View Full Version : MP3 or lossless?
rc-86
04-30-2004, 05:08 PM
Hey all, I have a quick question about formats to burn my CD's with. I'm now able to use Apple Lossless Encoding with the new 4.5 iTunes and 2.2 iPod firmware. I have been importing my music to my iTunes and iPod for the last 6 months at MP3 160kbps and it sounds like a regualr CD to me. Although I was wondering if this Apple Lossless Encoder is better? I'm a fanatic about my sound quality. And if this Lossless encoder is better sound quality is there a way to convert my music I currently have on my iPod to this quality without having to re-burn all my CD's (a lot). ANY help would be great! Thanks!
Ewok^
04-30-2004, 05:09 PM
theres no way to increase the bitrate once its been compressed, sorry :/
Getahead
04-30-2004, 07:47 PM
Ewok is right.....you can't increase the bitrate once it has been ripped, it will just sound worse.
Lossless will also use up much more memory than mp3 or AAC (at least 5 times as much) 160 or 192 mp3 is pretty good, you say so yourself.
rc-86
04-30-2004, 09:23 PM
Thank you. Yeah, I didn't realize that when encoding at Loseless each song is about 40mb. That's defintely not worht it considering I'm getting CD quality now out of 160 kpbs.
PodRock
04-30-2004, 11:18 PM
IMO, lossless just takes MP3 and doesn't filter out the inaudible noise and sounds about the same as mp3 or aac at the highest-possible bitrate.
AptMunich
05-01-2004, 02:34 PM
"I'm a fanatic about my sound quality"
Then use 160 Kbps AAC, you'll get even better sq and will only have a tiny increase in file size!
whit96
05-01-2004, 08:32 PM
Are you a fanatic, as in "Audiophile"?
If so, you'll find that there are differences in sound between lossy and lossless files. I know I can hear it.
Depending on your gear, odds are you probably won't "really" hear a difference.
mid_gen
05-05-2004, 10:19 PM
Really depends what hardware you're listening to the files through. Anything less than a real good quality seperates system/'phones is going to lose any benefit you get from going above 160kb AAC.
End of the day, if you don't appreciate/notice the difference between 160kbps MP3 and CD quality, then why change?, you're only ripping music for yourself! :)
b-boy
05-07-2004, 08:18 PM
I like 32kbps at 22hz; it sounds fine to me
Lossless is just what the name sounds like--compression without any loss of audible information. Those expecting it to generally "sound better" than, say, a 160 bps AAC file, may not hear what they expect. Having all of the information there doesn't guarantee that any particular musical event will sound better to the normal ear and the normal (lack of) musicial training. But the *potential* for better sound is never lost in lossless encoding. That's why you expect sound engineers to be recording to DAT instead of MiniDisc, even though the latter sounds excellent.
For those who are really listening to sound and who know what they are listening for, the actual difference is tangible and even dramatic. I've taught a whole classroom full of people how to tell the difference, and nearly all of them can hear it. If you are, for example, interested in hearing whether your favorite violinist is playing his Strad or his Guarneri, then you wouldn't use compressed audio to do it. (Well, maybe...the iPod is shockingly good at this sort of thing.) But for most people, most of the time, a well-encoded AAC file is just as good.
RC-86, try encoding some CD's as 160 kbps AAC's, not MP3's. The file size of the AAC's is a bit smaller and they sound slightly better. (Don't convert; instead, you must re-rip from the source!) That's your new format.
elob
tgreenli
05-12-2004, 07:44 PM
I just posted this in another thread and felt it applies here too.
Have you considered using VBR (Variable Bit Rate)? I use LAME to encode my MP3's using the --alt-preset standard switch. This renders a typical bitrare of 180 to 220 kbit/s. Sometimes more and sometimes less depending on the complexity of the source. The iPod has no problems decoding this method and the quality is excellent.
-Tom
Tom,
Couple of questions about LAME, which I'm not familiar with:
1. What software do you use to do this? Is it Mac or Windows?
2. Have you compared the quality of your MP3's to, say 160 and 192 Kbps AAC files?
Thanks,
elob
tgreenli
05-19-2004, 06:24 PM
I use Windows. I'm not sure there is a Mac version or not. For a lot of real good information about LAME, Lossless Vs. Lossy compression and a lot more check out the following pages:
http://mp3.radified.com/
http://lame.sourceforge.net/
I have compared the upper end codecs and settled on LAME with the standard preset. In my opinion this produced the best fidelity and compatability to file size.
Your milage may vary.
-Tom
Thank you. Yeah, I didn't realize that when encoding at Loseless each song is about 40mb. That's defintely not worht it considering I'm getting CD quality now out of 160 kpbs.
160kbps is not CD quality. Lossless is CD quality.
rc-86
05-19-2004, 08:54 PM
Well I know it's not literally CD quality, but to me it sounds so much the same and crisp (especially with Volume Adjustment tweaked) it doesn't seem worth it to me to encode at 40mb a song in Lossless. Although since my previous post I have switched to ripping my music at 192 AAC. I like it better, it's not a substantial difference but enough for me to notice. Ripping songs at this rate gets me at around 3-6mb a song which is the exact same range I had when I was ripping at 160 mp3. I didn't realize (I know it's dumb, brace yourself) that AAC encoding would be compatiable with Windows, I thought it was one of the perks of having a Mac. In any case, thanks for the help.
Heh. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
Originally posted by tgreenli
I use Windows. I'm not sure there is a Mac version or not. For a lot of real good information about LAME, Lossless Vs. Lossy compression and a lot more check out the following pages:
http://mp3.radified.com/
http://lame.sourceforge.net/
I have compared the upper end codecs and settled on LAME with the standard preset. In my opinion this produced the best fidelity and compatability to file size.
Your milage may vary.
-Tom
Tom,
Just wanted to follow up to thank you for the info on VBR. I was skeptical, but I've been using it and I'm now a believer. BTW, there is a LAME plug-in for iTunes for the Mac, so I've been using that with the standard preset, just as you recommended. Excellent quality, and I think I'm going to use it for my entire classical collection (all 600 CD's worth!!). It takes longer to encode a CD, but I usually just pop those in while I'm doing other work, so the time doesn't really matter.
I still think that regular AAC files represent the best compromise between sound quality and file size for most people, but this seems to work for me!
Thanks again, elob