It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
flac is pretty good
i like V0
Whatever happened to good old mp3.
quote:
Mr. Gainsborough impressed everyone with:
ape is shitflac is pretty good
i like V0
For iPod use, flac and ape are both pretty useless.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Damnati had this to say about dark elf butts:
iPod are pretty useless.
Depending on your ear, you'll want to adjust the min/max range.
Yeah, you know me.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Knight Rider:
I'm down with OGG.Yeah, you know me.
I lol'd.
But yeah, 320 MP3s will serve you fine. I'm honestly not how much difference you'll notice on the iPod after 256 anyway though. They don't have -the- best sound quality out there. But it really does come down to how good your ears are.
Also, iPods can support ape and flac if you use Rockbox.
quote:
Talonus got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Classical music is the genre that I'd say benefits the most from ripping in flac. If you're listening on an iPod you generally aren't caring about quality atn the time though, so a decent 320 MP3 should work.Also, iPods can support ape and flac if you use Rockbox.
Pity I can't use Rockbox on mine. It's one of the most recent generations of Nano and not supported at this point. I suppose I'll go with high bitrate mp3s.
In looking up the formats iPod supports, I see something called "Apple lossless". Anyone have any idea what this is and if there are converters/rippers for it?\
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Damnati postedPity I can't use Rockbox on mine. It's one of the most recent generations of Nano and not supported at this point. I suppose I'll go with high bitrate mp3s.
In looking up the formats iPod supports, I see something called "Apple lossless". Anyone have any idea what this is and if there are converters/rippers for it?\
It's Apple's Lossless codec, somewhat similar to Flac. Obviously, it's only supported by iPods and iTunes (probably any QuickTime-based player). I have no idea what kind of compression ratio you can get with it though.
You can rip directly to Apple Lossless through iTunes, or I *believe* you can encode tracks using iTunes if you want to rip them to wav using a separate program.
If you're *only* going to be using this on an iPod, you may want to think about AAC as well. It's a better lossy codec than mp3, so you'd be saving some space.
I have top of the range speakers and headphones and I can tell absolutely zero difference between an MP3 and an OGG or whatever the fuck at the same bitrates.
Is it all about filesize wang-waving or what?
quote:
Alidane thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
It's Apple's Lossless codec, somewhat similar to Flac. Obviously, it's only supported by iPods and iTunes (probably any QuickTime-based player). I have no idea what kind of compression ratio you can get with it though.You can rip directly to Apple Lossless through iTunes, or I *believe* you can encode tracks using iTunes if you want to rip them to wav using a separate program.
If you're *only* going to be using this on an iPod, you may want to think about AAC as well. It's a better lossy codec than mp3, so you'd be saving some space.
AAC is better than mp3? Aside from on my computer itself, my music will only be on my iPod, so that's fine by me. I'll take a look at how Apple Lossless compares to the size of high bitrate AAC.\
Direct experimentation offers the following file sizes:
Apple Lossless - 13,423k
320 kbps, 48,000khz AAC - 8,015k
320 kbps mp3 - 8,305k
In what ways is AAC better than MP3? Also, does AAC output with the M4A file extension on any program used to rip into that format or is that just iTunes idiosyncrasy? Damnati fucked around with this message on 01-22-2008 at 11:46 PM.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Damnati postedAAC is better than mp3? Aside from on my computer itself, my music will only be on my iPod, so that's fine by me. I'll take a look at how Apple Lossless compares to the size of high bitrate AAC.\
Direct experimentation offers the following file sizes:
Apple Lossless - 13,423k
320 kbps, 48,000khz AAC - 8,015k
320 kbps mp3 - 8,305kIn what ways is AAC better than MP3? Also, does AAC output with the M4A file extension on any program used to rip into that format or is that just iTunes idiosyncrasy?
According to hydrogenaudio, AAC offers equivalent quality to MP3 at lower bitrates. As usual, YMMV, but the couple times I've checked it out myself I've seen the same thing.
.m4a is actually an AAC file in an MP4 container, but aside from audio tracks, I've never run into anything that doesn't use the same.
320CBR is retarded--use 256VBR at the very least, and maybe try 192VBR AAC to tell if you can hear the difference.
quote:
Mortious postedYou people must have superhuman ears.
I have top of the range speakers and headphones and I can tell absolutely zero difference between an MP3 and an OGG or whatever the fuck at the same bitrates.
Is it all about filesize wang-waving or what?
Either your source is shit or you're fucking deaf.
Though ogg really shines at low bitrates, try listening to a speech-only file at like 32kbps and compare ogg/mp3.
quote:
Mortious attempted to be funny by writing:
You people must have superhuman ears.I have top of the range speakers and headphones and I can tell absolutely zero difference between an MP3 and an OGG or whatever the fuck at the same bitrates.
Is it all about filesize wang-waving or what?
If you're listening to something designed for radio (rock/pop) you often won't hear a difference. This can be greatly attributed to the loudness war; average encoding really doesn't cause any more damage than the basic production.
If you're listening to decent classical or electronic recordings that has been encoded improperly you should definitely notice a difference when compared to a proper encode. These two genres tend to be produced with full use of frequencies in mind and an improper encode should be noticeable pretty easily. If you can't notice it then you've blown out your ears.
Same thing here. The people like me who cant tell a difference in higher quality audio files, where the sound snobs look down their noses, despite the fact that they cant tell the fucking diff either.
Now, getting the same quality at a smaller filesize, makes sense. But arguing quality of sound on songs for your iPod... You're full of shit. You can spot a crappy rip, but all good rips sound alike.
quote:
Kaiote had this to say about Cuba:
I'm with Mort on this... MP3 is fine.
Some people claim to be able to hear a difference, but I think they just WANT to hear it.
So wine tasters just want to taste the minute differences in wines and are just blowing 300 dollars a bottle to want to taste something expensive?
It's definitely possible to hone your senses if you want to be a connoisseur of something. It doesn't take someone that does have that ability to realize that it's possible and it's ignorant to think that it isn't.
Hey, does anybody actually have an audio file with features that definitely would not be audible when encoded in mp3?
quote:
So quoth Alaan:
There was actually a study that showed that people enjoyed wine more if they knew it was more expensive. That was at brain level. Not just asking the people.
Your synopsis is a butchery of the study. It also doesn't contradict that certain wines are more complex and subtle than others and warrant both a higher cost and greater praise, even if the difference is only detectable by a professional taster.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Mr. Gainsborough gently hums:
So wine tasters just want to taste the minute differences in wines and are just blowing 300 dollars a bottle to want to taste something expensive?It's definitely possible to hone your senses if you want to be a connoisseur of something. It doesn't take someone that does have that ability to realize that it's possible and it's ignorant to think that it isn't.
There's a huge quality jump between an average $5 bottle of wine and an average $20 bottle of wine. There's another big quality jump at about the $50-$100 price point. At prices above that, it tends to be buyer beware in terms of what one is getting extra, and factors other than price impact the wine immensely, such as how it's been stored, since your more expensive wines aren't particularly accessible young. So identical $300 bottles of wine could be vastly different--from amazing and subtle to coarse crap--depending upon how carefully they've been stored and how they were decanted and served.
In short, you're mostly right, although our taste and smell senses are much, much more sensitive than our ears, and tie into the brain differently. The bottom line is that above a certain price/quality point, one pretty much needs instruments to tell the difference between audio systems, and as any engineer can tell you, analog is the only way to capture the true signal. 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Pirotess:
and as any engineer can tell you, analog is the only way to capture the true signal.
Vorbis fucked around with this message on 01-24-2008 at 03:57 PM.
That's why I can't wait til I'm a grown up and can afford big boy toys from McIntosh.
