I was browsing through my iTunes Library, and noticed that some of my songs were at a higher quality than others. So, I am just curious, at what quality does MacRumors import their music at? I use the 192, because it seems to be the best in terms of quality/size.
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.
iPod What Quality Do You Import Your Music At?
- Thread starter Zwhaler
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I use the default 128kbps because by the time the iPod was introduced I already had nearly 30GB of CDs ripped at that bitrate. By the time I got my first iPod I had well over 40GB of MP3s and my library was still growing. I'm glad I finally grew out of the idea that I had to carry ALL of my music in my pocket. I'd like to re-import all of my CDs in Apple Lossless now that hard drive space is affordable enough to do so, but thinking of the time investment involved and the trips down to the basement to fetch CDs makes me question whether it is worth the trouble.
320kbps. Partially because I'm a packrat (and that includes saving audio quality, too), partially because hard drive space is cheap now, and partially because I'm a performing musician and audio engineer/producer, so I really like to be able to sit down and really hear every last nuance.
Oh yeah, and it sounds purty, too...
This summer once I get my MBP, I think I may sit down and seriously organize my music collection, as well as well as rerip all my stuff as lossless. Why not?
Oh yeah, and it sounds purty, too...
This summer once I get my MBP, I think I may sit down and seriously organize my music collection, as well as well as rerip all my stuff as lossless. Why not?
I'm not much of an audiophile, 128kbps is perfect for me. Seriously, I can't tell the difference between 128 or 320kbps. Probably because I use the stock iPod headphones (I think they look nice ).
).
I was using 128 kb/s (and lossless if it sounded bad at 128), but now I've changed to 256 because it's the "new" iTMS format (the DRM-free tracks are at 256 kb/s).
I used to rip at 192, but since large capacity external drives are cheap, I've started to re-rip everything lossless, though it's more as a backup than for quality.
Having iTunes re-encode to 128 when it syncs my Shuffle is handy, just a shame that that option isn't available to other iPods.
Having iTunes re-encode to 128 when it syncs my Shuffle is handy, just a shame that that option isn't available to other iPods.
I also use a nano, and my music is mostly at 192, but in MP3 format. I started ripping my CDs back before I got the nano, so I didn't want to limit myself.
Of course, now that I've found that the nano is right for me, I'm thinking of re-ripping my collection into AAC since it's a better compression algorithm.
I do AAC 160 mostly because i rarely hear a difference between 192 & 128. However i listened to a CD recently and OMG the sound was so amazing and clear and detailed.
Now i'm considering getting a dedicated external HD for iTunes and going Lossless.
Now i'm considering getting a dedicated external HD for iTunes and going Lossless.
I started at 192 but once apple lossless was out I switched to lossless. When I first started though I had over three hundred cd's to rip, in iTunes 1.0. Luckily between me and one of my roomates at the time we had four mac's to do the ripping into iTunes. Plus plenty of beer to fuel our CD ripping spree.
I suppose some people don't listen to CDs at all now, but I find the idea of not listening to a CD for even more than a day a bit scary. I have music on all the time, always CDs or Vinyl...
Yep. I haven't actually listened to CDs for a couple of years. They just get imported into iTunes and put on the shelf. I import at 256kbps AAC, and no matter how hard I concentrate, I can't hear the difference between that and lossless. And I have a pretty good sound system too...so I might as well save the space.
--Eric
I use FLAC for my library.
I then have an app which does a brute-force multithreaded transcode to MP3 or Ogg when transferring to a portable.
I then have an app which does a brute-force multithreaded transcode to MP3 or Ogg when transferring to a portable.
I rip all CDs as aac@128. Having a MacBook (and before that an iBook and even before that a Pismo) space is an issue, and I think aac@128 is the absolute best trade off between file size and quality...
And for one who grew up with mixed tapes on cassettes, well, even aac@96vbr sounds great...
And for one who grew up with mixed tapes on cassettes, well, even aac@96vbr sounds great...
When I get a new CD I make a point to listen to it at least once fully before I rip it, just so I can at least have heard it uncompressed once. Then it goes straight to iTunes/iPod. But actually since my car doesn't have aux input it sounds better to listen to CDs so I do listen to them sometimes.
When I Got my new iMac, I ripped everything at 128 MP3. I had somehow switched it to AIFF sometime after. Months ago, I switched it to 160 MP3. Now, I just switched it to 192 MP3.
Since I don't load that many albums on my 2G iPod nano 4 GB (blue case), I import my CD's at 256 kbps AAC VBR. It sounds really good on my Etymotic Research ER-6i headphones.
Lossless for me.
Basically 128 actually sounds very good. If i was hearing it from my ipod with medium range earphones, I doubt I can hear much a difference.
However when I am at home and listen to it through my Tannoy reference monitors, it makes a big difference.
The main difference I can noticebly tell is the isolation of the instruments. Like with Lossless you can really tell what each instrument is doing etc.
Depends on equipment i suppose.
Basically 128 actually sounds very good. If i was hearing it from my ipod with medium range earphones, I doubt I can hear much a difference.
However when I am at home and listen to it through my Tannoy reference monitors, it makes a big difference.
The main difference I can noticebly tell is the isolation of the instruments. Like with Lossless you can really tell what each instrument is doing etc.
Depends on equipment i suppose.