[bigshot]

iTunes will accept WAV and AIFF, Audacity too.

 

[Mintz]

What I was saying is, MP3 from master recording vs. wav file burned to CD then coverted to AAC. My assumption was if AAC > MP3, and if burning a wav file to a CD is essentially the same, then wav from master recording burnt to CD then coverted to AAC is > MP3 from master recording.

I re-read what I wrote and it sounds confusing. What I meant was Master recording converted to MP3 @ 320kbps vs. wav file of master recording burned to CD then converted to AAC @ 320kbps. I wasn't aware you could directly go from a wav file to AAC, which is why I thought you needed to burn it to a CD first. Basically my question doesn't matter at this point so you can disregard.

 

[bigshot]

AAC 320, MP3 LAME 320, and WAV should all sound the same if the mastering is the same.

 

[VNandor]

I wasn't aware you could convert wav files to AAC directly. The only way I knew of doing that was burn it to a CD then rip it to AAC. How do you convert a wav file directly to AAC?

Well, there are several ways of doing that. I personally use foobar2000 to do it. I'm not sure if it can do it out of the box. You might need to download and install a separate component that enables foobar to do the conversion. Foobar gives you a nice, relatively easy to use user interface that lets you configure plenty of the encoder's settings. If this sounds complicated I could try and give you a more step-by-step guide.

Downloading a whole music playback software might seem like an overkill but I can't think of any other programs that gives you a GUI for the conversion and I doubt that you would want to muck around with the command-line just to get some file conversions done.

 

[Ryokan]

Well, there are several ways of doing that. I personally use foobar2000 to do it. I'm not sure if it can do it out of the box. You might need to download and install a separate component that enables foobar to do the conversion. Foobar gives you a nice, relatively easy to use user interface that lets you configure plenty of the encoder's settings. If this sounds complicated I could try and give you a more step-by-step guide.

Downloading a whole music playback software might seem like an overkill but I can't think of any other programs that gives you a GUI for the conversion and I doubt that you would want to muck around with the command-line just to get some file conversions done.

I needed to download Lame exe. to be able to convert music using Foobar.

 

[old tech]

maybe the internal storage isnt cheap but sd cards are, you can still get a lot of music into 1TB (around 1000-1500 songs i think), but yes having a very large flac library might be unsuitable

Yeah but he uses an inferior Apple mobile phone which even in 2023, doesn't allow SD cards to expand storage. It's another way that company sucks in consumers by forcing an expensive upsell to a mobile with more capacity, which still isn't enough.

 

[VNandor]

I needed to download Lame exe. to be able to convert music using Foobar.

I just looked into it and it seems like I installed this encoder pack for foobar. I don't remember downloading the libraries one by one yet I have a lot of options for encoding so that must be it. I think the installer handles everything that's needed by foobar for the encoding and that includes downloading the libraries as well. It looks like I didn't even have to point foobar to the libraries.

 

[bigshot]

I've got an SD card reader for my iPhone.

 

[Ryokan]

I just looked into it and it seems like I installed this encoder pack for foobar. I don't remember downloading the libraries one by one yet I have a lot of options for encoding so that must be it. I think the installer handles everything that's needed by foobar for the encoding and that includes downloading the libraries as well. It looks like I didn't even have to point foobar to the libraries.

Downloaded it but still had to select Lame on desktop to convert.

 

[VNandor]

Interesting. For me, the installer created a folder called encoders inside foobar's folder and lame.exe is there. I just did an mp3 conversion and it didn't ask me to point it to the exe.

 

[LisaShayBrown]

hmm i wanna throw in that i indeed hear a difference between flac and compression codecs so YMMV

objectively AAC seems superior to MP3, so check for yourself if you hear a difference, or just go with AAC if you dont wanna trust your gut and wanna go with compression codecs (and AAC & MP3 are your only options, opus might be a look worth too but AAC is more versatile with sampelrate)
if you check what sounds better, also throw flac in (flac is lossless compressed wav with 30% or so less size), personally i wouldnt sacrifice audio quality for a bit of storage, storage is cheap and you dont need to worry about audio quality

exactly. anyone who can't hear the difference between .wav or .flac and .mp3 96k should have their hearing checked (seriously).

 

[bigshot]

Anyone who thinks they can hear a difference between 320 LAME MP3 and FLAC hasn’t level matched and done their comparison blind. A sighted test is the only way someone might think that.

 

[gregorio]

anyone who can't hear the difference between .wav or .flac and .mp3 96k should have their hearing checked (seriously).

Anyone who makes unconnected/irrelevant arguments and insults should have their cognitive abilities checked (seriously)!

G

 

[71 dB]

exactly. anyone who can't hear the difference between .wav or .flac and .mp3 96k should have their hearing checked (seriously).

Perceptual data compression takes advantage of the limits of human hearing. We are not "supposed" to hear the loss of data in a 96 kbps mp3 file and indeed any person who hasn't trained his/her ears for audible consequences of lossy encoding will struggle to hear them, but on the other hand people such as yourself who have trained their ears will spot things in 96 kbps (stereo) mp3 files with ease.

For me personally, 192 kbps is the lower bitrate limit for mp3 files because I have somewhat analytic hearing, but I understand if for example 128 kbps or even 96 kbps is totally fine for some people who do not have analytic/trained hearing.

Also, even if we can hear a difference between A and B, how much does it matter? Are you saying you can't enjoy at all your all time favorite song at 96 kbps? I certainly can! Damn, I enjoyed my favorite songs back in the day recorded on a C-cassette from noisy FM radio station with a cheap boombox! (lots of noise, distortion, wow/flutter and frequency response was limited to 10 kHz!) Compared to that, 96 kbps mp3s are super-good quality!

It is sad when your self-esteem hinges on the bitrate of your music collection...

 

[LisaShayBrown]

Perceptual data compression takes advantage of the limits of human hearing. We are not "supposed" to hear the loss of data in a 96 kbps mp3 file and indeed any person who hasn't trained his/her ears for audible consequences of lossy encoding will struggle to hear them, but on the other hand people such as yourself who have trained their ears will spot things in 96 kbps (stereo) mp3 files with ease.

For me personally, 192 kbps is the lower bitrate limit for mp3 files because I have somewhat analytic hearing, but I understand if for example 128 kbps or even 96 kbps is totally fine for some people who do not have analytic/trained hearing.

Also, even if we can hear a difference between A and B, how much does it matter? Are you saying you can't enjoy at all your all time favorite song at 96 kbps? I certainly can! Damn, I enjoyed my favorite songs back in the day recorded on a C-cassette from noisy FM radio station with a cheap boombox! (lots of noise, distortion, wow/flutter and frequency response was limited to 10 kHz!) Compared to that, 96 kbps mp3s are super-good quality!

It is sad when your self-esteem hinges on the bitrate of your music collection...

totally agreed and i think you raise a new very important point: enjoying music happens independent of its fidelity.

like you, i love the sound of a great cassette player (like a nakamichi) through an old tube receiver. i also love the sound through my super high-end stack. though it's taken a while to get used to it because the separation and staging is so good that it gives the brain a ton to process. i've had to learn to settle back and ignore the zillions of details and simply let my brain cohere it all into one powerful experience.