Your top 3 IEMs...what are they? why?
Jul 3, 2007 at 1:36 PM Post #33 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by oicdn /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Easy way to relate about how much space you gain with MP3 vs lossless.

You can only fit 20 songs on a CD in lossless. You can fit damn near 300 in 128K format, obviously depending on how long the songs are.

Lossless eats space like nobodys business. One CD ripped lossless takes up 700MB-800MB, that's almost 1 gig for ONE RIPPED CD. It's the main reason you hear many people here wanting to upgrade the HD on thier iPods.

That said, most people (I would say 90%) can't hear the difference between lossless and 192k MP3 unless in a critical listening environment. So, in the case of an iPod, you probably won't be in a critical listening environment, or be doing critical listening when listening on your iPod. So save your space, and rip to 192kb...320kb if you wanna be "safe".....

I would up the ante up to SuperFi 5. It's that much better, IMO. Or get UM1's. But who am I to talk, I dove right into UM2s for my 1st IEM.


It is true. Apple Lossless does take up a hell of a lot of space. But not that much. Last night i ripped a few CD's into iTunes. They all averaged 250-280MB. So with a 80GB iPod it's not that bad. Even if you plan to include podcasts and video clips.

That being said you do bring up a good point. Using a iPod, and in my case $100-150.00 US earphones, I probably couldn't tell the difference between lossless and 192 or 320kbps.

What settings would you suggest if I were to use either bitrate? Which encoder? Maybe I'll try 256kbps. The distortion I heard on the odd track was probably the cheap Apple earphones that came with the iPod. Does any one use them? Hmmm...
 
Jul 3, 2007 at 1:53 PM Post #34 of 65
If you want a happy medium rip at 256 vbr- that will be a good "sweet spot" so to speak. But be warned... like me, you will eventually wonder what Lossless will sound like and spend another weekend re-ripping. If you have the space on your computer do apple lossless and convert down for your ipod. As your gear gets better you will wish your stuff was lossless. That was my biggest lesson learned. Start high you can always convert down.
 
Jul 3, 2007 at 1:53 PM Post #35 of 65
Well of course the Atrio M5's will be more suited to hip-hop than the ER4P.
plainface.gif
 
Jul 3, 2007 at 2:04 PM Post #36 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pangaea /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If you want a happy medium rip at 256 vbr- that will be a good "sweet spot" so to speak. But be warned... like me, you will eventually wonder what Lossless will sound like and spend another weekend re-ripping. If you have the space on your computer do apple lossless and convert down for your ipod. As your gear gets better you will wish your stuff was lossless. That was my biggest lesson learned. Start high you can always convert down.


I might just try 256kbps. As I almost never listen to music from my PC. My itunes tracks will go directly to the iPod. So having Apple lossless files might not be for me. That and as the other poster mentioned unless you're listening critically I don't think either that you would hear the difference. Espectially if you don't have a second iPod to compare with.

But thanks for your input.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Jul 3, 2007 at 3:37 PM Post #37 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by CoppellStereo1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Whats up Oicdn, long time no talk


I don't get it....

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkDTSHD /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It is true. Apple Lossless does take up a hell of a lot of space. But not that much. Last night i ripped a few CD's into iTunes. They all averaged 250-280MB. So with a 80GB iPod it's not that bad. Even if you plan to include podcasts and video clips.

That being said you do bring up a good point. Using a iPod, and in my case $100-150.00 US earphones, I probably couldn't tell the difference between lossless and 192 or 320kbps.

What settings would you suggest if I were to use either bitrate? Which encoder? Maybe I'll try 256kbps. The distortion I heard on the odd track was probably the cheap Apple earphones that came with the iPod. Does any one use them? Hmmm...


Well, apple lossless IS a lossy file,cause as you can see, the size was shrunk down to smaller files. Compression was done.

If you're going to compress (which I suggest), do them at 192, and AAC format. You have better SQ in AAC format than every other lossy codec out there afaik. AAC is the standard that apple uses to compress music files....also, it's the format it's in when you DL songs from iTunes, and the native format that goes onto your iPod.
 
Jul 3, 2007 at 5:41 PM Post #38 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by oicdn /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I don't get it....



Well, apple lossless IS a lossy file,cause as you can see, the size was shrunk down to smaller files. Compression was done.

If you're going to compress (which I suggest), do them at 192, and AAC format. You have better SQ in AAC format than every other lossy codec out there afaik. AAC is the standard that apple uses to compress music files....also, it's the format it's in when you DL songs from iTunes, and the native format that goes onto your iPod.


I had it set to ACC and 256kbps. Is there any specific reason why you suggested 192?
 
Jul 3, 2007 at 7:10 PM Post #39 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkDTSHD /img/forum/go_quote.gif
What do you use with your iPod?


For spoken word podcasts, I use my Creative EP-630; for music, I use my Etymotic ER-6i.
etysmile.gif
 
Jul 4, 2007 at 2:26 AM Post #40 of 65
I just bought a pair of M5s for $130 US and had them shipped into Canada. Total cost at the post office ended up being $26 CAN, which included GST, PST, and a $8 handling fee. I didn't have any other taxes on them.

I could have saved $10 by having them shipped to me in Alberta (No PST), but I was visiting relatives at the time and had them shipped there. Depending on the iems you end up buying, you'll probably still save a bit.
 
Jul 4, 2007 at 2:45 AM Post #41 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkDTSHD /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I had it set to ACC and 256kbps. Is there any specific reason why you suggested 192?


You save quite a bit more space, and the difference is inaudible. I did a hardcore comparison between 256 and 192 with the same songs, source, volume and cans...I couldn't tell the difference. Cleared up quite a bit more space too....
 
Jul 4, 2007 at 4:16 AM Post #42 of 65
I do my encoding with AAC at 192 kbps vbr. I found that I could hear a slight difference from the original at 160, but 192 is virtually indistinguishable. Whatever bitrate you use, be sure to use vbr AAC. It's more of an average bit rate than anything, but I like to give the encoder some flexibility.
 
Jul 14, 2007 at 11:00 PM Post #43 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by oicdn /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Well, apple lossless IS a lossy file,cause as you can see, the size was shrunk down to smaller files. Compression was done.


Actually, ALAC is not lossy encoding. It does compress, but no detail is lost. For an example, say you have data like AAAABBBAACCCDDDDDDDD. This could be represented as A4B3A2C3D8, where each letter is followed by the number of times it appears in a row. No detail is lost, but the format that the details are represented in has changed. Likewise, most new lossless formats compress the original data (in the case of Audio CDs, Red Book files), but do so in a manner where the details are not lost. If you were thinking AAC is Apple Lossless, then you are correct in that AAC is a lossy format.

With regards to which format to store music in, I suggest using 192 kbps MP3 if you're going to be storing it on a portable device, and if you're just going to be keeping it on your computer, you might want to import using a lossless codec and then compress the files further using archiving formats like zip or tar.
 
Jul 14, 2007 at 11:40 PM Post #44 of 65
shure E2C, Senn CX300, Denon AH C700.

only because those are the only 3 ive owned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top