[bowlofjokes]

I understand the lure of these portable players like an ipod. I have not used one or heard one. What type of compression is being used? It must hack the music in half. Maybe the compression options have changed from 4 years ago when I did a 5 way shoot out. (we)
We compared SACD, DVD-A, CD, Windows Media 9whatever they use, MP3
SACD was GREAT
DVD-A was in surround sound and seemed like a gimmick
CD sounded like a CD
WM- sounded better than MP3, but far worse than CD
MP3- sounded the worse
We A/B MP3 and CD back and forth. MP3 sounded like the top and bottom end had been completely removed. I'm talking tin can drums.

So, I've never stored music on the computer. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is. What is the sound quality? Is there some new compression that bring it back to life to at least CD quality? It can't be. You can't put bits. Can they? I wanna make sure I'm not missing anything by not having some Ipod, amp, dac set up. Ahhh S**T I'm jus

t grumpy cause I'm not finished with my first coffees

 

[PFRfan]

Compression does not have to equal the loss of information. It can mean a more efficient way of storing that information. FLAC, Windows Media Lossless, and Apple Lossless all cut WAV file sizes roughly in half without sacrificing ANY audio quality.

0000000000001100000
vs.
12x0,11,5x0

You see, the formula is used to extract the original code. It just takes processing power to "decode" it. This is the basic idea of any compression technique - WinZip or whatever.

A "lossy" compression is what you were referring to, though. MP3, WMA, Ogg are lossy, but how much information is lost is determined by the user. I have my entire library ripped to FLAC (which is lossless) for archival purposes, and then the whole thing also converted to MP3 using the APE setting (about 250kbps) for use with my portable, my laptop, streaming to my Roku Soundbridge.

If you did a comparison a few years ago and don't remember any more details than you've provided here, then I'm going to guess that your tests were done using MP3 at either 96kbps or 128kbps. Yeah - that stuff sounds horrible. And once you've compressed to a level like that, it's never going to get fixed. Using my ears and my gear, I am unable to distinguish between a 250kbps MP3 and an original CD. I CAN however tell the difference at 192kbps (it's HARD, but I can get it on cerntain songs). At 128kbps, there's no comparison.

The point is that just because you're compressing, it doesn't mean you have to be losing information. And if you are losing information, it doesn't have to be enough for you to be able to tell the difference. The trick is having good enough gear to test it with, and then doing an proper blind test to figure out what level is acceptable to you.

 

[blessingx]

What bitrates did you test? The maximum of the lossys? As you have control of the compression it's hard to directly compare to the lack of control of Redbook, etc.

The fact that WMA sounded better than MP3 may be a sign something is wrong or at least low bitrates were used. Which MP3 encoder did you use?

Have things changed in the last four years? Kinda. First your lossy options should now include AAC and Vorbis. Like WMA they're newer than MP3, but are significantly better than WMA depending on the bitrates discussed.

Finally while the option was there for lossless back then, that has now expanded greatly. FLAC, Apple Lossless, Monkey's Audio, WMA Lossless, etc. gives you CD quality at about 60% the file size. You can get rid of bits without sound quality loss. Players like the Apple iPod, Rio Karma and iAudio X5 gives you this option. Many others allow WAV (uncompressed playback).

But that's only the codec support. Are the portables DAC, etc. up to the task of lossless? That's often debated here. As is if the battery hit, loss of storage space is worth it for a portable environment where ambient noise is likely.

 

[bowlofjokes]

I'll been researching this itunes. I know I'm way behind the times. I see there are a number of different compression options. If I want the best sound quality which one should I choose? Or is there something better than itunes to store audio. Talking sound quality. I'm trying to catch up with the times. I want this to be good!

 

[nikongod]

if you want the best sounds possible with no wuestions go in this order:
wav
lossless, lossless formulae vairy, you pick
high grade mp3.

i personally can thear the diference between a mp3 at vbr, average 250kbps and the cd that the music came on. i cant hear the difeence from lower grade mp3's either, i just like to be sure... most people have similar results to that.

 

[Girdag]

Quote:

Or is there something better than itunes to store audio.

EAC

Exact Audio Copy

Does exactly what it says on the tin.

 

[Oliver :)]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowlofjokes I'll been researching this itunes. I know I'm way behind the times. I see there are a number of different compression options. If I want the best sound quality which one should I choose? Or is there something better than itunes to store audio. Talking sound quality. I'm trying to catch up with the times. I want this to be good!

iTunes is most convenient and has only very few drawbacks, volume equalization being one of them. If harddrive-space is absolutely not an issue (you want a big, Big, BIG external drive, with FireWire if your computer has it) go for AIFF format (same as WAV, but offers tags). AIFF is uncompressed. This is if you want to be totally paranoid. Otherwise you can use AppleLossless Encoder (ALAC) which should reduce the files to 60%, thereby saving a lot of space, and it still sounds the same. Everything that is not uncompressed or losslessly compressed will mean lost soundquality. From what you write I read you are like me and cannot bear the mere thought of that. So forgoe any lossy compression. It saves space, but it comes with a nagging feeling in the back of your conscience.

 

[mister__big]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowlofjokes I have not used one or heard one... It must hack the music in half.

Please, do yourself a favor and just encode your CDs into various bitrates MP3 and/or AAC and listen for yourself before you jump to any asinine conclusions. Music quality is subjective and what sounds great to one person may sound like nails-on-chalkboard to another. You will never get a definitive answer to your question (how compressed music sounds) so you might as well find out for yourself.

 

[LFC_SL]

At 1st I thought this'd be another thread on how lossless or whatever beats compression etc. How Philips engineers compromised on SQ originally when they used the CD format anyway.

It is. Except this time the person who started the thread has never heard or experimented with compression, not to the fullest but at least extensively, to make a intelligent argument.

But to have a casual encounter with compression (not to mention not being able to even say at what format & bitrate) then make an all inclusive comment is ill advised as those who read this and can't be bothered reading after the 1st post will be mis-led.

Then I thought the thread would become an advice thread from above creator. But no, they have never heard of iTunes and they want advice. Geez.

Google for Hydrogenaudio

 

[bowlofjokes]

when we used the WMF and MP3 it was just as a joke, just for fun, We we're really just comparing the SACD vs DVD-Audio. So I'm taliking 2000 or 2001. This is before they we're really released to the mainstream..if that has even happened yet (depend on who you ask). BUT. I burned a couple things into Itunes using the AAC encoder. That was before I read to use the lossless. I'm
not really trying to start trouble I just wanna figure this stuff. I became confused with all the options Itunes gives. So I come here to ask what's up. I became interested when i joined here last week and saw that alot of people have ipods running into amps and DAC's. I don't wanna miss out

 

[blessingx]

Well no one I know has an iPod running to a DAC.

Take an album and try a few settings. Maybe ALAC (Apple Lossless), 128 AAC and 224 AAC and install a LAME MP3 front end (can interface with iTunes if on a Mac) and with it "--alt-preset standard" and "--alt-preset insane". Also give Ogg Vorbis a try. There are other settings, but these would be good to triangulate.

 

[bowlofjokes]

well maybe not the ipod....whats the evil grin for....no portable players..what about that bithead and amps with usb connections. someplayer is able to do it. Thanks for the decoding of the encoding names in itunes

 

[blessingx]

Just joking. The old iRiver 140 (why they go for so high on eBay, etc.) had an optical out. Otherwise the best you can do from a dedicated MP3 player is line out (and majority don't even have that). A DAC won't do much good. Course as you mentioned there are various options for a laptop, etc.

 

[philodox]

If you decide to go with MP3 [I would for compatibility reasons], take a look at www.bestmp3guide.com

This guide will explain how to properly rip high quality MP3 files. They will likely sound _quite_ a bit better than the ones you AB'ed in the past.