Is there really that much of a difference to the human ear? I have a few albums imported as Apple Lossless that just completely eat up a good majority of my iTunes Library. If I go with AAC at 320 or even 128, will I notice that much of a difference?
What would you guys suggest? What do you guys use?
I think there is a significant difference in sound quality, but it depends on many factors. The quality of the original recording and more importantly the quality of your HiFi gear to name a few. Try ripping a recording at different bit rates and listen for yourself. Let your ears be the judge.
BTW, I know your new here. Please be careful to post your threads in the correct forum and use the search engine here to answer many basic questions such as this.
I personally make various rips and compare them. I go for the smallest file size from which I can't tell difference from the next better form. At the moment it is .flac for me.
Originally Posted by Gino I personally make various rips and compare them. I go for the smallest file size from which I can't tell difference from the next better form. At the moment it is .flac for me.
Not out of the box. People have loaded Linux on some Ipods and have been playing flac. Some are dual boot. They have done this up to 3rd gen. Dunno how it goes with newer models.
I listen through an iBook. I just use Toast Titanium to listen to flac.
I have all of my songs @ lossless on my 5G 30GB iPod, but the battery wears down like mad...
Anyway, I just do lossless because I know that I am listening to it the way it is meant to be, with my super.fi 5 pro buds, and not a watered down version of the CD.
Of course, doing all these high-quality audio things are not good if you are listening to old songs...you can tell how primitive their recording instuments were! =P
people will try to convince you there is no audible difference. They will use fancy terms like "double blind test" , "inaudible supersonic frequencies", "strategery" and "code red". But let yourself not be decieved. The truth is that it does not matter at all what they actaully sound like (yes im crazy). The truth is that it only matters what you think it sounds like. To my ears and my ears only, I feel better about my music listening to ALAC. Who really cares if it actually sounds better? All I know is that my listening experience is improved by the thought of no lost data whatsoever. And to the scientific skeptics? I ask: Can you handle the truth?
^ dude, esp. ur last sentence...you sound like a crazy, lame salesperson 0_o
But really, topic creator, are you the type who wants the most out of everything, or are you looking for a nice blend between portability (MB-wise) and sound quality?
There is definitely no audible difference between 320 AAC and Apple Lossless, but I still encode in Apple Lossless because then I know I have an exact backup copy of the CD, plus I have the hard drive space.
256 AAC is the best middle ground. I can't hear any difference between 256 AAC and Apple Lossless, so if drive space is important to you then go for 256 AAC, anything higher is a waste of space, but if you have the space you may as well have lossless backup copies of your CD's.
Like the first poster said, the quality of the recording matters the most. It's like using a crap CDP but very good speakers. If the source ain't good, then you got no hope.
I use 320kbps AAC/MP3, WAV, Apple Lossless and for just normal on-the-go listening, the difference is minimal as you aren't really concentrating much on the finer details of the music. However, the differences are still barely noticeable during more critical, concentrated listening. I must have pretty average ears, because the differences are minute enough that I can't really say exactly what is better about WAV or Apple Lossless.
I use lossless for the computer and aac 224 for the ipod.
I also feel best that my music is an exact back up, this means that in the future i dont have to re rip if i get better equipment more likely to show the missing details. But for portable through my (currently lost somewhere in the house) ksc75's 224 is a good balance between battery and sound quality, and the ipod cache. My 4th gen didnt really lossless, as the song files were actually larger than the cache, so sometimes it wold stop for a second or too in the song, very annoying.
Originally Posted by Ruppin Probably a silly question, BUT, is it a problem to do the iPod conversions to AAC from the Apple Lossless, or should you import twice from the CD?
There will be no extra loss if you convert Lossless to AAC. It would be the same as converting CD to AAC.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
