[Duffy1207]

Most of my library is ripped at 320kbps AAC. My ipod video packed in the other day and I want to get a good chunk of my current 20GB library onto my 8GB N95. However, I don't want a signifigcant loss in quality.

Would converting to 192kbps AAC using iTunes produce files of worse quality than actually ripping the CD's at 192kbps?

I'm also considering a 16GB nano and would like to be able to fit the whole of my current library onto that with space for expansion afterwards.

 

[John E Woven]

It will be worse.

320 --> 192 is worse than lossless --> 192. I suggest ripping cd's in lossless, then you won't have any loss of quality no matter what you transcode to.

 

[Goratrix]

yes, transcoding is the worst you can do. the most practical solution is to re-rip everything in lossless and archive it, then you can encode it anytime in any quality you require in the future.

 

[Shoreman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by John E Woven /img/forum/go_quote.gif It will be worse. 320 --> 192 is worse than lossless --> 192. I suggest ripping cd's in lossless, then you won't have any loss of quality no matter what you transcode to.

Yes, clearly it would be worse, as you're transcoding from an already lossy format. Never a good thing.

Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you take him through an extra step? He's got the CDs, and therefore doesn't need a lossless copy at the moment. Just rip the CDs @192 AAC. If you want to go lossless in the future, you can easily do so.

 

[krmathis]

Yes, you will get worse result.
Since you then run the audio data through two stages of lossy compression.

 

[Duffy1207]

I know that 192kbps is obviously worse quality than 320, but I was asking weather to go through the hastle of re ripping everything rather than using itunes to convert it. Thanks for the help, I understand now.
I would go lossless if I had a big enough hard drive on my computer (I've only got 160gb, with about 30 free) , and a big enough capacity player to carry it all around.

 

[John E Woven]

It's worth the hassle of ripping your stuff in Lossless, then using another program to convert to your bitrate of choice for your player.

 

[Goratrix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoreman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you take him through an extra step? He's got the CDs, and therefore doesn't need a lossless copy at the moment. Just rip the CDs @192 AAC. If you want to go lossless in the future, you can easily do so.

because in a few months, he may decide he needs higher bitrate, or a different format, or whatever. if he already has a lossless rip, he can convert the files in a fraction of the time it would take him to re-rip.

I have ripped my collection (200+ CDs) with EAC into FLAC when I had some spare time. Re-ripping it again now would take me forever, whereas a convertion is as simple as dragging the files into foobar and letting the PC run for a few hours

 

[xxbaker]

x2 for convenience of ripping as lossless. for many people however, including the OP, space is a limiting factor for them making lossless rips decidedly inconvenient

 

[TheMarchingMule]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxbaker /img/forum/go_quote.gif x2 for convenience of ripping as lossless. for many people however, including the OP, space is a limiting factor for them making lossless rips decidedly inconvenient

Reagrdless, the OP must rip the music from the original source.