AAC at 256 cd ripping

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by bchamorro, Sep 10, 2008.

  1. bchamorro macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    #1
    AAC importing with Itunes.
    Should I select VBR? What about error correction? My cds are all in mint condition.

    [​IMG]

    ?
     
  2. snuffdaddy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #2
    i just leave it as is (pictured) and hit burn :confused:
     
  3. Ntombi macrumors 68030

    Ntombi

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Location:
    Bostonian exiled in SoCal
    #3
    I use VBR, only because it goes to a higher br when needed. Personal preference.

    No error correction for me.
     
  4. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #4
    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...:D
     
  5. pooryou macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    #5
    I always use error correction. Better to be safe than sorry, errors happen.
     
  6. velocityg4 macrumors 68040

    velocityg4

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Location:
    Georgia
    #6
    If you are concerned about audio quality, why not just use Apple Lossless?
     
  7. Tosser macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    #7
    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.
     
  8. bchamorro thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    #8
    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).
     
  9. Tosser macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    #9
    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.
     

Share This Page