Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPod What do you encode at?

MontyZ said:
I know there is a chorus of people here and on the Apple forums who simply refuse to believe that there are others who can tell the difference between 128 bps and CD-quality. Well, you're just going to have to believe us, because if you can't tell the difference yourself, then good for you! You have nothing to worry about and should just buy all of your music directly from iTunes.

But I can tell the difference most of the time. The sound from a 128 bps sound file is "flatter." The same music heard directly from the CD is richer and "sparkles" more. High notes are sharper and resonant on the CD, while in the 128 file they are tinny and muddier. The difference isn't huge, but it's noticeable to me.
Click to expand...
Just so that everyone knows, it's "kbps" not "bps". A 128 bps file would sound absolutely horrid - far, far worse than an 8 kbps MP3 suffers from over-compression.
 
i can certainly tell the difference between the two, but i just dont have the space for lossless at this point, i sure wish i did though. 192 AAC will have to do for now i guess
 
James Philp said:
I honestly can't tell the difference between 128 aac or a CD/lossless on many many different kind of music. And that's using some Grado SR80s.
All those encoding higher, can you give some demo tracks that you can really tell the difference!? I have a pair of £90 headphones, and I can't!?
Click to expand...

I can tell the difference between 320 kbps AAC and Apple Lossless. Trust me, there is a huge difference between the two. Trebles sound less natural and more sharp, there is missing midrange, and a general sense of fullness isn't there. I really hate encoding at 256 to put on my iPod mini, because the difference is so unbearably obvious. Which is why my next iPod will be very large.

Really depends on the ear you were born with and your time spent listening for things like this. I've been doing music for 15 years (I'm 21), which I'm sure helps. Honestly, you're lucky - I wish I couldn't tell the difference. It would leave much more room on my computer :)
 
1) and 2) 160 AAC - I did my own listening test against 160 and 192 MP3 and against CD; it sounded better than MP3 at either bit rate and close enough to the CD where it didn't matter to me in practical terms.

3) On my iPod (using Sennheiser PX-100 headphones).

4) A bit shy of 8 GB, and pretty much all legal.

5) Gotta agree with the other folks - Airport Express rocks!
 
128

AAC

iPod, iPod Shuffle, iMac w/Bose Media Mates, send it to my living room Yamaha receiver with Airtunes and last send it to my Bose Wave in my bedroom with AirTunes. I have a Keyspan remote in the bedroom so I can control the iMac in the other room, or I will just use my Powerbook as a remote. Kind of went with the "music everywhere" approach using Airtunes.

3312 songs, 9.1 days, 13.40 GB's.
 
192kbps AAC
I'm running out of space on my first gen mini so I'm waiting for third generation within a year or so. I'm thinking that 8-10GBish would give me enough room to expand and re-rip my CDs into some higher bit rate.
 
MontyZ said:
I know there is a chorus of people here and on the Apple forums who simply refuse to believe that there are others who can tell the difference between 128 bps and CD-quality. Well, you're just going to have to believe us, because if you can't tell the difference yourself, then good for you! You have nothing to worry about and should just buy all of your music directly from iTunes.

But I can tell the difference most of the time. The sound from a 128 bps sound file is "flatter." The same music heard directly from the CD is richer and "sparkles" more. High notes are sharper and resonant on the CD, while in the 128 file they are tinny and muddier. The difference isn't huge, but it's noticeable to me.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying I don't believe it, I just wondered if there was a demo track you could recommend that really highlights it? I imagine classical music shows it up a lot more.

And I don't thing that i'll go the ITMS route for a lot of music, some Day I have the dream of owning a £1500 Hi-Fi system (~£500 on speakers, amp, cd player) that I can play CD's and iTunes stuff on (oh and TV etc etc)

iTMS is OK for a few singles and maybe a funny album and Audiobooks (I listen to audiobooks all the time - get through 2 a month, easy - from Audible though ($19.99 a month for 2 books is LESS than in "real" book stores in the UK!) - They are 32KBps - you'd hate them!) but for real music, I want CD's so i can re-encode to lossless one day for my dream Hi-Fi setup.

BTW can iTunes stream Lossless via Ariport Express??
 
unfaded said:
I really hate encoding at 256 to put on my iPod mini, because the difference is so unbearably obvious. Which is why my next iPod will be very large.
Click to expand...
Hang on a second! You'd better be using some pretty amazing Cans then, cos the output of the iPod Mini isn't going to be top notch! And what with background noise and all (I assume you listen straight from CD or summit at home?) I have Shure E3c for "out and about" (£120) and I really don't think you gain all that much from anything over 128 when your talking iPod (practical purposes anyway - i'm not talking about someone sitting in a soundproof booth listening to their iPod with a pair of RS1's or anything!)
unfaded said:
I've been doing music for 15 years (I'm 21), which I'm sure helps. Honestly, you're lucky - I wish I couldn't tell the difference. It would leave much more room on my computer :)
Click to expand...
I have a couple of years on you then!
Must be the fact i've burst my eardrums 3 times (2 in one ear 1 on another), twice playing rugby. Did have a hearing check though - which said everything was fine! :confused:
 
1. N/A
2. Lossless
3. iPod or Home Theatre System
4. 1046 Artists, 9328 songs, 25.8 days, 115.34 GB
5. errr, ummm....
 
kjr39 said:
1. N/A
2. Lossless
3. iPod or Home Theatre System
4. 1046 Artists, 9328 songs, 25.8 days, 115.34 GB
5. errr, ummm....
Click to expand...

i really wish i could devote that much space to my music, 115.34 GB! wow, or well if all the iPods supported downsampling on the fly i would encode into lossless then too
 
I'm highly annoyed that iTunes supports down sampling for the Shuffle, but not for any other iPods.

This should be a feature for all iPods.
 
I left feedback about that feature a couple of times already...

No update yet... :(
 
James Philp said:
I'm not saying I don't believe it, I just wondered if there was a demo track you could recommend that really highlights it? I imagine classical music shows it up a lot more.
Click to expand...
Well I'm not sure that you'll have the same music I do, but, it's obvious in classical music where the entire orchestra is playing lots of notes. Or any other pop or rock song where there are lots of instruments playing. 128 bps sound can sometimes sound "warbled" a bit when these conditions exist.

But, as I said, I don't find this the case with all 128 bps music. Sometimes it's hard to hear the difference, but sometimes it's obvious.
 
dferrara said:
I'm going to be importing my collection soon, so I was wondering what you setting you guys use. :)

  1. What bit rate? (128, 192, etc.)
  2. What format (AAC, MP3, Lossless, etc.)
  3. Where do you listen to it most? (iPod, high-fidelity stereo, etc.)
  4. How big is your collection?
  5. Any other relevant tidbits.
Click to expand...

192 VBR Best Quality
MP3
iPod or off of my overpriced McIntosh Home Theatre setup.
2050 Songs
I Love McIntosh Amps and Tuners/Processors they sound great! My speakers are all Definitive Tech.

Ed
 
1. 224 KBps
2. AAC
3. iPod w/Sennheiser Headphones
4. About 8000 Songs
5. Download a program called PodWorks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back