If people say AAC 192 is CD quality...

[CarcerCityHood]

Is there any reason to rip at 320? I was thinking, is it possible to rip a song - OFF A CD - and have it sound better than CD quality? If 192 is what people call the "sweet spot" then is the extra space worth small amounts of quality or is it a waste? For the record, I currently rip at 192 AAC. Thanks for the help.

[yinyang]

try and do a blind test - rip one a track at both and see if you can tell the difference. i've done this test with 128, 192, Apple lossless and AIFF, and settled for 192.

[archurban]

any mp3 quality is not better than CD. if you are not really music mania, expert, you don't have to stick with higher encoding music. but generally speaking, 192 is acceptable quality I can tell you.

by the way, you might hear what Apple itunes store will sell from the end of this month. it's DRM free with 256kbps. they got an agreement with EMI. so from April, I encode music to 256. 192 and 256 are hardly distinguish from sound quality. but some genres are way different especially 256.

[kornchild2002]

Originally Posted by CarcerCityHood

Is there any reason to rip at 320? I was thinking, is it possible to rip a song - OFF A CD - and have it sound better than CD quality? If 192 is what people call the "sweet spot" then is the extra space worth small amounts of quality or is it a waste? For the record, I currently rip at 192 AAC. Thanks for the help.

It is impossible to rip any song off of a CD and have it sound better than the source CD itself. Your music can only be as good as the source. If you want true CD quality, then rip lossless. It isn't wise to rip to lossless for portable use though as it takes up way too much space and eats away at the iPod's battery. When people say that 192kbps AAC is CD quality, then mean perceptual CD quality in that they cannot differentiate between the 192kbps AAC file and the CD. They don't mean that a 192kbps AAC has true CD quality, that would be impossible.

Formats like mp3 and AAC are lossy, this means that data is completely thrown away (hence, lossy) and other data is compressed to get small file sizes.

[GianlucaM]

I think I'm picky as hell about my compressed/lossy audio files quality. I've been obsessing over bitrates and file formats for years.

Believe it or not I've settled on AAC 128VBR (encoded in iTunes).
I've been listening to these files on my iPod, computer speakers, car stereo and home HiFi system and I never turned my head in alarm because I heard some digital artifact (to which my ears are extremely sensitive).

I strongly suggest you to try 128VBR and do some blind listening tests (I did a lot it them!) and judge for yourself.

A lot of people, who describe themselves as audiophiles (ugh!), have pre-concepts and prejudices about lossy formats, but these people rarely do blind listening tests (if any). I used to be one of them, until one day when I shelved my pride and decided to really check things out and discover I was wrong. Oh, so wrong!

-Gianluca.

[GianlucaM]

P.S. (to my post above)
I would like to add that I do keep a master of all of music collection in a lossless compression format as well (Monkey's Audio with custom software written by me) and that I can re-encode my whole collection to any lossy format at my heart's desire.

[CarcerCityHood]

In response to that, doesn't that take up MASSIVE space on your computer? Not only is it double of every song, but then it's lossless. I could only imagine how big your HD is...

Also, is there a way to know if you ripped a song with VBR? Like if I look at a songs info, it tells me bit rate, type, format, blah blah. But I can't seem to remember if I ripped certain songs with VBR or not. Is there a way I can look at the info and find out cause I don't see it... Thanks.

[kornchild2002]

Lossless files do take up a lot of space but that is what external hard drives are for (or additional internal hard drives). You can go purchase a 300GB external hard drive from Best Buy for around $100. 300GB will hold quite a bit of lossless files.

iTunes will display the (VBR) with VBR mp3s only. With VBR mp3s, iTunes will either display the overall average bitrate (it does this with Nero AAC files) or it will display the target bitrate (as it does with VBR iTunes AAC files). So, here are some examples of what iTunes will display:
For VBR mp3s:
Bitrate: 132kbps (VBR)
For Nero VBR AACs:
Bitrate: 132kbps
For iTunes VBR AACs:
Bitrate: 128kbps

You can see if the files are VBR or not by either doing a bitrate/file size calculation or by opening up the files in wither Winamp or foobar2000.

[GianlucaM]

kornchild2002,
to be more accurate: AAC 128VBR encoded with iTunes will show their average bitrate in iTunes
All my songs, which are encoded with iTunes at 128VBR, show values around 128kbps, mostly on the upper side like 127 kbps, 145 kbps, 133 kbps... and so on.

CarcerCityHood,
I own an external hard drive (like kornchild2002 guessed). It's a 500GB USB2 drive, and my lossless collection of about 9400 files takes 230GB of space. I actually have two identical external hard drives with the same content on them, so if one goes down I have a backup.
The lossless compression of Monkey's Audio is very good: between 30% and 60%, depending on the song.
I'm curious: are you going to try 128VBR?

[oobujoobu]

Originally Posted by CarcerCityHood

Also, is there a way to know if you ripped a song with VBR?

I keep a text file in every folder that contains my music.

A few examples of the file names of the text file are-

These are 192 VBR AAC originals from CD
This is a 128 AAC download from iTunes Music Store
These are files of unknown origin (I would use this for internet downloads or stuff my mates have given me where I didn't rip the CD myself)


This way I can see exactly what type of files I have.

[CarcerCityHood]

GianlucaM: I'm actually going to take your advice and do some blind listening tests tonight. I'm going to rip at AAC 128 VBR, AAC 192 VBR, MP3 128 VBR, and MP3 192 VBR. I'm going to try a hip-hop/rap song, techno, and hard rock - which about covers most areas of bass. I currently rip at AAC 192 CBR, and it works just fine for me, no problems. But then I see kornchild talk about VBR, so I look into that, and wadda ya know... I missed out on that. I'm one of those types of people that has to have the best of everything, including my music LoL, so I ripped all my music and now I'm needing to do it again for VBR. For all I know, I'll rip everything again tonight, and then read up on something new tomorrow and I'll need to do it all over again... Oh well, I'm a noob in progress. ^_^ If AAC doesn't display that I have songs ripped with VBR, I'm seriously considering using Lame like kornchild mentioned, and just using MP3. Apparently the MP3 encoder on iTunes blows, so it all depends on these listening test now... Thanks!

kornchild2002: Thanks, you've been a big help as usual. I don't have the money for an external hard drive right now, so all I have is my CDs to go with as of now. So if I discover some new "rule of thumb" I re-rip everything till I get the best haha. I know of the formats, bit rates, what VBR is, etc. Is there anything else I should know before I do my listening tests and rip again? See ya. Right quick, under AAC on iTunes, where you click the box for VBR, what is the box below it that says "Rip for Voice" or something along those lines?

[kornchild2002]

External hard drives are getting cheaper every month. Save your pennies and you will have one in no time. I that is what I did. I put $1 away everyday and I was able to purchase my 500GB external hard drive in 3 months. Believe me, it is the best thing you can do for your music and any other digital files you have on your computer.

As for anything else you need to know, not much. The Rip For Voice option in iTunes should only be used if you are ripping an audio book. Just enable VBR encoding and set your bitrate, that is it. Also, make sure you conduct blind ABX tests. Don't just open the file in iTunes and click back and forth. Download a program called foobar2000, install the ABX test option (you will see it during the main installation), and you are set to go. Just drag two files into the foobar2000 window, highlight both of them, right-click on one of them, and left-click on ABX.

Any other listening test just isn't valid as your brain will know which files are which. Even if you put the files in a playlist and randomize it, your mind might start hearing differences that aren't there. You may even think that the 128kbps VBR mp3 sound the best. Conduct a blind ABX test using your best set of headphones (don't use speakers unless you are in a sound booth as rooms just aren't acoustically tuned) and your computer.

[tw0k1ngs]

Originally Posted by GianlucaM

I think I'm picky as hell about my compressed/lossy audio files quality. I've been obsessing over bitrates and file formats for years.

Believe it or not I've settled on AAC 128VBR (encoded in iTunes).
I've been listening to these files on my iPod, computer speakers, car stereo and home HiFi system and I never turned my head in alarm because I heard some digital artifact (to which my ears are extremely sensitive).

I strongly suggest you to try 128VBR and do some blind listening tests (I did a lot it them!) and judge for yourself.

A lot of people, who describe themselves as audiophiles (ugh!), have pre-concepts and prejudices about lossy formats, but these people rarely do blind listening tests (if any). I used to be one of them, until one day when I shelved my pride and decided to really check things out and discover I was wrong. Oh, so wrong!

-Gianluca.

What was your equipment when you were an "audiophile"? If you were using stock iPod and headphones, of course there will be little difference. But if you have the "audiophile on the go" setup:

RWA iMod -> ALO IC's -> RSA Hornet/TH/SR-71 -> E500/HD650/AKG k701

Then there is no way in god's green earth you could ever use 128kb and call yourself a former "audiophile."

[GianlucaM]

Originally Posted by tw0k1ngs

What was your equipment when you were an "audiophile"? If you were using stock iPod and headphones, of course there will be little difference. But if you have the "audiophile on the go" setup:

RWA iMod -> ALO IC's -> RSA Hornet/TH/SR-71 -> E500/HD650/AKG k701

Then there is no way in god's green earth you could ever use 128kb and call yourself a former "audiophile."

I must have hit a nerve. It happens. As much as I don’t want to highjack this thread, and as much as I don’t like flaunting my stuff, I’ll do my best to humbly address your points.

- I never called myself a former anything, much less a former audiophile. I still am in a way. I just discovered I was wrong about a few things.

- I do not use AAC 128kbps encoding. I use 128kbps VBR encoding, which can go as high as 160kbps (it may even go higher than that, I don’t know).

- I do use Ultimate Ears super.fi 5 Pro earphones daily on my iPod; they produce excellent on-the-go sound, but they only go up to 16KHz, which is great, but may only reveal up to 80% of digital audio compression artifacts, and I’ve never heard any from my AAC files.

- I use a pair of Grado SR125 headphones, which are better, but not the top of the line. They go up to 20KHz, which can reveal most, if not all, audio artifacts, and I’ve never heard any from my AAC files.

- I use a pair of Soliloquy 5.3 floor speakers attached to my old Galactron MK10, which is possibly one of the first solid state amplifier (made in Italy the ‘60s), capable of retaining the warmth of old tube amps, with a full dynamic range. I’ve never heard digital audio compression artifacts from my AAC files with this setup either.

OK. So that was not as humble as I was striving for. Whatever…

Now my questions:
Have you done a true blind listening test between a AAC 128kbps VBR and anything higher than that?
If you have, could you truly tell the difference?
Was it really a blind test, or did you know what you were playing when you listened?
If you have not done it, I invite you to do it.

-Gianluca.

[CarcerCityHood]

Owned. Sorry, I just had to say that. I'm in the middle of my sound tests at the moment, just taking a break, I'm not going to lie... I'm surprised by the results so far...