Skip to main content

Topic: iTunes Rip vs CD Rip (Read 5420 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Hi,

Can anyone advice me which is better?

1. AAC 256 kbps iTunes converted to mp3 320 CBR (using CD-DA extractor 16) (which increases file size of a normal song by almost 1-1.5 MB)

2. cd rip MP3 VBRV0 (Copied using EAC and then converted using LAME encoder)


I think that converting AAC 256 to MP3 320 CBR only increases bit rate and space and not quality.

What are your thoughts...?

Should I convert from FLAC to MP3 320 kbps using CD-DA extractor 16?

  • Anakunda
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #1
I think that converting AAC 256 to MP3 320 CBR only increases bit rate and space and not quality.

Sure it doesnot, actually it decreases quality (and increases size). This conversion is pointless unless you have playback problems on target device with iTunes files.

  • Nessuno
  • [*][*][*][*]
iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #2
I think that converting AAC 256 to MP3 320 CBR only increases bit rate and space and not quality.

What are your thoughts...?

Should I convert from FLAC to MP3 320 kbps using CD-DA extractor 16?

Transcoding from lossy to lossy decreases objective quality and that's a fact, not someone's thought. Anyway is still possible that the result sounds transparent to you against the source. If you're actually compelled to (are you?), just try yourself.

That said, of course the best thing to do, if you have the original CD is to rip it to FLAC and transcode to whatever suits your needs, as many times stated on this forum (feel free to use the search function up there on your right).

Edit: better said: rip to FLAC, save the resulting files and transcode from them to whatever suits your needs, each time your needs change!
  • Last Edit: 21 October, 2012, 02:55:41 PM by Nessuno
... I live by long distance.

iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #3
I think that converting AAC 256 to MP3 320 CBR only increases bit rate and space and not quality.

What are your thoughts...?

Should I convert from FLAC to MP3 320 kbps using CD-DA extractor 16?

Transcoding from lossy to lossy decreases objective quality and that's a fact, not someone's thought. Anyway is still possible that the result sounds transparent to you against the source. If you're actually compelled to (are you?), just try yourself.

That said, of course the best thing to do, if you have the original CD is to rip it to FLAC and transcode to whatever suits your needs, as many times stated on this forum (feel free to use the search function up there on your right).

Edit: better said: rip to FLAC, save the resulting files and transcode from them to whatever suits your needs, each time your needs change!


Thanks mate...I have read many things on this site. It is really a nice site.

Thanks...
I have Sony Walkman NWZ A845.

  • DVDdoug
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #4
Quote
1. AAC 256 kbps iTunes converted to mp3 320 CBR (using CD-DA extractor 16) (which increases file size of a normal song by almost 1-1.5 MB)
Bitrate is kilobits per second, so bitrate is directly related to file size.    There 8 bits in a byte, so by converting kilobits to magabytes  seconds to minutes (and with some rounding)  we get:

File Size in MB = (Bitrate in kbps x Playing Time in minutes) / 140

That will approximate the size of any audio or video file as long as you know the bitrate (or the average bitrate for a VBR file).




  • Apesbrain
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #5
I have Sony Walkman NWZ A845.

That player (like my E345) natively supports both AAC and MP3.  Non-DRM 256 kbps downloads from iTunes will play just fine without any conversion.

iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #6
I have Sony Walkman NWZ A845.

That player (like my E345) natively supports both AAC and MP3.  Non-DRM 256 kbps downloads from iTunes will play just fine without any conversion.

Yes, a short time ago, I found that it also plays AAC.

But, most of my music is in mp3. So, I thought to stick to mp3 as a standard and not switch to AAC.

  • Porcus
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #7
But, most of my music is in mp3. So, I thought to stick to mp3 as a standard and not switch to AAC.


Transcoding is really not a good idea. If you really need to do so, then I posted a couple of ideas: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=793391

  • Nessuno
  • [*][*][*][*]
iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #8
Yes, a short time ago, I found that it also plays AAC.

But, most of my music is in mp3. So, I thought to stick to mp3 as a standard and not switch to AAC.

This seems to me definitely NOT a good reason to loose something on the quality side even increasing the file dimension (thus defeating the very meaning of lossy compression!).
Plus, when you bought your player you paid also for AAC support!

Anyway, if  you really want to go this way, it's really unlikely that you'll perceive any difference between original AAC and transcoded MP3 if you use that player for casual listening in noisy environment.
... I live by long distance.

iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #9
Yes, a short time ago, I found that it also plays AAC.
But, most of my music is in mp3. So, I thought to stick to mp3 as a standard and not switch to AAC.

Well I don't care about the file format. I have a preference of AAC over MP3 but if I can buy an MP3 at 320 and only the AAC in 256 for the same price, I take the MP3. But I also bought stuff at 192 if higher quality costs too much.
One thing you should think about: When you listen to the music on your music play you will never will care what the original file format is (if the bitrate is higher than 128).

iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #10
Yes, a short time ago, I found that it also plays AAC.
But, most of my music is in mp3. So, I thought to stick to mp3 as a standard and not switch to AAC.

Well I don't care about the file format. I have a preference of AAC over MP3 but if I can buy an MP3 at 320 and only the AAC in 256 for the same price, I take the MP3. But I also bought stuff at 192 if higher quality costs too much.
One thing you should think about: When you listen to the music on your music play you will never will care what the original file format is (if the bitrate is higher than 128).


Thanks buddy...I always listen to songs at 320 in mp3, VBR or CBR.

But, in iTunes 256 kbps is the max, that too VBR

  • probedb
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #11
Thanks buddy...I always listen to songs at 320 in mp3, VBR or CBR.

But, in iTunes 256 kbps is the max, that too VBR


And...?? You honestly think you'd tell the difference?

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #12
In any case, it is not correct to state that iTunes is limited to 256 kbps: as I can verify from just this morning (though I came to my senses and chose LAME via XLD instead ) it offers 320 kbps as standard alongside the other usual per-frame bitrates.

The same numbers are also used misleadingly by iTunes, as by some other applications and users, to indicate levels of VBR, which brings me to another common misconception: the idea that there is such a thing as '[insert number here] VBR'. There is not; VBR targets quality, not bitrate, and any numbers you read in connection with VBR are merely rough estimates based on specific sets of material, which are under no obligation to be repeatable with your source files.

Especially nonsensical (and I'm speaking about this in general, not insulting you for repeating it!) is the idea of '320 kbps VBR' because (freeformat notwithstanding) 320 kbps is the maximal allowed bitrate and therefore cannot represent a mean bitrate, which is presumably what people dream of when quoting a number in reference to a level of VBR.

  • Nessuno
  • [*][*][*][*]
iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #13
In any case, it is not correct to state that iTunes is limited to 256 kbps: as I can verify from just this morning (though I came to my senses and chose LAME via XLD instead ) it offers 320 kbps as standard alongside the other usual per-frame bitrates.

Correct: in creating AAC VBR, the parameter to set is "quality" (ranging from 1 to 128), not bitrate and for example, setting it to 110 across my whole music library results in an average of about 256 kbps, but with single tracks value ranging from 80 to 314 kpbs.

So yes, using only bitrate as a simple metric to compare codecs is misleading.
... I live by long distance.

iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #14
Thanks buddy...I always listen to songs at 320 in mp3, VBR or CBR.

But, in iTunes 256 kbps is the max, that too VBR


And...?? You honestly think you'd tell the difference?


Actually, I didn't feel the difference when I converted the same ACC iTunes file to mp3 320 CBR and listened to both.
Is iTunes music 256 kbps VBR as my Walkman shows or is it 320 VBR.

  • Nessuno
  • [*][*][*][*]
iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #15
Actually, I didn't feel the difference when I converted the same ACC iTunes file to mp3 320 CBR and listened to both.

That was expected!
... I live by long distance.

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #16
Is iTunes music 256 kbps VBR as my Walkman shows or is it 320 VBR.

We have just explained that the answer to such a question is neither. Once again:

VBR does not correspond neatly to any of the usual per-frame bitrates. At best, a given VBR setting . . . for a given input file, for a given software version, for a given encoder, etc. . . . has a mean bitrate. This number is unlikely to coincide exactly with any of the standard single-frame bitrates. More importantly, it is neither a target of, nor relevant to, the process of VBR encoding.

The concept of “320 VBR” gains another layer of irrelevance in the context of MP3: 320 kbps is the maximal standard bitrate allowed by that format, and so, mathematically, a file with that bitrate cannot have any frames of lower bitrates and therefore cannot have a variable bitrate. (Yes, these statements exclude freeformat, but so do most things!)

As for your hypothetical file, how are we to know the settings with which it was created? You created it, after all . . . Which takes us to your Walkman: if it provides only estimates of the bitrate of such a file, and it sounds like it does so via a more crude method than computing the mean (e.g. simply reporting the bitrate of the first frame), then feel free to obtain a more accurate idea of the encoding parameters from somewhere else. iTunes itself reports the mean bitrate in the first pane of its “Get Info” box.
  • Last Edit: 24 October, 2012, 12:20:21 PM by db1989

iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #17
Is iTunes music 256 kbps VBR as my Walkman shows or is it 320 VBR.

We have just explained that the answer to such a question is neither. Once again:

VBR does not correspond neatly to any of the usual per-frame bitrates. At best, a given VBR setting . . . for a given input file, for a given software version, for a given encoder, etc. . . . has a mean bitrate. This number is unlikely to coincide exactly with any of the standard single-frame bitrates. More importantly, it is neither a target of, nor relevant to, the process of VBR encoding.

The concept of “320 VBR” gains another layer of irrelevance in the context of MP3: 320 kbps is the maximal standard bitrate allowed by that format, and so, mathematically, a file with that bitrate cannot have any frames of lower bitrates and therefore cannot have a variable bitrate. (Yes, these statements exclude freeformat, but so do most things!)

As for your hypothetical file, how are we to know the settings with which it was created? You created it, after all . . . Which takes us to your Walkman: if it provides only estimates of the bitrate of such a file, and it sounds like it does so via a more crude method than computing the mean (e.g. simply reporting the bitrate of the first frame), then feel free to obtain a more accurate idea of the encoding parameters from somewhere else. iTunes itself reports the mean bitrate in the first pane of its “Get Info” box.

Thanks db1989...


iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #18
Actually, I didn't feel the difference when I converted the same ACC iTunes file to mp3 320 CBR and listened to both.

That was expected!


I converted the song Rockstar by Reece Mastin from 256 AAC to 128 AAC, 128 MP3, 256 MP3 & 320 MP3.
I couldn't feel any difference in my Walkman... 

  • Kohlrabi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
iTunes Rip vs CD Rip
Reply #19
Actually, I didn't feel the difference when I converted the same ACC iTunes file to mp3 320 CBR and listened to both.

That was expected!


I converted the song Rockstar by Reece Mastin from 256 AAC to 128 AAC, 128 MP3, 256 MP3 & 320 MP3.
I couldn't feel any difference in my Walkman... 
That was expected, too. I hope you draw the correct conclusions from this discovery.
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.