[roadwarrior]

I currently have a 16gb Ipod touch which is full. All the music is ripped at 128k AAC. This is only about 90% of my CD collection and I would like to increase the sound quality. I am unsure what to do next.

I am considering:-

A. Getting an Ipod classic 160gb and re-ripping everything at 320kb AAC leaving me loads of space to grow.

or

B. getting a Sony or Cowon 32gb mp3 player and ripping at about 192kb AAC thus leaving me a bit more space than I have now.

Which will sound better? I am aware the Ipod is not the best sounding player on the market but will the higher bitrate make up for it? I dont use apps,wi-fi or play videos so that is not a consideration. I also have no axe to grind using Itunes either.

Headphones are Quite comfort 3's or px100's (looking at SR80i's).

 

[mogeansai]

Better player AND high-bitrate

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mogeansai /img/forum/go_quote.gif Better player AND high-bitrate

Agreed. For the music I really like, I transfer WAV files onto my 32GB X series. Sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to give yourself the best possible result. Everything else is 320K VBR.

 

[Jack Mono]

Put aside 10-15 % of your collection, the ones you are not really listening to. Then rip everything into 256 VBR AAC. There you go... And get a SONY for all these. But if you want to keep everything, 192 is not such a bad compromise.... or 210, how about that?

 

[centerfold]

Why do you require your entire CD collection on your mp3 player?

 

[IDK]

get the 160GB Classic and get a Fiio E1 amp

 

[xuan87]

same advice as the above.

you can hear the difference between 320kbps and 192kbps. personally, the lowest i try to go to is 256kbps.

and the E1 amp is FANTASTIC for its size, i have no idea why so much improvement can emerge from something so small. the fact that it serves as a remote control is an additional bonus.

 

[JMT391]

Actually, the September 2009 Ipod Classic has the same DAC as the Ipod touch 2G, which is a very good thing. There's a thread on here somewhere about it - the Ipod Classic has got a great user interface, great sound, and a lot of space.

Not sure how AAC compares to MP3, but I use Lame 3.98 V0 VBR files and I couldn't differentiate between those and FLAC in an ABX test. I'm sure AAC VBR files sound just as good, so you could even get away with that.

 

[krmathis]

I would keep the iPod touch and go Apple Lossless.
No need to bring your entire music collection with you, and since sound quality is important you should not compromise with lossy audio.

 

[azncookiecutter]

Rip all your CDs in VBR mp3 first, and give them a try. If they still don't sound as good as you need them, then another DAP. Why mp3? Allows you the flexibility to move onto whatever player you want in the future. Or even better, rip them in lossless, and transcode as required.

 

[roadwarrior]

Hi,

First of all many thanks for all the response so far, many angles I have not thought of.

Just to cover a few points,

It is not that I particulaly want my whole music collection on a player but it just happens, when I first bought the touch I put about 6gb on, the rest has crept on over time. Listen to one album decide you want to listen to 3 more etc. etc. I once had an LP collection, I now have CD collection, I cant help myself end up with an "IPOD/MP3/Album" collection".

Some of you are very keen on still using mp3. Why is this? it is well documented AAC and WMA gives more sound per kb or am I missing something here?

I have 3496 tracks to be exact is that viable in lossless on a classic?

I do like the idea of the sony X but I just feel it would be tight with 32gb. do they have a 64gb one round the corner.

 

[Jack Mono]

We already talked about this in an other thread but I'd like to bring it up here again.

MP3 vs. AAC vs. LOSSLESS

In my opinion AAC is superior to MP3 as MP3 is simply a decade older compression format. AAC had been created to replace MP3 and remedy its flaws, hence its name Advanced Audio Codec. At the same bitrate there is no comparison, lame or not.

Also the "LOSSLESS" name is misleading! Digital music is never ever lossless. It is about the bitrate and the method of compression. WAV files are 1410 kbps and they don't use compression, don't leave out any part of the music. However the high bitrate number is misleading. Entering LOSSLESS formats which simply compress the size of the physical WAV file to an average of 750 kbps file. This file still linear in a sense that none of the features of the human hearing had been introduced to it, meaning it's just a linear sound file having the same amount of data in every spectrum from 20-20 000 Hertz. Lossy formats are carefully designed around the human hearing and use heavy compression. So the difference between a 360 or 400 AAC and its LOSSLESS counterpart is much less than 400kbs and 750 kbps. It is practically identical. You can hear it? Fine, but just because it is called LOSSLESS you should not fool yourself to use twice as big a file on a portable believing you have twice the SQ... until it is an issue at all, I mean having not enough space.

 

[roadwarrior]

Thanks Jacks Mono.

Ipod classic 160gb sounding favourite. music ripped as high as I can go?

 

[BBY03evo]

Lossless is around 1000-1100kbps.

 

[estreeter]

Jack, this argument has raged on God-knows-how-many-forums and will continue to rage on many more, but until I get down to the last few GB on any of my players, I will continue to simply transfer the WAV files of my favourite tunes (not the entire album, just the tunes I like) onto my players. Classical and concept albums are a little more challenging, as you need to keep albums in their entirety, but I dont have a massive number of either.

End of the day, its personal choice. I'd rather have 500 WAV files (I havent counted them) that I enjoy listening to than several thousand iTunes downloads (still have these on my old Touch, from back when it was 128K default bitrate ...).