Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AAC at 256 cd ripping
- Thread starter bchamorro
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I use VBR, only because it goes to a higher br when needed. Personal preference.
No error correction for me.
No error correction for me.
I use VBR but no error correction. VBR will give you a smaller file size as in the areas where there's little detail or no sound it uses a lower bit rate as opposed to 256 all the time.
Personal preference really and to be honest the difference is relatively minor to non-existent anyway, it's just something I like to tell myself...
Personal preference really and to be honest the difference is relatively minor to non-existent anyway, it's just something I like to tell myself...
The reason error correction is slower than ripping without correction is that actually corrects errors. Always leave it on.
Further, error correction is the reason I ditched my expensive CD-player. With a computer ripping the CD, and not playing it directly, or having a limited time to correct, there will be fewer errors, and thus better sound as it was intended to be heard.
Besides that, I'm with velocity on this one. Go lossless if for nothing else, then because it's future proof. One day you can convert your lossless files to MP3 (or MP4) in, say, 64kbps and put in one a player. The next day you can convert the same lossless files to 256kbps MP2, and the third day you can convert the lossless files to wav or aiff to use in a project.
And the audio is better than lossy formats.
Further, error correction is the reason I ditched my expensive CD-player. With a computer ripping the CD, and not playing it directly, or having a limited time to correct, there will be fewer errors, and thus better sound as it was intended to be heard.
Besides that, I'm with velocity on this one. Go lossless if for nothing else, then because it's future proof. One day you can convert your lossless files to MP3 (or MP4) in, say, 64kbps and put in one a player. The next day you can convert the same lossless files to 256kbps MP2, and the third day you can convert the lossless files to wav or aiff to use in a project.
And the audio is better than lossy formats.
OK. I will go with Apple Lossless, but here is my concern.
I don't want to use Apple Lossless with my Ipod. It will fill up too fast.
So lets say I have a library with thousands of Apple Lossless songs and I want to convert them (or create a new ones) at AAC 256 for my Ipod.
How can I prevent the AAC 256 songs from going into the same library as my Apple Lossless songs? I am going to have thousands of duplicates and it is going to be a pain to erase them.
Do any of you actually use Apple Lossless in your Ipod? I've heard its too heavy for them and AAC is much better (for Ipod).
I don't want to use Apple Lossless with my Ipod. It will fill up too fast.
So lets say I have a library with thousands of Apple Lossless songs and I want to convert them (or create a new ones) at AAC 256 for my Ipod.
How can I prevent the AAC 256 songs from going into the same library as my Apple Lossless songs? I am going to have thousands of duplicates and it is going to be a pain to erase them.
Do any of you actually use Apple Lossless in your Ipod? I've heard its too heavy for them and AAC is much better (for Ipod).
I don't use an iPod, but when I did, yes, I used Lossless on that as well. No, it's not harder for the iPod. Yes, it will have to read more often from the HDD, but it really doesn't matter, as it's easier for it to decode ALAC.
How to prevent it? Well, you can use smart or dumb playlists, or, even better, have two iTunes libraries.