[Mintz]

I recently ordered a pair of IEMs and want to get the best sound for them. After some research found that my current format of 192 kbps .mp3 might not be the best one based on what I have read. I am pretty unknowledgeable on this subject and figured I would ask here. My question is what format would give me the best quality for my music?
I was planning on re-ripping some of my CDs at 320 kbps with iTunes. I primarily listen to hip-hop and use my ipod or bose sound dock. Would this make a noticeable difference when listening to music? I have heard about some sort of lossless format for Itunes as well as VBR (can iTunes rip with this format?) These formats appeared to be better then .mp3. Basically would it be worth it for me to re-rip some cds with 320 kbps instead of my current 192 kbps?

 

[DarkScythe]

As far as I know, Lossless > 320kbps LAME MP3 > VBR LAME MP3 > 192kbps or lower CBR MP3.

That's the rule I follow anyway.
As for whether or not you'll actually hear a difference, I've no idea.
It certainly wouldn't hurt, and would give your lossy files some more of the original information if you re-ripped and re-encoded them. Give one album that you're very familiar with a try and see what happens.

I'm not sure about iTunes, but I would recommend using EAC (Exact Audio Copy) to rip the CDs, and download the LAME mp3 encoder. You can point EAC to the LAME folder and it will use it to help you encode to MP3.

 

[John Willett]

Rip at 16/44.1 uncompressed wav - that will give you the best quality.

But the file size will be exactly the same as the CD - just more convenient.

The less you compress, the better the sound; but as soon as you go MP3 the quality is reduced.

320 is vastly better than 192 - but a lot worse than FLAC or uncompressed wav.

 

[Mintz]

Thanks for the input. Now since I do most of my music listening on my ipod if I use I don't think I could use an uncompressed wav because it would take up too much space and I don't have a ton of space left on my ipod. If I use FLAC or EAC with a LAME mp3 encoder could I then use Itunes to import them onto my ipod? I only ask because I have not heard of either of these formats. If I can do you think the difference between that and a 320 kbps rip on Itunes would be noticeable? It does sound like a lot of extra work and I want to make sure that it would be worth it.

 

[DarkScythe]

FLAC is an open source (I believe) Lossless format; widely supported. Except, of course, for Apple. They like their proprietary stuff, so they came up with their own Lossless format called ALAC. ipods, of course, do not accept FLAC, so you need ALAC (which you can do in iTunes from something like a WAV file or from the CD) for your iPod if you want lossless on there.

Outside of that, LAME MP3 isn't a format, it's a standard MP3 but encoded using the LAME encoder, which I think personally is superior to some other encoders. I have no idea which MP3 encoder iTunes uses. EAC is recommended for ripping CDs simply because it's usually more accurate at ripping them. Again, I've no idea how accurate iTunes does it, since I don't use it for anything other than loading music onto my iPod. In fact, I had to install QTlite and get a stripped-down iTunes installer just to get rid of most of Apple's bloat, so I could transfer to and update my iPod.

Edit:
As far as whether it's worth it or not, as I said - Give it a try for yourself.
Get an album you're very familiar with, rip it and encode it to FLAC (or leave it as a WAV temporarily) as well as encoding to 320kbps MP3. Then listen to them and compare with your existing 192kbps MP3s and see if you can hear a difference. If not, then I guess no work needs to be done. If you CAN hear a difference though, then you decide - is it worth the work?

 

[Mintz]

Thanks a lot for the help Dark. That definitely answered my questions. I'm going to try the ALAC format.

 

[Sparky14]

Well, here's an opinion from the other side.....

If you are only using your iPod as a source, I'd rip using iTunes AAC at 128 mbps.

I know I'll get flamed. But IMO, unless you have a very nice amp and cans, 128 AAC will give you 99% of the impact of uncompressed audio. I've done countless CD vs. Lossless vs. FLAC vs. mp3 vs. AAC tests.....and in the end, 128 AAC gave me darn good sound quality at a minimum of disk space.

If it has to be mp3, I'm happy with my Lame encoded mp3s at variable bit rate encoding.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mintz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for the input. Now since I do most of my music listening on my ipod if I use I don't think I could use an uncompressed wav because it would take up too much space and I don't have a ton of space left on my ipod. If I use FLAC or EAC with a LAME mp3 encoder could I then use Itunes to import them onto my ipod? I only ask because I have not heard of either of these formats. If I can do you think the difference between that and a 320 kbps rip on Itunes would be noticeable? It does sound like a lot of extra work and I want to make sure that it would be worth it.

The iPod has its own lossless format ALAC. I do not know if iTunes can convert FLAC to ALAC. EAC is not a format as such it is a ripping program that allows you to use encoders such as LAME (Mp3) .

I seriously doubt that you could tell the dfference between 320K and lossless. This is not an insult by the way. When asked to do so in blind tests under 1% of people can do so. Many people will tell you they can tell the difference, but will not be able to back this up with blind tests.

You can check your own ability quite easily. Take a track in WAV format and convert it to MP3. Then do an ABX in FooBar and see if you can tell the difference between the two.

Similarly you can see if you can tell the difference between 192 and 320...

If you cannot then you can save a lot of storage space.

 

[DarkScythe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do not know if iTunes can convert FLAC to ALAC.

Last time I tried, I don't think this was possible.
I had to convert my FLAC back to WAV (I used Foobar for this) then imported the WAV and was able to convert that to ALAC from iTunes. Perhaps there are other programs that can do this conversion more directly, but as it is, iTunes won't even let you add FLACs to the library.

 

[krmathis]

x? on Apple Lossless.

 

[Lord Chaos]

As far as I know, the highest data rate AAC or MP3 that Itunes will do is 192k. Lossless files will be about 4 times bigger than that. I suggest you test this on your own equipment and ears, and give it some time. If you can hear a difference then decide if it's enough of a difference to justify the space.

In my experience you have to have good playback equipment and a quiet listening environment to hear the difference. I use Apple Lossless format for my music because I don't use a portable, but I've never rigorously tested my ability to hear a difference.

 

[apatN]

Anything lossless will do. I keep mine in FLAC. If you don't want that for some crazy reason (like having an iPod) store your files in ALAC.

 

[Mintz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparky14 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, here's an opinion from the other side..... If you are only using your iPod as a source, I'd rip using iTunes AAC at 128 mbps. I know I'll get flamed. But IMO, unless you have a very nice amp and cans, 128 AAC will give you 99% of the impact of uncompressed audio. I've done countless CD vs. Lossless vs. FLAC vs. mp3 vs. AAC tests.....and in the end, 128 AAC gave me darn good sound quality at a minimum of disk space. If it has to be mp3, I'm happy with my Lame encoded mp3s at variable bit rate encoding.

I actually ordered a pair of Ultimate Ear Super Fi 5 Pros and have read that you should have your music ripped atleast 192 or better. That's why I was trying to rip my music at a better quality. I think I am going to go with 320 with AAC format.

 

[Geruvah]

I rip Apple Lossless in iTunes. I use XLD when I need to convert FLAC to m4a. Thing that people have to remember is that EAC is Windows only. And right now I'm having problems running it in Parallels on my mac. Would I use EAC over iTunes, though? It's hard to say. I haven't noticed any quality difference and EAC gives you this log thing that tells you how it recorded. I'd love for someone to do a comparison test, especially since iTunes is just easier to use than EAC with the same result.

I love my clear pair of the super.fi 5 pro (I got the clear ones). If you can live with it and your ears can't tell the difference, of course go for compressed.

I have a whole separate 200GB harddrive so I can keep my music in uncompressed quality without worrying over free space...for now.

 

[Mintz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geruvah /img/forum/go_quote.gif I love my clear pair of the super.fi 5 pro (I got the clear ones). If you can live with it and your ears can't tell the difference, of course go for compressed. I have a whole separate 200GB harddrive so I can keep my music in uncompressed quality without worrying over free space...for now.

Do you think you could notice a difference between a lossless rip and a 320 AAC rip of a song with your Super Fi 5's? I did not think the difference would be to noticeable...