Highest bitrate Apple Lossless in your collection?

gammamonk

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 4, 2004
566
1
Madison, WI
Just out of curiosity, I'd like to find the song with the highest Apple-lossless bit-rate. This would imply the highest detail / second.

My top is 1211 kbps - "Heart Beat" by Folder 5.

Can anyone top that? (To find out, go to iTunes, list all your music, make sure "Bit Rate" is one of your columns, and click on it to sort. Then pick out the highest number that's an Apple-Lossless.)

Who will be the winner? Who has the most intense song?
 

WinterMute

Moderator emeritus
Jan 19, 2003
4,715
4
London, England
.aiff is only 1411Kbps, lossless isn't always worth the effort...

The intensity of the music isn't the factor, it's the constant loudness and overall level that counts, if you recorded white noise at 0db and coded it with a lossless codec I'd imagine you wouldn't see any decrease in the bit-rate at all.

High bitrate lossless tracks are very loud all the time.

I've got Pearl Jams "Spin the Black Circle" at 1072Kbps.
 

Nermal

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 7, 2002
18,678
1,183
New Zealand
DeSnousa said:
Whoa do you guys have your whole library in Apple lossless. That would be massive :eek:
I only have 4 songs in lossless. The one I mentioned above sounds horrible in 128 AAC. The other three are ones which I got from iTMS then wrote out to CD, then accidentally deleted the originals. I don't like recompressing songs so I losslessly imported them back from the CD.
 

MattG

macrumors 68040
May 27, 2003
3,760
212
Asheville, NC
DeSnousa said:
Whoa do you guys have your whole library in Apple lossless. That would be massive :eek:
Nah, just a lot of my favorite CDs. Right now I've got a total of 6269 songs in my library, a mix of everything from 128kbps songs to Lossless, totalling 88.61GB.
 

verozov

macrumors regular
Jan 8, 2005
145
0
Columbia, SC
just wondering at what point does it get so high it doesn't make a difference (500,800,1500, etc.)? i've never tried going up that high so i wouldn't know...
 

gammamonk

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 4, 2004
566
1
Madison, WI
DeSnousa said:
Whoa do you guys have your whole library in Apple lossless. That would be massive :eek:
My 40gig has only 3251 songs at 36.3GB. 128AAC gives you 10,000-- right?

But do you really need to listen to more that 3251 songs in an 8 hour period?
 

gammamonk

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 4, 2004
566
1
Madison, WI
verozov said:
just wondering at what point does it get so high it doesn't make a difference (500,800,1500, etc.)? i've never tried going up that high so i wouldn't know...
I think it's just the good feeling you have that your data is perfect. Back in the day, I used to think that 128mp3 was perfect, but now I think it's bologna. If I have lossless, I know I'm not going to want to re-rip my CDs again.

But also, I have a 40gig iPod... If I had a Nano, I would certainly use a lower quality to get more songs.
 

jeffzoom

macrumors member
Oct 8, 2004
59
0
1411kbps...I pwn..its a midi that was tranfered into mp3 then apple lossless (only way to go in my opinion)
 

Greenjeens

macrumors regular
Aug 25, 2005
158
0
California
Highest I have is BB King "The Thrill is Gone" at 1536, CD to Apple Lossless, but I think its more a function of what conversions the recording has been through. Also "woman's work" by Flesh and Bone is 1536.

The give away is, an originally ripped from a laser disc PCM track, Brian Ferry, "Is your Love Strong Enough" then converted to aiff, then to apple lossless. Also magically 1536 kbps. There's a pattern but i don't know why?
I did this to a very few laserdisc and DVD music tracks originally, PCM encoded. Used the "aiff from PCM" tool.

Bow Wow Wow's "I want candy" is also 1536, but it originated as an iTunes purchase and then re-encoded to aiff on a CD-RW, only to strip the DRM. Just another encoding experiment, I know bits don't get resurrected from encoding into higher resolution formats.

Think Apple Losses saves about 20% or so over raw aiff. Or adds 90% over MP3...
Seemed like a good idea at the time:)...with only 90GB of HD storage left, I'm getting a little more picky about what I want to keep.
Or what the heck, hardrives are cheap, right? For the price of 20 new CD's, one can just plug in another FW HD and rock'n rip on in full bit rate sonic heaven:)
In perspective CD's are low resolution formats, compared to the High Def music formats like Super Audio CD, DVD-Audio.
I hope everyone here makes full use of the great iTunes Library at their fingertips and hooks their Mac up to at least a decent stereo reciever and quality bookshelf speakers? At least 5" mid bass drivers recommend and a powered subwoofer helps, big time. Makes a HUGE difference in sound over cheap plastic "computer speakers" with tiny drivers! Guess similar-better sonics can be had from good headphones as well.

I know perceptual encoding is real good, but the thought of throwing away 2/3 of the bits with MP3, that you'll never get back, just seems wrong!

99% of my collection is CD to Apple Lossles. 3,582 songs. 11 days 96.5GB.
And I've got a several hundred more CD's to rip to iTunes...
Anyone else with that much investment in stored music, should start to think about backing up the files to DVD, in case of a hardrive failure.

Q What I'm not sure of is the best DVD Data format to use for creating a backup archive (starting with AL)
Mac Only, Mac&PC, DVDROM (UDF), or ISO 9660? The choices offered by Toast 7.
And how much space/blank DVD's I need? Will Apple Lossles be expanded back to aiff space requirements or something different?


Cheers,
Dave
 

WinterMute

Moderator emeritus
Jan 19, 2003
4,715
4
London, England
jeffzoom said:
1411kbps...I pwn..its a midi that was tranfered into mp3 then apple lossless (only way to go in my opinion)
Cool, Apple Lossless is so efficient it actually gives you the same data rate as 44.1Khz CD...

That's what I call truly lossless...:rolleyes:
 

gammamonk

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 4, 2004
566
1
Madison, WI
Greenjeens, nice collection! That seems weird that a 128 encoded to aiff and back to apple lossless would be more than 128.
 

Greenjeens

macrumors regular
Aug 25, 2005
158
0
California
gammamonk said:
Greenjeens, nice collection! That seems weird that a 128 encoded to aiff and back to apple lossless would be more than 128.
OOOps, a little technical error. Those 1536kbps bit rate tacks are .aiff, sourced from Laserdisc, iTunes, DVD.
Experimenting with coders/decoders and probably forgot to reset something.

Checked Info again, highest bitrate in Apple Lossless is 1122kbps "All Because of You" U2 .

The 2:44 minute itunes store download had several versions... was trying to make a ringtone.
Mpeg - 1.3MB 64 kbps (Sounds terrible)
Mpeg - 3.2MB 160 160 kbps
Apple Lossles 14.9MB 756 kbps
aiff - - 27.7MB 1411 kbps
wave - - 30.2 1536 kbps (48khz)

I wonder if there's a name yet for a modern nerousis...fear of throwing bits away? bitrosis, microphenia :)

-Dave
 

mannix87

macrumors 6502
Nov 16, 2005
417
0
in the southeast
Greenjeens said:
99% of my collection is CD to Apple Lossles. 3,582 songs. 11 days 96.5GB.
And I've got a several hundred more CD's to rip to iTunes...
Anyone else with that much investment in stored music, should start to think about backing up the files to DVD, in case of a hardrive failure.
am i really losing much? i've ripped around 600 CDs worth of music using AAc at 128kbps because i wanted to maximize my iPod memory,. i i started out w/ a 20GB and a mini soon after (i'm using a 40GB iPhoto now). i wanted to cram everything into the iPod. i'm currently at 15GB w/ 4200 songs. should i start re-ripping them again? it sure sounds like i'm missing much but the thought of staying up late for a couple of weeks feeding my harddrive is making me sick. :(
 

Greenjeens

macrumors regular
Aug 25, 2005
158
0
California
mannix87 said:
am i really losing much? i've ripped around 600 CDs worth of music using AAc at 128kbps because i wanted to maximize my iPod memory,. i i started out w/ a 20GB and a mini soon after (i'm using a 40GB iPhoto now). i wanted to cram everything into the iPod. i'm currently at 15GB w/ 4200 songs. should i start re-ripping them again? it sure sounds like i'm missing much but the thought of staying up late for a couple of weeks feeding my harddrive is making me sick. :(
Don't sweat it, as long as your enjoying your music.
The 90 percent or so of the data that's "thrown out", in an aiff to mp3 conversion, is compressed very carefully, using perceptual coding so your ears don't hear much diffence.

Still, I only wanted to load my large CD collection a minimum of times (like once). Trusting an entire music collections survival in perpetuity, to a only one spinning hard drive, in a computer or ipod, seems very risky to me.
 

gammamonk

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 4, 2004
566
1
Madison, WI
mannix87 said:
am i really losing much? i've ripped around 600 CDs worth of music using AAc at 128kbps because i wanted to maximize my iPod memory,. i i started out w/ a 20GB and a mini soon after (i'm using a 40GB iPhoto now). i wanted to cram everything into the iPod. i'm currently at 15GB w/ 4200 songs. should i start re-ripping them again? it sure sounds like i'm missing much but the thought of staying up late for a couple of weeks feeding my harddrive is making me sick. :(
Personally, I find a huge difference in playback quality from mp3 128's (what I used to use) and Lossless. Every new CD I get (Maybe... 10 a month or less) I rip at lossless. I have a 40gig, and tho it has many fewer songs than before, they are all songs I like. I enjoy my music a lot more now.

That being said, you have 600 CDs-- that's kinda a lot of work. If you want tons and tons of songs available, maybe don't sweat it. I think if you try lossless, you won't want to go back, and you'll have to buy another iPod, and it will be my fault! ;)
 

mannix87

macrumors 6502
Nov 16, 2005
417
0
in the southeast
Greenjeens said:
Don't sweat it, as long as your enjoying your music.

i guess you're right. nontheless, i tried out lossless for a couple of songs and i did notice the big difference. the low compression rate for AAC gives problems for high treble tones and sounds very 'synthetic" while with lossless, i could hardly distinguish from the original audio source.