Upping The Bit Rate In Imported Songs

Discussion in 'iPod' started by Zwhaler, Nov 22, 2006.

  1. Zwhaler macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #1
    Hey everyone, back when I imported hundreds of my CDs onto iTunes about two years ago, I had no idea there was a way to control the quality of the imported song. Since I have figured out how to do that, I have been importing songs at a higher bitrate (256) and I was wondering if there is a program out there to take my lower quality songs (around 128) and upconvert them to something a little higher, say 156 or even 192. Thanks as always.
     
  2. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #2
    What would be the point? It wouldn't make the already ripped files any higher quality and the re-encoding of them will likely reduce quality. Best to leave them as they are.
     
  3. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #3
    If I understand correctly, I believe that would be impossible.
     
  4. Zwhaler thread starter macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #4
    Yeah, thats kinda what I thought. You can't make something out of nothing, right?
     
  5. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #5
    This brings in a feature I really really like in iTunes: insert a CD you have already imported, and it will offer to replace them.
     
  6. Zwhaler thread starter macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #6
    Yeah, I noticed that. I have done what you said with a few songs already...
     
  7. theblotted macrumors regular

    theblotted

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #7
    imho, mp3 @ 320kbps and aac @ 192kbps have best ratio between original quality and size.
     
  8. GreeneGirl7 macrumors regular

    GreeneGirl7

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Oxford, England
    #8
    I also do 192kbps for AAC and find it's a really good ratio between quality and size.
     
  9. ortuno2k macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Location:
    Hollywood, FL
    #9
    I must be deaf or something, but I can't notice a difference between 128 AAC, 128 MP3, or Apple Lossless.
    I've played the 3 simultaneously in Quicktime and quickly switch to one from another but still they sound the same.

    So, to add my two cents, you can't that you want to do. You'd have to re-rip your music at a higher bitrate.
     
  10. aricher macrumors 68020

    aricher

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Location:
    Chi-il
    #10
    Wow - have you been to a lot of concerts with no earplugs or something? Try ripping a jazz track or any electronic music involving percussion. At 128 MP3 the drums sound tinny and hollow. High hats have reverb and crackle to them. AAC sounds marginally better and lossless - major difference. I started ripping music about 7 years ago and kick myself for selling CDs after ripping at 128. 256+ is the only way I go now.
     
  11. theblotted macrumors regular

    theblotted

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #11
    it could be the playback system. depending on how good your speakers or headphones are, sometimes it's hard to tell. esp on crappy consumer computer speakers.

    but if you train your ear enough, you can tell difference. i can most of the time on my TiBook speakers.
     
  12. adk macrumors 68000

    adk

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Location:
    Stuck in the middle with you
    #12
    taking a song encoded at 128 and turning it into a song encoded at 192 would be like using an 800x600 background image stretched to fit your 1600x1200 monitor.
     
  13. Zwhaler thread starter macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #13
    Well hey, I played a song at 128 side by side with the same song at 256 and it sounded the same. But hey I guess I can slowly re-import them to a higher quality.
     
  14. theblotted macrumors regular

    theblotted

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #14
    that's a good analogy. not exactly the same, but easier to imagine. very well put.
     
  15. Yvan256 macrumors 601

    Yvan256

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    #15
    Not only that, but that would also be like saving that stretched 1600x1200 image. You end up with a bigger file at a lower quality.
     
  16. milo macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    #16
    Upconverting is just a waste of space with no improvement in quality. Don't do it.
     

Share This Page