[parkchansu]

Ah, in that case, perhaps it would be best to disregard my previous post then. It's been a while since I've dealt with 128kbps, but I was (until a moment ago) under the impression that while it won't result in SQ that is equal to files originally encoded in lossless (apple/WMV/FLAC), it would eke out at least some slight advantage over the original 128 format? If that's not true, what does the function do? Where does the massive size increase come from?

 

[iriverdude]

Quote:

it would eke out at least some slight advantage over the original 128 format?

nope.

 

[TheKisho]

Quote:

Originally Posted by parkchansu /img/forum/go_quote.gif If that's not true, what does the function do? Where does the massive size increase come from?

It's usually used for converting between lossy file types, lossy M4As to say MP3s. I occasionally use it to convert WAV files to ALAC (Apple Lossless) [FLAC -> WAV -> ALAC]. The setting (converting to) is dependent on your selected import format at the current time.

The massive file size I guess comes from the fact that it's compressed already and there is no data left that it can reduce without loss in quality. It's like compressing a well compressed ZIP file, you won't get a smaller file, you often get a bigger file. Only time I've seen smaller lossless files is when I was working with a B&W (1-bit) source, and the JPG was 140MB~ and the tif was like 12MB~. But that was not lossy -> lossy, if I did that I'm sure it would of been bigger then the JPG.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by parkchansu /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's been a while since I've dealt with 128kbps, but I was (until a moment ago) under the impression that while it won't result in SQ that is equal to files originally encoded in lossless (apple/WMV/FLAC), it would eke out at least some slight advantage over the original 128 format?

Your impressions are wrong, or you have been faulty informed.

Quote:

If that's not true, what does the function do?

It first decode your lossy files, adding data (silence I guess) to reach the 1411kbps of PCM. Then encode to Apple Lossless.
It should only be used for encoding Apple Lossless from WAV or AIFF.

Quote:

Where does the massive size increase come from?

From the data added when decoding the 128, 192 or 320kbps lossy file to PCM at 1411kbps. This added data will then need to be compressed without loss when encoding to Apple Lossless.

 

[scompton]

I take issue with quite a few statements in this thread. Too many people who can hear a difference between bit rates think that means everyone can. This is not true. I can't on the most revealing system. I actually don't believe many people who claim they can really can, because most people can't pass an ABX test. I know some people definitely can hear a difference, but I've seen too many people fail ABX tests who swear they can hear the difference.

To the OP. Only you can tell if you can hear a difference. Do some listening tests to compare various bit rates.

 

[TheKisho]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scompton /img/forum/go_quote.gif I take issue with quite a few statements in this thread. Too many people who can hear a difference between bit rates think that means everyone can. This is not true. I can't on the most revealing system. I actually don't believe many people who claim they can really can, because most people can't pass an ABX test. I know some people definitely can hear a difference, but I've seen too many people fail ABX tests who swear they can hear the difference. To the OP. Only you can tell if you can hear a difference. Do some listening tests to compare various bit rates.

But does it really matter when storage is so cheap now days ;P To each their own, but yes do some simple tests.

 

[scompton]

True, on a computer, storage is cheap, and for most people, large enough to store their entire library.

Not only is storage not cheap on DAPs, it's limited at any price. I have a 160GB iPod and I can't fit my entire library on it with 128kbps VBR AAC. Only a handful of other players have that much storage and, as far as I know, none have the features I use every day on the iPod such as gapless playback, smart playlists, shuffle by album, etc.

This week, I've ripped 25 discs that are not yet on my iPod. That means I have to find 25 discs worth of tracks to remove from my iPod first.

 

[somestranger26]

Quote:

Originally Posted by parkchansu /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you are using iTunes, which is usually the case around here, you can simply highlight songs that you want to convert by right clicking and clicking on "make apple lossless copy." It's not as good as WAV or FLAC, but it is definitely better than the stock 128. I did this on music files that I obtained through technically-not-legal means, where most files are 128, with a handful of 192's and 320's. Oh, and sampling rate is important too. 44100 is usually the case. Anything less than 30k and you're going to have problems after the conversion.

ಠ_ಠ Please do not give faulty advice to people based on things you don't understand and subsequently have experienced a placebo effect from.

 

[fenixdown110]

That's the most outrageous thing I have heard actually. Upscaling 128 to FLAC? lol Did all the data that was trimmed off while downscaling to 128 magically resurface?

 

[TheKisho]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scompton /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not only is storage not cheap on DAPs, it's limited at any price. I have a 160GB iPod and I can't fit my entire library on it with 128kbps VBR AAC. Only a handful of other players have that much storage and, as far as I know, none have the features I use every day on the iPod such as gapless playback, smart playlists, shuffle by album, etc.

I don't so much mind that I can't fit all the stuff on my iPod. I still can put more then I can listen to in more or less one week (I have a older smaller iPod and all my music is lossless (which doesn't matter in the car as the sound system blows but I rather not keep two copies of my music library)). Still you don't always need all your music with you. It's not too hard to change songs or albums up every so often to keep it 'fresh'. Do you really use all those features? Only ones I use is the regular playlists sometimes (I do it for holiday trips occasionally), gapless playback (if I do happen to listen to an album that uses it (rarely as I never usually listen to an album right through), and most recently I've just been putting the iPod on shuffle. But I'm sure some other players have gapless playback for a fraction of the price, with more storage (I haven't checked recently). That said being that I'm using ALAC for my music I can't really find another player with ALAC capabilities (I guess there is always firmware mods, but...).


Quote:

Originally Posted by scompton /img/forum/go_quote.gif This week, I've ripped 25 discs that are not yet on my iPod. That means I have to find 25 discs worth of tracks to remove from my iPod first.

But do you have time to listen to those 25 discs right away on your iPod? I guess what I'm saying is it's not a problem with better management (pick something you haven't listened to a while or that your getting tired to and take it off for a bit). You eventually will be able to put huge library on iPods as prices are always falling and they are always upgrading the storage with every release. They will get there eventually (unless they get rid of the iPod Classic (which I love)), but you have to realise that they are expensive because the drives are smaller then the average laptops' or desktops' hard drive, but prices still do come down on them.


P.S. Speaking of iPods; When is Apple going to fix the problem with stuttering, playing only 3 seconds of a song, skipping all together or, just cliping off the end of songs the same time for each song, every time.

 

[scompton]

I listen around 8-10 hours a day, although most of that is background listening. I listen do quality listening between 1-3 hours a day. I'll listen to those discs at least twice within a month. I alternate between listening to new discs and shuffling by album though my whole library. I like having as much as possible with me. I don't want to guess what I'll be in the mood for later in the week, or even tomorrow for that matter.

 

[wyrm]

It's probably not worth going super high end on headphones, but there's definitely a big improvement if you upgrade from the crappy apple buds.

 

[TheKisho]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scompton /img/forum/go_quote.gif I listen around 8-10 hours a day, although most of that is background listening. I listen do quality listening between 1-3 hours a day. I'll listen to those discs at least twice within a month. I alternate between listening to new discs and shuffling by album though my whole library. I like having as much as possible with me. I don't want to guess what I'll be in the mood for later in the week, or even tomorrow for that matter.

I don't listen to my iPod nearly that much; No need as when I'm home I have access to my entire library on the computer [My quality listening time]. I only use my iPod about 2 hours each day, still it wouldn't be too hard to change some of the music up every so often (maybe ever couple of weeks). It's still better then listening to the radio... you won't hear the same stuff every so many hours. I also like to carry as much as possible but still at the current time you just can't (at least in a portable player). Maybe if someone made one using laptop hard drives, heck I wouldn't mind a 'lugable' music player using a desktop hard drive. I usually dump as much as I can off my computer's smart playlist 'Top most played songs', and then some from my ' Most recently added songs'. But I guess to each their own. I agree to disagree.


Quote:

Originally Posted by wyrm /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's probably not worth going super high end on headphones, but there's definitely a big improvement if you upgrade from the crappy apple buds.

Agreed. Just don't get any too revealing or analytical.