IPOD and apple lossless

[docferdie]

Are there any IPOD owners on this forum? I just wanted to know if any of you have archived your CD collections onto your unit with the IPOD lossless codec

 

[Duffinator]

I don't have an iPod yet but it's on my list for Santa this year.

I have used iTunes to rip my entire CD collection, but I used the MP3 format at 192 kbps instead of the 128 that the AAC files get downloaded at. I decided to go with MP3 for greater compatibility not because I thought it sounded better. A lot has been written about the differences in sound between the two kbps rates so I won't go into it. But after the research I did and burning and listening to songs at the different rates using MP3, I felt the extra storage used was worth what was to my ear, a more dynamic range at 192. You can read more about AAC from it's creator at:

http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/techinf/aac/

When you download songs from iTunes you do not have an option on the bit rate, they are all AAC at 128 kbps.

I also plan on streaming my MP3's from my PC to my HT so again I wanted something that has greater compatibility, hence ripping using MP3 and not AAC.

 

[rgriffin25]

iPod Owner

I recently bacame an iPod owner! I have used iTunes for about a year now and I must say the two are an addictive combination. I generally use 192Kbp AAC encoding for all of my music. I would have to say I am having a hard time discerning any difference between it and Apple Lossless. (especially on the iPod)
I have compared the two on my HT as well, no verdict as of yet. The music I am doing the comparison with is Gustav Mahler Symphony 2 mvt. I. Later I will try a couple of other genres of music to see if there is a noticable difference.

I will have to say for now at least with the limitations of my 20GB iPod I will for the most part stay with AAC 192.

 

[docferdie]

I would have to say I am having a hard time discerning any difference between it and Apple Lossless. (especially on the iPod)
.

Do you think that is a reflection of the quality of the DAC on the IPOD? The reason I've stayed away from devices like the IPOD is the fact that I could pick out the compressed version from the PCM version especially if the track includes a lot of high frequency sounds. My el cheapo portable CD player still sounds better than an extigy playing a compressed version of the same song. I really got excited when I saw that apple was including a lossless codec in their machine but if it doesn't sound better than AAC then I guess I'll hold off on the $500 purchase.
Another question for Itunes users; can you buy Apple lossless tracks from Itunes? I find myself regularly buying CDs for 1 song and it would be great if I could spend 99 cents to get the actual CD track.

 

[rgriffin25]

Doc,

Have you listened to an iPod and compared it to other portable players? I must say I was pleasently surprised by how good it sounds. I have used mini-disc for several years and after I heard the iPod I made the switch. I really listen to a lot of classical music so clarity and depth are a couple of factors I listen for. I feel that the iPod does a good job on both, I also think the dynamic range is pretty good as well. I can also say that there is a noticable improvement when comparing AAC to MP3.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, I don't think at this time you can DL the Lossless format from the iTunes music store yet.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I think that there's a new 80 GB version of the Zen Nomad on the way (if it's not already out). The capacity is finally getting up there where soon I won't be able to resist buying one myself. I have little/no use for a portable, but it's a cool gadget. Plus, it would be great as a portable HD for PC use.

It would be cool to use a lossless encoder to archive my entire collection, but unfortunately that would still require 300-400 GB.

 

[MDS]

Disc space is cheap. In my opinion, it is best to save the WAV files and then transcode to any lossless format you want. WAV files are 'raw' data - essentially nothing more than linear pcm preceded by the wav header and will play now and forever in any device. That way, you never have to re-rip your cds and you can easily make any lossless format you want.

I currently have a 300GB Maxtor external hard-drive with 4800 WAV files from 496 cds and still have 80GB free. I then transcode to 192 kbps mp3 and save them on the computer I use as my media server.

 

[MDS]

Typo: I meant transcode to any lossy format you want.

 

[djoxygen]

It is unlikely Apple will sell you tracks in lossless format any time in the near future. The record labels would pull their licensing in a heartbeat.

That said, I'm not really happy with 128AAC, but I honestly can't tell the difference between an AIFF rip and a 320 mp3 of the same track. And that's on recording studio monitors. No way could I ever hear any diff on anything plugged into the iPod itself. I don't think the DAC is good enough, and the ear buds certainly aren't.

Personally, I don't look at the iTunes Music Store as a replacement for buying CDs, though. Just as a cheap way to get a track or two here and there.

 

[balloon thief]

I've backed up to apple lossless

I just finished backing up my entire cd collection to apple lossless - it came to well over 200g, which I keep on a FW800 drive so I can have my collection in the studio or at home. I have my mac attached to a MOTU828 and quested f5 monitors, so it makes sense to have my music in a decent format. I transcode the files to mp3 to play back on a 1st generation iPod (still on the first battery!), and even with bit rates over 192, there is a world of difference on both headphones and monitors. Apple Lossless sounds great to me, within the confines of CDs bitrates and sample rates.

Apple could have used FLAC or another Lossless compression, but they developed their own precisely so they could embed DRM into it, and thus open the door for selling it on iTunes. Record labels wouldn't have gone for it otherwise.

If you look at the extension on the file, you'll see that it is an .m4a - the same as an aac file. A protected one (from iTunes store) comes up as .m4p so I guess they could sell full-quality tracks as soon as they have the appropriate bandwidth and customers understnad it won't work over dial-up.

I like it.

 

[furrycute]

With harddrives getting really cheap, I would just keep all CDs backed up in wav format. However, the software you use to rip CDs makes a big difference. EAC generally gives you faithful rips.

I am up to the point where most of my CD collections are harddrives in wav format. I hardly bother with CD players anymore.

My next upgrade would be an external DAC to improve the sound quality.

 

[djoxygen]

Apple could have used FLAC or another Lossless compression, but they developed their own precisely so they could embed DRM into it, and thus open the door for selling it on iTunes. Record labels wouldn't have gone for it otherwise.

I think it would be sweet if they did. And I'd be first in line to start draining my bank account at the iTMS. The major labels are still thinking of themselves as manufacturers of widgets, though. As long as they continue to have that mindset, I believe they will resist legal online downloading of files that are truly exactly as good as the hardware version, not just a reasonable enough version for most casual listeners.

(Plus people have already cracked AAC DRM. Apple's lawyers have been playing Whack-a-Mole with their websites, but it's tough to stuff the genie back into that bottle.)

The real threat that Apple poses to the major labels, though, is complete irrelevance. Apple could be the record label of the future as they open up to more and more independents and individual artists. Most of what transpires behind closed doors between Steve and the majors certainly has more to do with politics and BS than with technology that is obviously already there.