IPOD/MP3 users

[louped garouv]

do you use compressed formats?

if so, what bitrate is the majority of your music converted to?

[Storm]

do you use compressed formats?

if so, what bitrate is the majority of your music converted to?

I use 126 bit rate.

-Storm.

[hjames]

do you use compressed formats?

if so, what bitrate is the majority of your music converted to?

The majority of my music is at 320kbps rate - some is MP3, some is AAC.
Got it loaded in iTunes under OS X (external drive) then sync that with a new AppleTV (16,200 tunes, about 125 gigs worth).
My favorite 30 gigs (around 3100 songs) goes to the iPod, and some goes to Emma's 6 gig Aluminium iPod mini.

For serious listening I usually play CDs through the "stereo" - but sometimes its nice just to select a playlist through AppleTV and let that run in the background ... its a lot like a mixtape in the old days.

[SEAWOLF97]

I use 126 bit rate.

-Storm.

128 ?

I always use MP3 or Aac at 320 , the lower rates suck. I do use mini disk for "off the air" recording. Unsure of its rate, there is some loss, but its convenient.

[Storm]

128 ?

I always use MP3 or Aac at 320 , the lower rates suck. I do use mini disk for "off the air" recording. Unsure of its rate, there is some loss, but its convenient.

128, then. I stand corrected.

How do the lower rates suck?

I cannot tell a difference in the Ipod files compared to a CD -- and I am very technically oriented.

;)

Can anyone show graphs as to why Ipods suffer in comparison to CDs?

Or, is this the same debate as Reel to Reel Vs. Vinyl....Vinyl Vs. Cassette....Cassette Vs. CD?

-Storm.

[hjames]

Digital files are "sampled" versions of the original music - the higher the bit rate, the more frequent the sampling occurs, and generally, the higher the fidelity.

Higher rates mean larger files, and so less files will fit your player.
Smaller is better for amount of music - thats why Apple chose a default setting of 128 for the iTunes Music Store


If you don't hear the difference there is no reason to use a higher bitrate.

Its not for snob appeal, its to make YOU happy!

[Storm]

Digital files are "sampled" versions of the original music - the higher the bit rate, the more frequent the sampling occurs, and generally, the higher the fidelity.

Higher rates mean larger files, and so less files will fit your player.
Smaller is better for amount of music - thats why Apple chose a default setting of 128 for the iTunes Music Store


If you don't hear the difference there is no reason to use a higher bitrate.

By what do you mean - "sampled"?

They sound fine to me.

-Storm.

[Robh3606]

I cannot tell a difference in the Ipod files compared to a CD -- and I am very technically oriented.

;)


I am not sure what you mean??? You can hear the difference. The encoding leaves audible artifacts behind. It can also remove the lower level details. It will get the big stuff right and like all things the devil is in the details. Some encoders are much better than others. LAME is one of the best. You may want to look into VBR and ABR type files. These will give you higher resolution than fixed rate at 128k but with smaller file sizes than higher bitrate fixed rate files. Look for Razorlame. It's a control interface for the encoder and it comes with some very good presets.

Rob:)

[hjames]

By what do you mean - "sampled"?

They sound fine to me.

-Storm.

When I say "sampled", think of taking snapshots of the waveform of the music. The more often you take the snapshot, the closer you get to the original sound, (and the bigger your file gets). Thats the "bitrate" - the frequency of sampling ... 128kb per second, 256kbps, 320 kbps.

Generally, more is better, but the file get bigger and take up more space.

Like Robb says, with lower rates come less accurate sounds, differences between pitches and instruments get "smeared" or "blurred" - you loose detail, get distortion.

Itune has a setting in the preferences so you can set it to rip at a higher rate. I'm not sure what the feature is called in the Windows version, but like Robb says, there are also other software packages you can use to rip your CDs.

When I ran Windows 2000, I use to use an older version of WinAmp with an external Codec plugin. I'm sure Robh or someone can give you more details for using such Windows tools.

[Fred Sanford]

I have 4 ReQuest servers for MP3s, purely for portability/accessibility of files and ability to make playlists. When I started on this ReQuest quest, memory was expensive, and I started at 192, which was the lowest bitrate I could tolerate listening to. Once the prices came down a bit, I went up to 256 & then 320. Spoken-word I use VBR. The goal for me is great portability with reasonable sonic compromise.

Generally I keep one library as pop & rock ("Words"), one as jazz & classical (No Words), and one as music from the many bands I've been in or bands I've run sound for & recorded. The fourth server is either kept remotely at our lake house in PA, or kept here to perform backup duty (these servers have an auto-syncing function, even if you have them in separate places). I also have streaming access from two of my brothers' ReQuest servers.

This setup (when all properly configured) gives me access to all of my music from anywhere in the world that has internet access, and makes it easy for me to keep backups of all files. This is another point effecting the bitrate- upload speed. If I want to stream from my house to other places (office, other houses, I-Radio) I'd need either reasonably low bitrates or jack up the buffer settings since I have DSL here.

The servers respond to commands via IR, RF, RS232 or IP from my control systems (Crestron). They also each have video outputs to show on TV screens or touchpanels (think ATM screen-type interface) if desired.

There's also a total of 7 different audio streams from the 4 servers at any given time, so I can have different music playing in each room of the house...theoretically. Haven't finished setting that up yet.

je

[Fred Sanford]

When I say "sampled, think of taking snapsots of the waveform of the music. The more often you take a snapshot, the closer you get to the original sound, (and the bigger your file gets). Thats the "bitrate" - the frequency of sampling ... 128kb per second, 256kbps, 320 kbps.

Generally, more is better, but the file get bigger and take up more space.

Like Robb says, with lower rates come less accurate sounds, differences between pitches and instruments get "smeared" or "blurred" - you loose detail, get distortion.


I think some (many) MP3 encoders also try to conserve file-size space by compromising stereo information. Complex stereo information (reverbs, cymbals) get smeared horribly, and sharp transients like applause or solo percussion hits become a whole new thing entirely. Lots of folks don't even notice. Ecch.

je

[trueview]

way to go Fred...sounds like a killer setup

[Titanium Dome]

Well all recorded music is an approximation of the real thing. It seems here we're talking about the approximation (codec and samplig rate) of an approximation (the recording of music and the accuracy and engineering of the "master" and how it is represented in the bit rate of the final product).

So pardon me if I don't get too worked up about it. :p

Most 44.1 material I'll do at 192kbps/AAC or 256kbps/MP3. The 48 and 96 material I might take up to 320kbps/AAC. Some music that I really like will go Apple Lossless if the original has enough quality to deserve the space allocation.

Also, let's not forget that when we're listening to our iPods or MP3 players through 'phones or buds, unless you've got Bo's uber pricey headphones, you're not going to get the benefit of those extra bits anyway.

However, it is great to be able to take virtually my entire current playlist with me and plug into my remote systems (4430s, L7s, and L60Ts) and listen to it wherever I might be working that day. Sure beats a suitcase full of CDs.

[porschedpm]

.....However, it is great to be able to take virtually my entire current playlist with me and plug into my remote systems (4430s, L7s, and L60Ts) and listen to it wherever I might be working that day. Sure beats a suitcase full of CDs.

Just Like Titanium Dome I have several remote systems so rather than lug around a suicase full of CD's I just plug the iPod into whatever system is nearby. Because my iPod has virtually replaced my CD's, I've transferred all music at Apple Lossless, with the exception of the 20 or so songs that I downloaded from iTunes at 256. The 256 is acceptable but I can hear a slight audible difference, mostly in the dynamics of the music, between 256 and Apple Lossless. And because I'm playing the iPod through some high end systems, I want the music in the iPod to be as close to the original CD as possible. But Apple Lossless does burn up disc space. I could only fit about 1100 Apple Lossless songs onto my 40G iPod.

[JBLRaiser]

Just Like Titanium Dome I have several remote systems so rather than lug around a suicase full of CD's I just plug the iPod into whatever system is nearby. Because my iPod has virtually replaced my CD's, I've transferred all music at Apple Lossless, with the exception of the 20 or so songs that I downloaded from iTunes at 256. The 256 is acceptable but I can hear a slight audible difference, mostly in the dynamics of the music, between 256 and Apple Lossless. And because I'm playing the iPod through some high end systems, I want the music in the iPod to be as close to the original CD as possible. But Apple Lossless does burn up disc space. I could only fit about 1100 Apple Lossless songs onto my 40G iPod.

My, we have come a long way from a stack of 45's on the record players.:applaud:

[just4kinks]

I use 320 variable bitrate MP3 with LAME. I rip them with a tool called EAC. But even using higher bitrates, about 50% of MP3's will have annoying audible distortion. BTW I use Sony MDR-7506 studio monitors. If you listen with the earbuds, or in the car, then the distortion isn't so noticeable.

[SEAWOLF97]

My, we have come a long way from a stack of 45's on the record players.:applaud:

Heck , even my little nano holds 69 hours worth of music...wish the battery ran that long.
it's going to be a godsend on our overseas vacation this year...

[louped garouv]

those 7506 cans are pretty nice IMHO....

[boputnam]

You can hear the difference. :yes:


...unless you've got Bo's uber pricey headphones, you're not going to get the benefit of those extra bits anyway.:bs:, and ouch-a-roonie! There I was, minding my own earswax, and :bash: !!

:rotfl:

I actually have two pair of the Bose QuietComfort2 NC overears :moon:(one lives in my SR gear the other in my biz travel kit), and have a recent addition of the Sony MDR SA-5000 (these took months to get, and have the best drivers, smoothest and widest frequency response I've ever heard for any headphones, anywhere. Incredible soundstage / separation. I use these in the studio, mix downs and vocal tracking).

Besides in those, and in the IEM (Shure E5), I can certainly hear it on all of my systems. I'm with Rob. Just call me "Nipper"... :p

Anyway, the uploading music library suggestions? thread from 2004 is worth un-earthing here. Good discussion there, back-in-the-day... :yes:

[Akira]

This thread would have been sacreligious a few years ago!

The sample rate is less critical than the program used to encode. I use 192kbps variable/ACC. However, if you are ripping program material using something like itunes, you are getting an inferior product.
Dedicated professional programs like Pro Tools and Soundtrack Pro deliver a pristine product when converted at the same rate as convenience encoders.

[SEAWOLF97]

:yes:Besides in those, and in the IEM (Shure E5), I can certainly hear it on all of my systems. I'm with Rob. Just call me "Nipper"...

I have Shure E2C's and can hear it also , and they are no where near "top of the line"


I use 320 variable bitrate MP3 with LAME. I rip them with a tool called EAC. But even using higher bitrates, about 50% of MP3's will have annoying audible distortion. BTW I use Sony MDR-7506 studio monitors. If you listen with the earbuds, or in the car, then the distortion isn't so noticeable.

great IEM's are nearly as good as great cans....I discovered that my Sennheiser HD-580's are efficient enough to be driven by my nano to a reasonable level ...really nice combo for stationary listening

http://stereophile.com/headphones/1294senn/




How do the lower rates suck?

I cannot tell a difference in the Ipod files compared to a CD -- and I am very technically oriented.

-Storm.

well , since you are very technically oriented, it works a little like a digital photo....straight from your camera its about 3200 pixels wide...you can blow it up 8x or 10x and not lose too much....but if you reduce it to 600 pixels wide (less sampling) now you can only get detail in a 2x or 3x blowup.........the details aren't a present in a lower resolution (or bitrate) file.

Thats why you pay more money for higher detail (mega pixel) resolving camera setup (sensor and lens).

If you can't tell the difference between CD and iPod files...there are various possibilities.
Poor CD player
Inexperienced listener
Music of low quality..so that it makes no difference
etc..etc..



For bedroom - go to sleep listening ...the nano has a sleep timer, but you cant variate from "on your back" with phones.....so I port the nano into my Yamaha clock/CD receiver, it has 7 wpc output and I run it to a pair of Minimus 7's.....whole thing sounds pretty good for its purpose.

[Thom]

More than once I've seen someone who will pony up for "gold plated" speaker wires defend the quality of mp3 against CD. It's like a Color print against a 60 screen half tone. They don't get all that stuff in that small space by magic. If you blow a thumb nail up to 8X10 it sucks and if the music is two compressed and the system too good, same thing. Compressed means not all of the information is there people.
I still choke when I see a salesman useing FM to demo quality equipment(unless it's a tuner). There are so many reasons why not.