps variable bit rate AAC format before copying the files to your new iPod classic. I wouldn't go for 320 kbps AAC because the improvement in sound quality is very insignificant over 256 kbps VBR, and 320 kbps data rate AAC definitely uses more space on the iPod's disk drive. Apple Lossless is an excellent format, but this format uses a HUGE amount of disc space and that means you can't put that many albums into your player even with a 160 GB 6G iPod classic. :(

[ChrisA]

For best quality rip everything to Apple Lossless format. That said, are your ears and equipment good enough? 320K MP3 is pretty good but you did say "audiophile" so if you like to critically listen to music and care enough about it set up some good speakers and buy a quality amp then YES go Apple Lossless format. But if you have aset of powered computer speakers and earbud headphones, go 320K MP3.

Backups: if you care about the data always follow these two rules (1) data is on three different media and (2) data is at two diffent geographical locations.

Yes TM s "good enough" to restore the library but that's just one copy. Buy another drive, make a backup and put it some place far away. Alto the CDs them selves are a third copy.

Back to audio quality. MP3 is OK most of the time but every now and then some short musical passages will not come through well. I have not been able to predict it. Ive got a few old jazz, some "european Electronica and even an Eric Clapton track that just don't like MP3 and have sections that encode to "fuzz" when played backon good equipment. I'd say I have trouble with 1% of the tracks even then it's maye 5% of the track where one of the instruments sonds un-natural.

But if yo do use Apple Lossess you will NEVER have to re-rip your CDs because you will have the exact bit per bit audio stream off the CD. and later you can convert the lossess files to any format you like. I have to convert to 128AAC for my iPod Shuffle

[ChrisA]

Apple Lossless is an excellent format, but this format uses a HUGE amount of disc space and that means you can't put that many albums into your player even with a 160 GB 6G iPod classic. :(

I agree with this. My Apple Lossless collection fills up mostof a 500GB disk drive but then I just bought a new 1TB drive for $150 so space is really cheap. You can always convert the tracks to AAC for us in the iPod and keep Apple Lossless as your "master". That's what I do. You don't need Apple Lossless at the gym but i like it n the living room over the big speakers

[Tosser]

so there's no way i can convert my songs already in itunes to a higher bitrate right? say lossless or 320kbps mp3s?

the only way for me to do this is by ripping it from a cd again?

Yeah, unfortunately.

As you have sold or tossed out your cd's you're out of luck, and the best you can do is keep the format and bit rate and do nothing except backing them up, all things considered.

[Joetang]

That's such a waste.... Can i find songs that are already 320 or 256 kbps somewhere else or is the only "real" way to get them is via a CD rip?

[Tosser]

That's such a waste.... Can i find songs that are already 320 or 256 kbps somewhere else or is the only "real" way to get them is via a CD rip?

Well, that kind of depends of your taste in music, but you'd have to buy them or go the illegal route. The latter would mean you would often receive poorly ripped tracks, tracks which have been transcoded, tracks which have been ripped without any sort of control (resulting in beeps, ticks, and whatnot).
The former would most likely make it just as expensive as buy new ones on CDs, but resulting in the same ultimately non-future proof MP3 or MP4 quality, not to add that most of the MP3/Mp4/WMA music you can buy is DRM'ed (which you don't want it to be if you think about it).

If I where in your situation I would keep the lot "as is", and then rebuy some of the CD's (perhaps second hand?). I would propably not rebuy albums with things like Dead Kennedys, but Primus and my operas and jazz albums would certainly have to be rebought.

In other words, what you did back then when you threw out your albums have now caught up with you (dum dum dumdum ("jaws" theme, lol)). It always pays to think about what will happen in the future.
If it helps, all the people who have bought into the whole iTunes-deal with DRM will be where you are in the future. But unlike you, they won't be able to continue their use of the music if they want to use a better (or just another) player without having to transcode resulting in even worse quality.

Edit: Whoah! That was a bit longer than intended …

[Sesshi]

That's such a waste.... Can i find songs that are already 320 or 256 kbps somewhere else or is the only "real" way to get them is via a CD rip?

Amazon's good. They sell 256K MP3's. But it's likely that buying the CD's on discount might be cheaper.

[MacLadybug]

My son had to reformat his pc's hard drive (go Windoze). He has everything back except his music library. He does have everything on his iPod Touch. It's our understanding that when he plugs in his iPod, it will blank out as he sets up iTunes again. I'm not sure if he had enabled it for disc use... so is there a way to get what's on the iPod back into iTunes without losing any music?

[Tosser]

My son had to reformat his pc's hard drive (go Windoze). He has everything back except his music library. He does have everything on his iPod Touch. It's our understanding that when he plugs in his iPod, it will blank out as he sets up iTunes again. I'm not sure if he had enabled it for disc use... so is there a way to get what's on the iPod back into iTunes without losing any music?

I don't know how he can the music back, but there is no disc mode on the Touch nor the iPhone.

[Blue Velvet]

So is there a way to get what's on the iPod back into iTunes without losing any music?

Yes. Sharepod. (http://www.getsharepod.com/download/) :)

[MacLadybug]

Yes. Sharepod. (http://www.getsharepod.com/download/) :)

Appreciate the quick response... we'll give it a try!

[Joetang]

Well, that kind of depends of your taste in music, but you'd have to buy them or go the illegal route. The latter would mean you would often receive poorly ripped tracks, tracks which have been transcoded, tracks which have been ripped without any sort of control (resulting in beeps, ticks, and whatnot).
The former would most likely make it just as expensive as buy new ones on CDs, but resulting in the same ultimately non-future proof MP3 or MP4 quality, not to add that most of the MP3/Mp4/WMA music you can buy is DRM'ed (which you don't want it to be if you think about it).

If I where in your situation I would keep the lot "as is", and then rebuy some of the CD's (perhaps second hand?). I would propably not rebuy albums with things like Dead Kennedys, but Primus and my operas and jazz albums would certainly have to be rebought.

In other words, what you did back then when you threw out your albums have now caught up with you (dum dum dumdum ("jaws" theme, lol)). It always pays to think about what will happen in the future.
If it helps, all the people who have bought into the whole iTunes-deal with DRM will be where you are in the future. But unlike you, they won't be able to continue their use of the music if they want to use a better (or just another) player without having to transcode resulting in even worse quality.

Edit: Whoah! That was a bit longer than intended …

lol, well thanks for the response. I guess if i really like a certain cd, i'll re-rip it. Oh well lol

[whoareyou]

Can anyone tell me please- when i drag a music folder from my computer onto my ipod - does it encode in the format i have selected for my cd copying?
Thanks

[MacLadybug]

Yes. Sharepod. (http://www.getsharepod.com/download/) :)

My son finally got around to downloading Sharepod. Glad to report it worked perfectly and he now has all of his music back in iTunes. Now we will teach him about Backing Up!