[Uisce]

Back in the day... way back in the day, I encoded my CD collection as mp3 at 128kbps. Now I want to go through the process of re-encoding my music at a higher quality rate, but I'm looking for the best bang for my buck.

I want to keep my files non-proprietary and keep my disk space reasonable. I've heard about iTunes LAME and its ability to record at variable bit rates. iTunes has no vbs built in, so should I go with the plug in for LAME or m4a at 192kbps?

Also, is there aything I should know about breakthroughs in encoding that I may want to hold out for?

Thanks for the info,

[Uisce]

PS - why does iTunes have an option for VBS if its greyed out?

[chabig]

VBR works for me. What version of iTunes are you running?

Chris

[tooki]

All versions of iTunes support VBR.

tooki

[Uisce]

This is on 10.3.9. iTunes 6.0.1 (3) On my XP machine, I can encode VBR, but only up to 192 kbps...

On my Mac, I have the descriptor "optimized for Velocity engine". On my XP machine, I have "optimized for MMX/SSE2".

Any clues on what that means?

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by Uisce

This is on 10.3.9. iTunes 6.0.1 (3) On my XP machine, I can encode VBR, but only up to 192 kbps...

On my Mac, I have the descriptor "optimized for Velocity engine". On my XP machine, I have "optimized for MMX/SSE2".

Any clues on what that means?

Those are just marketing terms to mean it runs better of a processor with a vector unit on it (G4 or G5), or some of the semi-new Pentiums (Not sure how far SSE2 goes back, but it's quite a ways I think)

[SpaceMonkey]

If if the AAC VBR option is greyed out, it probably means that you don't have the most recent version of Quicktime (iTunes uses Quicktime for its encoding). Update that, and it should work. iTunes MP3 has supported VBR for years.

Now, the basic question is first whether you want to use AAC or MP3. AFAIK, neither is any more or less proprietary than the other. If you have an iPod, and don't forsee buying another player any time soon, then you should use AAC. 160 kbps VBR is *probably* transparent for most people.

If you decide that you want to use MP3 instead, then using LAME (v. 3.97b1/b2) at the quality setting "-V 2 --vbr-new" will result in files that are transparent for *most* people. The bitrates for this setting usually average out to between 170 and 230 kbps, depending on the complexity of the music. iTunes-LAME doesn't include v. 3.97 by default, so you will want to download it from http://www.rarewares.org/mp3.html (scroll down to "Encoders/decoders built using LAME 3.97 beta 1" and download "For Mac OS X." Uncompressing this file gives you a Unix executable for this version of LAME. Assuming you have already installed iTunes-LAME, you can install LAME 3.97b1 by first going to the iTunes-LAME application in your ~/Library/iTunes/Scripts folder. Right-click on iTunes-LAME and select "Show Package Contents." Another window pops up with a folder labeled "Contents." Double-click on that, and then open the "Resources" folder. You will see a Unix executable called "lame." This is the earlier version of LAME that came with the iTunes-LAME plugin. Replace this executable with the one that you downloaded. iTunes-LAME will now encode with LAME v.3.97b1.

Installing the new version of LAME seems like a lot of trouble, but if you do decide to go with the MP3 format, LAME v.3.97b1 has a significant number of improvements. Most testing indicates that it will encode faster and with lower bitrates than similar-quality files from earlier LAME versions. And almost any version of LAME is better than iTunes' MP3 encoder.

Hope this helps.

[ghporter]

MP3 is more widely supported-it's maybe the most widely supported compressed music file format there is. I have been encoding all my CDs at 320 kbps, which theoretically is way beyond the original quality you can gete from a CD. In any case, my files are still tiny compared to the CD audio file size, and I have at least all the quality available from the CD-plus, any "loss" from the compression process is minimized by using this bitrate.

And I can always tell just by looking at the bitrate what I've encoded myself, and what I've bought...

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I have been encoding all my CDs at 320 kbps, which theoretically is way beyond the original quality you can gete from a CD.

What?

[homgran]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I have been encoding all my CDs at 320 kbps, which theoretically is way beyond the original quality you can gete from a CD. In any case, my files are still tiny compared to the CD audio file size, and I have at least all the quality available from the CD-plus, any "loss" from the compression process is minimized by using this bitrate.

I'm afraid you're misinformed. By definition, mp3 is a lossy form of compression - even at 320 kbps, you're still losing something from the original CD.

In fact, anyone considering encoding their music as 320 kbps mp3 might as well go for a lossless codec instead (such as the Apple Lossless Encoder that's bundled with iTunes), as they achieve only slightly larger file sizes without any loss of quality. And this means that you'll never have to re-rip your music, as you can losslessly transcode to a more efficient lossless codec in the future (if and when one becomes available).

Another problem with mp3 is that you will hear a slight gap between tracks (particularly evident on live recordings or albums in which the tracks "run into" one another). This is due to the mp3 spec, and is also the case with aac files (ogg vorbis, however, is a gapless codec). However, any lossless codecs (flac, shn, ape, ale, ...etc) are also gapless, since the original audio file is left intact. Note that iTunes frustratingly inserts its own half-second gap between tracks anyway, regardless of the codec used (even with cross-fading set to 0, there is still an "iTunes gap" - yes, there is!).

I'm not saying that everyone should go lossless, as file sizes are still rather large. What I am saying is that high bitrate (e.g. 320 kbps) mp3/aac files are effectively rendered redundant due to lossless encoders.


-Matt

[f1000]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I have been encoding all my CDs at 320 kbps, which theoretically is way beyond the original quality you can gete from a CD.

Hmmmm...

I think I understand what you were trying to say, but I have a feeling you're going to have to explain yourself better lest you incur the wrath of the audiophiles.

[ghporter]

The 'philes are often into equipment way too expensive for me-and way too capable for my hearing. I'm encoding songs just to listen to them on equipment where the loss involved is insignificant, so it's not a problem.

By encoding CDs at the highest bitrate available, I minimize the loss that's to be expected from any lossy encoding system while retaining the ability to use the resulting files on ANY MP3-capable player without having to reencode them first. This is only for use on portable players and my computers-I'm NOT encoding my CDs and then getting rid of the discs! Further, I use these files on equipment whose fidelity is, at best, "good," rather than "very good" or "excellent."

Any audiophile who thinks his iPod or Zen is up to the quality of his tube-based Macintosh amp (different company, but really good hardware) is out of his mind. Bill Machrone of PC Magazine (an audiophile if ever there was one) did a scientific study of the audio quality available from iPods with various types of earphones. Read his column about it here. Suffice to say that I'm not losing anything I'll notice by encoding my songs using MP3.

It comes down to realizing that between my ears and the portable hardware I use to listen to these songs, any loss in fidelity due to the encoding process is lost in translation. If I were encoding to archive my discs (something I expect to do when I have some of that mythical "time" stuff), I will most definitely use a lossless compression method.

[homgran]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Further, I use these files on equipment whose fidelity is, at best, "good," rather than "very good" or "excellent."

In that case, don't you think that 320 kbps is overkill? Why not use something in the 192-256 kbps range instead? From what you've said, you won't notice a drop in quality when playing through your computers or portables - and you'll also save yourself lots of disk space.


-Matt

[fisherKing]

for me it's like this:

a cd is a 3-dimensional experience.
an mp3 is like looking at a 2-dimensional rendering of the same music, but with 3-d glasses.

i encoded my cd library (mp3, 192kbp)s, and yeah, i hear the difference.

but it's ok...i've got ALL my music on my powerbook, and THAT rocks...

[chris v]

If you've been mostly happy with 128 k mp3 up until now, then 160 k AAc will be quite a step up, really.

I think for your average consumer, that's listening to an iPod on headphones, or in the car, 160K AAC or 192 mp3 is going to be just fine. If you're more discerning, and play things on a good home system, then 192 AAC or 256 mp3 really should do the trick, unless you're going to spend all day in front of a $10,000.00 stereo system, A/B-ing between CD and computer, squinting, and straining to find a difference so you can harp about it on the internet.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by homgran

In that case, don't you think that 320 kbps is overkill? Why not use something in the 192-256 kbps range instead? From what you've said, you won't notice a drop in quality when playing through your computers or portables - and you'll also save yourself lots of disk space.


-Matt

As I said, using the higher bitrate mitigates the loss so when I use these files with good (as opposed to great) quality listening equipment, I don't notice the loss. Besides, I have enough of an engineering background to like overkill in this area. I KNOW I'm operating well beyond the level I need to for the results I want, but that's the point.

[rjenkinson]

and disk space will only get cheaper.

-r.

[power142]

I encode my CDs using Apple Lossless to an external drive for reference purposes and in case a CD ever dies. I then convert them all to 192kbps VBR AAC which, most opinions I've seen else where is 'transparent' to the majority of ears. You could always try it out yourself - encode the same track at 128, 160 and 192 and see if you can tell the difference.

I'm not concerned about AAC being proprietary, in reality so is MP3, and I don't see Dolby being any better or worse, and it's not like other devices can't play AAC (it's the iTMS purchases that are the tricky ones).

[tooki]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Any audiophile who thinks his iPod or Zen is up to the quality of his tube-based Macintosh amp (different company, but really good hardware) is out of his mind.

You mean McIntosh?

tooki

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by homgran

In that case, don't you think that 320 kbps is overkill? Why not use something in the 192-256 kbps range instead? From what you've said, you won't notice a drop in quality when playing through your computers or portables - and you'll also save yourself lots of disk space.


-Matt

Or even better, one of the LAME mp3 VBR presets that are designed for transparency.

[siMac]

Originally Posted by power142

I'm not concerned about AAC being proprietary...

You shouldn't be. It's not.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by tooki

You mean McIntosh?

tooki

OUCH! Ya got me! It's been a LONG time since I've seen one... They do sound great, but they're VERY dear and they take a lot of tweaking for the room you set them up in; the sound interacts with the room, you see.

Yep, "McIntosh." My bad.

[wataru]

I've been perfectly happy with 128kbps AAC. I listen mostly on my iPod and on cheap Altec Lansing speakers.