Listening on portable players

[Gurn Blanston]

  Sorry Gurn I completely missed your earlier post. 

  marvin

No problem, amigo. But seriously, rip the same piece twice, once at 320 CBR and once at the VBR setting I gave you. Unless it is an extremely complex piece, the VBR will be smaller every time, and the sound quality will be at least equal if not better.



----------------
Listening to:
La Gaia Scienza - Schubert D 929 Piano Trio in Eb 1st mvmt - Allegro

[George]

  Thanks George for the suggestion.  I do know how to adjust the "importing" criteria on iTunes and can do these tests  .  Will report back.

  marvin

There's an easier way:

1. Import file(s) once as WAV.

2. Then change the import parameters using the Preferences menu.

3. Select the track you want to compare. Choose the original WAV file for this each time.

4. Go to the Advanced menu at the top and select "Import as ______"

5. That will automatically convert the WAV to the parameter selected in step 2 and put it in your library. I suggest putting the bitrate/file type in the new file's title to avoid confusion.

Repeat steps 2-5 for other bitrates/file types. 

[marvinbrown]

OK I have done the test on Haydn's Harmoniemesse, one on 320 Kbps AAC the other on 192 Kbps AAC and I can report that there is a difference.  The 320 Kbps file sounds fuller and I would even say richer.  It's a moderate difference but I can sense it. 

  marvin

[marvinbrown]

I am doing another test at 256 and 128 will report back!

[marvinbrown]

I am doing another test at 256 and 128 will report back!

  OK I have played the 256 Kbps AAC file and 320 Kbps AAC file and I honestly can not say that the difference in quality is noticeable.  I am playing both files on my iPod with the same headphones- all things being equal except the file sizes.

  marvin

[George]

  OK I have played the 256 Kbps AAC file and 320 Kbps AAC file and I honestly can not say that the difference in quality is noticeable.  I am playing both files on my iPod with the same headphones- all things being equal except the file sizes.

  marvin

Try the step lower and see if the difference is significant.

[mn dave]

  OK I have played the 256 Kbps AAC file and 320 Kbps AAC file and I honestly can not say that the difference in quality is noticeable.

[DavidRoss]

If he cannot hear for himself, why should he listen to anyone else's opinion?

I did not say he should.  I said he "might be served" by attending to informed opinions.  The post to which I was responding suggested that he was giving credence to someone else's uninformed (and patently stupid opinion) rather than forming his own.  (Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today or what?)

  OK I have played the 256 Kbps AAC file and 320 Kbps AAC file and I honestly can not say that the difference in quality is noticeable.  I am playing both files on my iPod with the same headphones- all things being equal except the file sizes.

I, too, found no significant distinction under those circumstances.  What happens, however, should you choose to listen to those files via something with a better DAC than the one built into the iPod? 

One highly recommended solution for digital file servers is to rip CDs into FLAC (the standard lossless compression format), and then if you want to convert copies of those files into a lossy format for your iPod (or other mp3 player) you won't have to rerip anything.  Also, note that the ripper built into iTunes is not very good and you would be better served to use EAC or CDex or some other ripper with great error correction.

Have fun!

[George]

George--this is marketing hype based on subjective evaluation comparing AAC with the crappy original Fraunhofer MP3 codec built into iTunes.  It doesn't hold with a good codec like LAME.  You could use LAME at a variable bitrate averaging 256kbps or so and have sound virtually identical to that of the fixed 320 kbps bitrate.  I just don't see that the slight advantage in file size is worth enough to bother introducing the additional complexities and potential for errors that VBR introduces.

I haven't found any CD I have burned on itunes to sound crappy. But then, I only burn WAVs anyway. I didn't suggest VBR, so I don't know why you are addressing this comment to me. Personally, I find the complexity of all this MP3/AAC stuff a big turnoff.  I just want to enjoy the music. I understand that there are those who benefit from and even enjoy all this software and hardware, but I am not one of them. I buy a new portable player every year or so for $30 and carry abound 6 cds with me.

If you cannot hear for yourself (not surprising, since hearing requires training just like seeing), then perhaps you might be served by reading some informed opinions like this one from John Atkinson.  (By the way, John Atkinson, a sound engineer and current editor of Stereophile, is very much a fan of new digital file storage technology and was an early advocate of the iPod.)

Personally, I think if Marvin (or anyone else) can't hear the difference, they should consider themselves lucky. I have spend a great deal of money upgrading my Rock and Pop collection over the last eight months as I have noticed the many pitfalls of Rock/Pop CDs released in the last 10 years. Once the ears are opened, it's impossible to shut them again. Listening to classical music has greatly improved my ability to tolerate poor sound when it's the best sound available. However, when the poor sound is the result of some "cool" engineer who wants to have it 10 dBs higher than the already over amplified norm, or minimize the noise at the expense of the music, I have to say no.

[mn dave]

(Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today or what?)

No, but perhaps you read it that way.

[helios]

If he cannot hear for himself, why should he listen to anyone else's opinion?

Brilliant - post of the year!

[marvinbrown]

I, too, found no significant distinction under those circumstances.  What happens, however, should you choose to listen to those files via something with a better DAC than the one built into the iPod? 

  I really can not answer that question only to say that when I am not on the move (IE travelling) I listen to CDs on my stereo system.  iPods are only for travelling  .  That said I usually burn a CD from my emusic and iTunes purchases which represents about 15% of my collection.  I do realize that those CDs are not of the same quality as actual CDs but that's a whole new subject altogether.  By the way even though iTunes files are protected I was still able to burn an audio CD from them- go figure!


  marvin
 

[mn dave]

By the way even though iTunes files are protected I was still able to burn an audio CD from them- go figure!

Of course you can. As many as you want.

[George]

So what bitrate did you settle on, Marvin?

[George]

Of course you can. As many as you want.

I think that there is a limit to how many times you can burn itunes purchases actually.

[mn dave]

I think that there is a limit to how many times you can burn itunes purchases actually.

Not for iTunes Plus. And there's a work-around for the old version.

[marvinbrown]

So what bitrate did you settle on, Marvin?

  256 Kbps AAC, that to me would be a very good compromise between quality and iPod storage space.  Now I have no intention of importing all my 600+ CDs that were ripped at 192 Kbps AAC again.  But I have reset the AAC encoder at 256 Kbps for my future purchases. 

  Live and learn I guess  .

  marvin

[mn dave]

  256 Kbps AAC, that to me would be a very good compromise between quality and iPod storage space.  Now I have no intention of importing all my 600+ CDs that were ripped at 192 Kbps AAC again.  But I have reset the AAC encoder at 256 Kbps for my future purchases. 

  Live and learn I guess  .

  marvin

[George]

  256 Kbps AAC, that to me would be a very good compromise between quality and iPod storage space.  Now I have no intention of importing all my 600+ CDs that were ripped at 192 Kbps AAC again.  But I have reset the AAC encoder at 256 Kbps for my future purchases. 

  Live and learn I guess  .

  marvin

Cool. Did you sample 224 Kbps as well?

[marvinbrown]

Cool. Did you sample 224 Kbps as well?

  No. I didn't even bother doing a comparison with 128 Kbps AAC.

  marvin