Someone school me on sound quality (iTunes vs CD, etc)??

wutang512

Banned
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
1,918
Reputation
24
Daps
1,394
Reppin
210




So what bitrate is iTunes compressed in? 128 or 160 kbps?

And if you burn a mix CD from iTunes is it in CDQ or is it compressed down to 128 or 160 kbps?


itunes music that cost $1.29 is encoded in 256kbps AAC anything priced at .99 cents is encoded at 128kbps AAC

your still paying the same price or more for an album but lesser quality music.

Thats why I laugh at people who buy music from itunes your still losing even with those extra bonus tracks that you could download for free online somewhere.

I'm going to bestBuy tomorrow to buy Life is Good Deluxe Edition and will download any bonus tracks available online somewhere for free.
 

Tom

Banned
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
12,275
Reputation
-359
Daps
7,007
Reppin
They see me trolling, they hating.....
:wow: nah man are you serious :leostare: :huhldup:

you keep your hard drive at home / just use your built in hard drive for your computer

your phone / mp3 player is just a satellite for the files you have stored away

you could lose all the songs on your ipod and it wouldn't be a big deal you can just re-sync to your library

i feel u breh but I've heard stories of nikkas HDDs just straight up flatlining. I mean I haven't had it personally ever happen to me. (The PC I'm on now I've had since 03 and I've owned cpus since 98) but I do know a few cats it has happened to. I just don't feel safe putting my entire music/film collection onto a HDD. Especially important shyt.

Until they start making HDDs damage proof like the black box in airplanes I'm gonna still be burning cd/dvd backups
 

Zach Lowe

what up beck
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
9,276
Reputation
-1,975
Daps
18,103
i feel u breh but I've heard stories of nikkas HDDs just straight up flatlining. I mean I haven't had it personally ever happen to me. (The PC I'm on now I've had since 03 and I've owned cpus since 98) but I do know a few cats it has happened to. I just don't feel safe putting my entire music/film collection onto a HDD. Especially important shyt.

Until they start making HDDs damage proof like the black box in airplanes I'm gonna still be burning cd/dvd backups

oh aight that makes sense too then
there's too many disadvantages to that for me though
you gotta buy discs, they take up space, you might lose em, it takes time to burn them, etc
 

Hussein Fonzarelli

The Whitey Corp.
Joined
Jun 1, 2012
Messages
1,247
Reputation
20
Daps
571
iTunes are the shyt.


They act like total nazis yet all these fukkheads eat their shyt right up with zest.

I mean.....if they made that crap ass iTunes program even more retarded and only support 96 kbps because "its more syncable" and "enviromental" and stick some cool "96 HQ" vanity logo on it


All you schmucks would get it.



Amazing. Hitler would be proud as fukk.
 

FloorGeneral

I don't even know anymore...
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
9,521
Reputation
2,639
Daps
22,426
Reppin
Packerland
This topic again. My post may be a bit long as I really get into this stuff, so I apologize in advance. But If you read, I'm sure you'll learn something.

CD (a physical CD) = WAV = FLAC > 320 MP3 > iTunes AAC > MP3 lower than 256 kbps

Hmmm, depends on the person. There's alot of ppl out there (myself included) that think 320 is overkill. There's a reason that the Lame VBR encoder is so popular (and celebrated). Let's go to school right quick:

Music is very complex. We all know it's made up of bits of information. There are parts that require more bits than others. To make it simple, I'll use music vs. spoken word vs. silence as an example. Obviously, music would require more bits than spoken word, which would require more than silence (which should require none, but that's not possible when encoding). This is the exact reason ppl prefer uncompressed (or lossless) (WAV, AIFF, then into the lossless containers, mainly FLAC and ALAC). Uncompressed is exactly that: the sound file retains every bit, and you lose zero sound quality. Once you compress it (think MP3 and AAC, known as lossy files), you're taking bits away, thus losing sound quality along the way. The main (well, only really) drawback to lossless files is the size. FLAC and ALAC make it a bit more tolerable, but you're still talking 350-400mb for a 60 minute album.

One important thing about compressing, is it should only be done once. For example, ppl like to convert (known as transcoding) iTunes songs (AAC) into MP3 (because they're more comfortable with MP3's). That is a big time NO-NO. You should never, ever compress an already compressed file. You're losing even more bits of info, after already stripping a ton away the first time. Only time you should ever transcode is from lossless to lossy. Lossy to lossy, or lossy to lossless are, again, big time No-No's.

Now, let's talk about 320 vs. V0 (which is Lame's highest VBR switch, and now the scene standard). Again, I'll make it simple: let's take a last track of an album, which has the last track, then a hidden track after 3 minutes of silence. Ripped in 320, it's ripping every second of the song in 320, whether it needs it or not. That includes the 3 minutes of silence (which is pointless). However, when you use the V(#) switch (we'll say 0 (again, the highest switch) even though 2 still is popular), it rips each second only using what it calls for. Size comes into play here also, as obviously, a 10 minute track (just an example) encoded at 320 will be larger than a V(#) encoded file (sometimes considerably larger, depending on circumstances).

That is one big reason why 320 is basically overkill. There's a large amount of ppl that don't care, and prefer it over anything short of lossless. More power to 'em, but I'd personally take a V2 rip over 320, let alone V0.

As far as iTunes quality, that's another hotly debated topic amongst audiophiles (of which most here are not). What's really not debatable, is soundwise, AAC >>> MP3. AAC has been proven to retain a higher sound quality, at a lower bit rate than MP3's. For example, a 128 AAC would sound as good, if not better than a 192, or even 224 MP3. Most files in the iTunes store are 256. You may find a few (older stuff) here or there that are still stuck at 128, but those are few and far between.

Some ppl detest buying from the iTunes store though, and think that Apple does something with their AAC encoded files. It's possible, but I think they sound just fine, and most ppl (with their cheap headphones, and cheap CPU speakers), if put to a blind listening test, wouldn't know an iTunes file from a song straight off the CD. Doesn't mean that there isn't a difference, just means that most (not all) ppl's ears won't be able to tell the difference without expensive ass audio equipment.

Another thing that is VERY important is how to get the music off of the cd and onto your CPU (for instance, iTunes is NOT a good ripper, or MP3 encoder), but I'll stop now, as I just saw how much I typed :snoop: If anyone wants to know, I'll go into that a bit...just ask. Peace.
 

Zach Lowe

what up beck
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
9,276
Reputation
-1,975
Daps
18,103
ay bruh
u don't need to give us a thesis in this thread
my first post is all the OP needs
 

FloorGeneral

I don't even know anymore...
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
9,521
Reputation
2,639
Daps
22,426
Reppin
Packerland

Well, it depends if you're on a Mac or PC. This is why, for some ppl, .log's are so important when dealing with FLAC's. It tells you exactly what occurred when the CD was ripped.

If you're on a Mac, you want XLD, and EAC if you're on a PC. You wanna rip the CD as securely as possible (i.e. with the least amount of errors). No errors is of course what you want. iTunes is not a secure ripper at all, and the mp3 encoder is even worse. There is no way to verify (thru a log) what transpired while the CD was being ripped. It will most likely rip the CD even if there are errors, and you won't realize it until you listen and start hearing skips. Now if you're talking a brand new, or pristine CD, you could probably get away with it without too many worries, but even still, XLD or EAC is highly recommended (and a must for most audio freaks).

EAC is the gold standard. Been around forever, and has the best, most secure ripping engine. XLD is damn good too. It's improved greatly over the years. I have a Mac and use XLD most of the time, but sometimes (don't ask my why, no idea) I'll use EAC either thru Parallels on my Mac, or on one of the laptops.

It's also very important to set up either program correctly. There's a few different factors that go into this, and some settings that have to be tinkered with, but that's a whole nother topic as well. There's a torrent site I'm a part of that has a great guide to setting up each program that I can try to reproduce if you want.

The one thing iTunes does fine is encode to ALAC or AAC. Of course, this is a pain in the ass, seeing as it's ripper sucks. So, if you're taking it off the CD, and want to do it right, you'd have to use XLD/EAC to rip the CD, and if you're doing that, then you might as well just use that program to encode it straight to ALAC (well, XLD does, not 100% sure if EAC does it, but I'm sure you can DL a plug in for it). XLD's AAC encoder is pretty good too, as it uses the quicktime true vbr setting.

Of course, if you're DL'ing FLAC's online, this whole thing is unnecessary, as someone already ripped the files to FLAC. One thing I'm anal about is making sure there is atleast a log (and a cue is nice also) if I download a FLAC online. I hate the idea that I'm downloading a FLAC that's either ripped all wrong, or, worse, transcoded somehow. For instance, the other day, I downloaded a FLAC album that was a "scene rip", and 2 songs in the middle of the album skipped to hell :gag: There's a group out there now though that has started including both log's and cue's for their FLAC rips, which is awesome.
 

Icewatermetallik

TheEastisintheHouse
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
439
Reputation
50
Daps
1,094
The only problem is sometimes even when you choose not to buy off iTunes or Amazon music and you DL from one of the blog sites, they don't give you a choice of HOW you want to DL it.....everything is already encoded in either 128, 156, 192 and usually less likely 256 or 320.

So when you DL tracks from the blog sites, do you convert them to FLAC afterwards?
 

FloorGeneral

I don't even know anymore...
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
9,521
Reputation
2,639
Daps
22,426
Reppin
Packerland
The only problem is sometimes even when you choose not to buy off iTunes or Amazon music and you DL from one of the blog sites, they don't give you a choice of HOW you want to DL it.....everything is already encoded in either 128, 156, 192 and usually less likely 256 or 320.

So when you DL tracks from the blog sites, do you convert them to FLAC afterwards?

No, absolutely not. Like I said above, the only time you should convert is if the file is already a lossless file (WAV/AIFF/FLAC/ALAC). You can convert a lossless file to whatever you want, but converting a lossy file (AAC/MP3) to anything at all should be avoided at all costs.

iTunes and Amazon are both fine quality wise. Amazon encodes their stuff to either 256 MP3, or V0 MP3.
 

zoo

★★★★★
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
740
Reputation
140
Daps
1,131
I used to try to get EAC/LAME rips of as many albums off Boxden when that section was popping, now I just grab group rips and the occasional FLAC.

I remember a time when I didn't have a single non-group release on my HD, now webrips and iTunes releases are slowly taking over
 

315

#AAGang; formerly Selah
Supporter
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
28,285
Reputation
10,612
Daps
128,976
Reppin
Syracuse
No, absolutely not. Like I said above, the only time you should convert is if the file is already a lossless file (WAV/AIFF/FLAC/ALAC). You can convert a lossless file to whatever you want, but converting a lossy file (AAC/MP3) to anything at all should be avoided at all costs.

iTunes and Amazon are both fine quality wise. Amazon encodes their stuff to either 256 MP3, or V0 MP3.

Props on all the info
 
Top