[Honus]

I haven't had any experience with DAPs (using iriver slimx 350). Assuming the Lossless format produces the very best SQ, how many minutes of lossless material could one expect to get on the 4 gig Nano? Also, How much drive space will Lossless conversions eat on my PC?

Thanks much!

 

[blessingx]

Depends on the complexity of the music, so it's kinda hard to say. As a very rough approximation expect 350MB per album, so figure 13 albums plus or minus 2 on a 4GB nano. I haven't heard of any tests yet comparing battery life changes with ALAC files.

I'd highly recommend you test 192-224 VBR AAC against ALAC for a few albums before deciding... at least for your portable.

 

[calvinhobs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx I'd highly recommend you test 192-224 VBR AAC against ALAC for a few albums before deciding... at least for your portable.

What is VBR AAC??? Is it the best for mp3's out there in terms of sound quality??? I'm using LAME right now...

 

[davidd]

VBR AAC is Varible Bitrate AAC. AAC is a lossy format like mp3

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvinhobs What is VBR AAC??? Is it the best for mp3's out there in terms of sound quality??? I'm using LAME right now...

iTunes-encoded AAC has been shown to be equivalent or superior to LAME-encoded MP3 in scientifically robust blind studies, such as this one:
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multifo...8/results.html

That said, the difference is relatively minor, especially since LAME has gotten better. Of course, with the new VBR AAC, iTunes may have gotten better too. We'll have to wait for test results to see.

 

[mushu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy iTunes-encoded AAC has been shown to be superior to LAME-encoded MP3 in scientifically robust blind studies, such as this one: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multifo...8/results.html That said, the difference is relatively minor, especially since LAME has gotten better. Of course, with the new VBR AAC, iTunes may have gotten better too. We'll have to wait for test results to see.

MP3 is beaten by almost every format <128kb. I find LAME 256kb VBR to be stunning though, only a very slight difference compared to lossless. I haven't specifically done a blind test against AAC at the same bitrates, but MP3 shouldn't be ruled out.

 

[Big D]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy iTunes-encoded AAC has been shown to be equivalent or superior to LAME-encoded MP3 in scientifically robust blind studies, such as this one: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multifo...8/results.html That said, the difference is relatively minor, especially since LAME has gotten better. Of course, with the new VBR AAC, iTunes may have gotten better too. We'll have to wait for test results to see.

As someone who has done statistical analysis for medical research I'm not too impressed by the "science" of the quoted article. Didn't see any power calculation to see what numbers are required to obtain statistical significance and what range are the confidence intervals? Even if this research doesn't have an alpha or beta error the figures could only be applied to 128kbps. Also when doing these blind studies a control group of something lossless like FLAC should be incorporated to look for bias.

 

[calvinhobs]

Is LOSSLESS the best possible sound to get from a portable rig, next to wav files??? I'm using LAME at 320kbps on my X5 with Shure E4's and the sound is good. However, I know it could be better. On solo piano for instance, i can hear subtle nuances that aren't comming through to me...even just comparing to a portable CD player I can hear the difference. I just want the best possible sound...should I go with LOSSLESS?

If so, how/where do I get LOSSLESS???

 

[blessingx]

Something to be even less impressed by can be seen here.

It should be noted that he's probably not using LAME at it's best (alt presets not used), then again this was also before iTunes 5 implemented VBR AAC a week ago also. Not many argue LAME MP3 is better than QT/iTunes AAC, but many would argue the AAC sonic advantages don't outweight MP3s compatibility advantages. Personally I'm a fan of 224 AAC, but with the new VBR setting (actually ABR) I want to take a look at 192.

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvinhobs Is LOSSLESS the best possible sound to get from a portable rig, next to wav files???

Same as WAV. Your player supports FLAC, so give that a shot.

 

[Honus]

Depends on the complexity of the music, so it's kinda hard to say. As a very rough approximation expect 350MB per album, so figure 13 albums plus or minus 2 on a 4GB nano. I haven't heard of any tests yet comparing battery life changes with ALAC files.

That's a lot of harddrive space. Is there any hi-speed method used to copy CD directly to the Nano?

 

[calvinhobs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx Something to be even less impressed by can be seen here. It should be noted that he's probably not using LAME at it's best (alt presets not used), then again this was also before iTunes 5 implemented VBR AAC a week ago also. Not many argue LAME MP3 is better than QT/iTunes AAC, but many would argue the AAC sonic advantages don't outweight MP3s compatibility advantages. Personally I'm a fan of 224 AAC, but with the new VBR setting (actually ABR) I want to take a look at 192. Same as WAV. Your player supports FLAC, so give that a shot.

You're right, I don't know if I'm using LAME at its best. How can I change how I'm ripping music to make sure the alt presents are not being used??? I went to LAME and downloaded their program using their instructions so I'm not sure if that's right or not.

Also, how & where do I get the software to rip music to LOSSLESS?

 

[discord]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvinhobs Also, how & where do I get the software to rip music to LOSSLESS?

With itunes.

 

[Big D]

Quote:

Originally Posted by discord With itunes.

Good idea except Apple Lossless isn't going to work on an iaudio X5!!

Try using something like dBPoweramp which is simple to set up and will encode straight to FLAC.

 

[dave-g]

I've been down this road so many times on how I should rip my music for ipod/portable use. the problem is that every time I finish ripping them at one format something better comes along and sounds much better. about a year ago, I said screw it and just started ripping everything as AIFF uncompressed files. I went out and bought a 250 GB firewire 800 drive, then another... since I have close to 4000 cds (although I'm not going rip them all) I'm going to need a few more... but the point is, that I'm only going to do this once and not look back.

the nice thing about iTunes is that i can right click on a file and convert it to any format I specify in the import preference setting.

I know this isn't practical or desirable for everyone, but it sucks going back and importing music over and over again every year or two. now, I know that i'm not going to have to do it again... ahh...

 

[iamdone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave-g I've been down this road so many times on how I should rip my music for ipod/portable use. the problem is that every time I finish ripping them at one format something better comes along and sounds much better. about a year ago, I said screw it and just started ripping everything as AIFF uncompressed files. I went out and bought a 250 GB firewire 800 drive, then another... since I have close to 4000 cds (although I'm not going rip them all) I'm going to need a few more... but the point is, that I'm only going to do this once and not look back. the nice thing about iTunes is that i can right click on a file and convert it to any format I specify in the import preference setting. I know this isn't practical or desirable for everyone, but it sucks going back and importing music over and over again every year or two. now, I know that i'm not going to have to do it again... ahh...

You might as well convert it all to apple lossless and save about 40% space and still have the same sound quality. You can still convert it to any format, even back to AIFF without any loss of data or sound quality.