[solofx7]

I am listening to my music on very good quality Bose Headphones or earbuds and also in my car on very good amplified car speakers.
My question is what encoding format is best if I want to lose the least quality?
Size is not the most important factor.
At this point it is quality.
Roughly How big of a difference is there in quality between the formats?
I think that I am in for another big encoding.

[macintologist]

If size doesn't matter then do Apple Lossless then you'll never have to re-rip anything ever again

[solofx7]

how big are apple lossless files in comparison to mp3 or AAC?
i am trying to gauge size vs quality...

[mduell]

Apple Lossless is one of the larger lossless codecs; about 450MB for a full CD, although it varies widely.

MP3 and AAC can be anywhere from 17MB (32kbps) to 170MB (320kbps) for a full CD depending on what quality you choose; for most people the best point is about 105MB per CD for MP3 and 70MB per CD for AAC.

[Veltliner]

Use AIFF encoding in 24 bit. This is the same quality as a CD.

If you are into quality, avoid any form of compression, as good as it may be. There will always be some kind of a loss - even in lossless.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Use AIFF encoding in 24 bit. This is the same quality as a CD.

If you are into quality, avoid any form of compression, as good as it may be. There will always be some kind of a loss - even in lossless.

You don't understand what a lossless codec is. It's like zipping the aiff, except better tuned for music (usually) and more convenient to play back.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by mduell 

You don't understand what a lossless codec is. It's like zipping the aiff, except better tuned for music (usually) and more convenient to play back.

You are banging your head too much against walls, mduell.

I am not a recording engineer, and you aren't either, obviously.

If lossless would be better than AIFF, there would be no reason to issue CDs in AIFF.

In future, if you are of a different opinion, try courtesy. You will still get your message across - even better I suppose.

Your rudeness makes you look like a loser.

[gooser]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

You are banging your head too much against walls, mduell.

I am not a recording engineer, and you aren't either, obviously.

If lossless would be better than AIFF, there would be no reason to issue CDs in AIFF.

In future, if you are of a different opinion, try courtesy. You will still get your message across - even better I suppose.

Your rudeness makes you look like a loser.

what the hell's this about? anyway perfect sound will never be achieved in a moving car with the engine running. ANY CAR! there, there now.

[Tomchu]

The reason CDs are not in a compressed lossless format is because the logic/programming/algorithms required to decompress the lossless audio would not only complexify the whole CD playing process, but also make the equipment more expensive. As it is now, regular CDs are simply the "raw" sound in a digital format without any compression -- hence, easy and cheap to play back.

Try telling the designers of the CD standard back in the 80's about lossless compression.

[Veltliner]

So, the answer to the original poster, solofx7, would be: burn it in AIFF, because you can play it anywhere and on any equipment, that plays a CD. And it is also the best quality.

Thanks, Tomchu.

Tomchu, what about SACDs? What compression format is that?

[wulf]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

So, the answer to the original poster, solofx7, would be: burn it in AIFF, because you can play it anywhere and on any equipment, that plays a CD. And it is also the best quality.

solofx asked: "what encoding format is best if I want to lose the least quality?" And the topic subject specifies "between AAC, MP3, Lossless?".

Therefore the answer is: encode in Lossless.

I can't think of a single good, practical reason to keep your music in AIFF (except in your CD collection, obviously). Lossless codecs retain exactly the same information (and thus quality), bit-for-bit.

If you have iTunes you can always burn Apple Lossless back to CD at full quality anyway; why would anyone waste the extra space?

[f1000]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

If lossless would be better than AIFF, there would be no reason to issue CDs in AIFF.

Compression doesn't always cause loss. Lossless compression is just that: lossless. There is no loss of information in a lossless compressed file. The file could be decompressed and its data matched bit for bit with the original file.

This is not true for lossy compression. In order to achieve higher compression, lossy formats throw out some information deemed insignificant to human audio perception. Such files can't be uncompressed and matched bit for bit with the original file.

So why weren't CD's losslessly compressed? Read Tomchu's post.

AIFF is probably not the best format to store files in anymore simply because many of us never use a CD player. Hard drive storage isn't free, so it makes sense to store CD's in ALE. I should note, though, that the old shuffle (and the new one too?) can't play back ALE files, so if the original poster must use a shuffle, it might be worthwhile for him to store them in WAV format. Frankly, I'd just get a Nano and stick with ALE.

Why don't we all wait until tomorrow to see what new paradigm shift Jobs has up his sleeve before giving out more advice?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

You are banging your head too much against walls, mduell.

I am not a recording engineer, and you aren't either, obviously.

If lossless would be better than AIFF, there would be no reason to issue CDs in AIFF.

In future, if you are of a different opinion, try courtesy. You will still get your message across - even better I suppose.

Your rudeness makes you look like a loser.

If you take a 700MB aiff (or wav) file and zip it, the result will probably be about a 600MB zip file. If you then unzip it, the file you get back is bit-for-bit identical to the original. This is like lossless encoding: you get a smaller file size, and you can recover all of the original information. Apple Lossless, FLAC, etc are essentially the same idea, except with compression algorithms designed for audio and the applications are designed to unzip and play without leaving the intermediate file around on your disk.

CDs don't use any compression in order to reduce the cost/complexity of decoding them, among other things.

Your ignorance... I won't go there.

[Veltliner]

Mduell, you're too ignorant to know what true ignorance is.

If you loosened up, maybe you could get into the position to actually be able to afford the powerbook you are dreaming of.

[Veltliner]

Wulf and f1000, thanks for the information.

Posts like yours really inform, and tomchu's, too, and are the reason why people go to message boards.

I was really speaking from the perspective of a CD collection and playback ability. I play back most music on a traditional HiFi.

Well, I learnt something about compression. I have more to do with video, and there the compression standards improve, but I don´t know of any lossless, especially in color space.

Now let's see what new formats will show up in future.

[mduell]

Next time you could do some research after being corrected, rather than making personal attacks: Category:Lossless compression algorithms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

You are banging your head too much against walls, mduell.

I am not a recording engineer, and you aren't either, obviously.

Well hey, I'm an ex producer. And an ex professor of music technology.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Use AIFF encoding in 24 bit. This is the same quality as a CD.

No. Try 16 bit.

Mark is way more right than you are. Sorry dude but them's the facts.

[Veltliner]

Hi, doofy.

Sure, 16bit. There is no 24bit.

It wasn't about being right. Everybody says, one in a while, things that are not right.

It's just human.

It was the way I was told I was not right, that I did not like.

Anyway, thing is resolved.

Good luck to you all,

Veltliner

[Madrag]

yes there are 24 bit, and are used when in production, and then are downsampled to 16 bit for compatibility with the standards...
You can go way over 24 bit.

The CDs use 16 bit.

[Madrag]

to the OP:

That has been one of my concerns as well, since I record mny sessions, and would like o keep all, even the mistakes, and as it has been said already, storage isn't free...
I've tried several: zipping, MP3, AIF with some types of compression, etc...
I still haven't reached a final conclusion, but have been doing MP3 with 320Kbps. Let's see if I don't regret not having spent more money on storage...

[peeb]

There are some folks who are religious about sound quality, and good luck to them, they already know what format they like. For the rest of us, take a reference piece of music that you like, and encode it in a few different formats at a few different bitrates and compressions. Then listen to it, and see what the highest compression is that you can't hear the difference on. That's the best trade-off (for you) of quality and space.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Hi, doofy.

Sure, 16bit. There is no 24bit.

It wasn't about being right. Everybody says, one in a while, things that are not right.

It's just human.

It was the way I was told I was not right, that I did not like.

No worries.

[hempcamp]

I recommend Doug's AppleScripts Lossless-to-AAC Workflow.

Hard drive space is so cheap, it is worth keeping everything in Apple Lossless (or similar format like FLAC if you prefer), which is an EXACT copy of a CD, bit-perfect, with the added benefit of tags and artwork and all that cool stuff.

Then, use Doug's script to "downsample" a version to your iPod (or modify the script to downsample to another portable drive or even a second iTunes library) for portable use.

This is exclusively how I manage my music now. The CDs get kept on the shelves for reference (the liner notes) and backup. Hope this helps.

--Chris

[HouseSold]

Originally Posted by hempcamp 

I recommend Doug's AppleScripts Lossless-to-AAC Workflow.

Hard drive space is so cheap, it is worth keeping everything in Apple Lossless (or similar format like FLAC if you prefer), which is an EXACT copy of a CD, bit-perfect, with the added benefit of tags and artwork and all that cool stuff.

Then, use Doug's script to "downsample" a version to your iPod (or modify the script to downsample to another portable drive or even a second iTunes library) for portable use.

This is exclusively how I manage my music now. The CDs get kept on the shelves for reference (the liner notes) and backup. Hope this helps.

--Chris

What do you do to use iTunes you purchase to use elsewhere? ie: slideshow background music or to a CD for your kids.
I tried to use a song bought on iTunes for my family slides background in FotoMagico and it said in a message that the tracks will play silent if I burned them to a DVD. Something about DRM.

I only want to use it for family stuff.

How can I filter out the DRM to use at home?

[hempcamp]

Originally Posted by HouseSold 

What do you do to use iTunes you purchase to use elsewhere? ...
How can I filter out the DRM to use at home?

I'm only talking about ripping CDs or buying lossless music to begin with in my post above. As for iTunes Music Store DRM, I only buy stuff there every so often. I believe you burn it to a CD and rip it back to get rid of the DRM, but you lose some quality.

--Chris

[Demonhood]

be civil fellas.