User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Apple Products »

What bitrate do you import your CDs into?


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
View Poll Results: What Bitrate do you import your songs at?
Under 128 kbps 2 1.65%
128 kbps 26 21.49%
160 kbps 14 11.57%
192 kbps 53 43.80%
256 kbps 8 6.61%
320 kbps 7 5.79%
Lossless 10 8.26%
Other 1 0.83%
Voters: 121. You may not vote on this poll

What bitrate do you import your CDs into?
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3  Next Thread Tools
sparky0106
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
 
2005-08-11, 15:22

a question for those of you who import their songs from their CDs... What bitrate and what audio format do ya'll use?

I like to use mp3 @ 192 kbps... I was thinking if i should raise it or not

So i was just wondering what you use.. thanks!
  quote
DMBand0026
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago
 
2005-08-11, 15:30

I use 160 AAC, I think AAC is slightly better than MP3, so that's what I use. I get about the same quality with 160 AAC as I would with 192 Mp3.

Come waste your time with me
  quote
Franz Josef
Passing by
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London, Europe
 
2005-08-11, 15:32

Lossless.
  quote
onlyafterdark
Sucker for shiny objects
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kitchener, ON
Send a message via AIM to onlyafterdark  
2005-08-11, 15:42

192 AAC
  quote
BenP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-08-11, 15:43

192 MP3. I have a lousy ear, though.
  quote
murbot
Mammogram Tech
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Canada
 
2005-08-11, 15:50

Lossless, on a FW drive, then I pack the CDs away in the basement. I then convert those lossless files to 192 MP3 for use on my computer and iPod mini.

I like MP3 because I can whip up an MP3 CD with tons of songs on it.
  quote
sparky0106
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
 
2005-08-11, 15:50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franz Josef
Lossless.

So how much music do you have? Do you have an iPod.. how much can you fit on it with everything in Lossless?


The main reason i use mp3 is because it's very versatile.. There are A LOT more players that play mp3 than AAC.. so if i ever have to switch from my iPod (i hope not) then i woulnd't have to re-encode everything
  quote
Mac+
9" monochrome
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: I'm here
 
2005-08-11, 15:56

Depends on the material ...

for general music: 192 AAC,
for favourite artists: Apple lossless,
for pristine or reference type recordings (Sheffield Lab, for example): I'm not averse to AIFF.
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2005-08-11, 16:04

192 aac. I'm in the process of re-rippping all my songs to this. I've got a pretty bad ear, but I enjoy my music so this is a nice compromise.

If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong.
  quote
Franz Josef
Passing by
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London, Europe
 
2005-08-11, 16:06

Quote:
Originally Posted by sparky0106
So how much music do you have? Do you have an iPod.. how much can you fit on it with everything in Lossless?
I use an old 40GB iPod with 970 tracks, 5GB. I use it for podcasts and audible novels / journals (HBR). The merit of the large harddrive is that you never worry about whether you'll have room. I need to put the rest of my CD collection on - it's a just a question of finding the time.
  quote
FFL
Fishhead Family Reunited
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Slightly Off Center
 
2005-08-11, 16:09

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlyafterdark
192 AAC
Ditto.
  quote
gjas15
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Colorado
 
2005-08-11, 16:36

Quote:
Originally Posted by torifile
192 aac. I'm in the process of re-rippping all my songs to this. I've got a pretty bad ear, but I enjoy my music so this is a nice compromise.
Ditto x2
  quote
SabRhund
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Athens, Georgia
 
2005-08-11, 16:40

So heres a spin off of the thread for the 'n00b' to the community.

I'm getting my PowerBook and my 60GB iPod in a few days, and I know nothing about any of this stuff. I plan on putting all 100+ CD's on my computer/iPod. What would you guys recommend, and why? Im assuming that lossless is the highest quality, but also takes up the most amount of space?

In a World without Fences or Walls, Who needs Gates or Windows?
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2005-08-11, 16:48

Quote:
Originally Posted by SabRhund
So heres a spin off of the thread for the 'n00b' to the community.

I'm getting my PowerBook and my 60GB iPod in a few days, and I know nothing about any of this stuff. I plan on putting all 100+ CD's on my computer/iPod. What would you guys recommend, and why? Im assuming that lossless is the highest quality, but also takes up the most amount of space?
No, lossless doesn't take the most space, aiff does. That's the straight audio with no conversion. ALC (Apple Lossless codec) takes about 1/2 that amount with supposedly no degradation in quality. Then the bit rates tell you what takes more space. Obviously, 320 takes more space than 160, etc. Most people are happy with 160 aac. I believe iTunes defaults to 128 aac, which isn't bad but not great either. I'd definitely recommend using AAC as opposed to mp3 unless you need mp3 for some reason (e.g., you have a CD player in your car that plays mp3s or something like that).

If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong.
  quote
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2005-08-11, 16:49

Correct. The Apple Lossless Codec is exactly what is sounds like: a compressed audio format that loses no quality. The drawback, as you also correctly guessed, is that the ALC-comressed files are relatively large next to most MP3s and AACs, resulting in at best only about 40% smaller than the source files.

I use 192 kbps AAC.

The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting.
  quote
SabRhund
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Athens, Georgia
 
2005-08-11, 16:51

I see. Thanks for the information. I have a home CD player that plays MP3's, but I doubt I would ever burn an MP3 CD just to play at home. I will most likely just go with the 160 AAC then. Thanks again

In a World without Fences or Walls, Who needs Gates or Windows?
  quote
Jerman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Siloam Springs, AR
 
2005-08-11, 17:09

I use Lossless myself. A few lower quality files here and there, but almost everything is lossless. (65.58 gigs).
  quote
sunrain
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Portlandia
 
2005-08-11, 17:14

192 kbps AAC. It's just perfect for most uses. If I need any better quality, I've got the CDs after all. I do store aiff files of my own music and teaching examples also on my iPod.

"What a computer is to me is it's the most remarkable tool that we've ever come up with, and it's the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds."
- Steve Jobs
  quote
alcimedes
I shot the sherrif.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via ICQ to alcimedes  
2005-08-11, 17:46

The thing that sucks about Apple Lossless is that if you use that on your iPod you're going to kill your battery life. You may also find that long songs will cut out for a split second while the iPod refills it's buffer. Since the songs are 3 to 5x the size of an MP3 or AAC version, it will have to fill the buffer more often.

Lossless is great for your computer which has a big HD on it and a power supply, but I personally don't recommend it for an iPod.

I also encode everything as MP3. MP3 doesn't allow any kind of DRM, and is playable across every single player on the market. AAC is nice and all, but I prefer the flexibility that MP3's offer.

Google is your frenemy.
Caveat Emptor - Latin for tough titty
I tend to interpret things in the way that's most hilarious to me
  quote
SabRhund
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Athens, Georgia
 
2005-08-11, 17:48

Okay, so what are the pros and cons of say, 192 AAC and MP3?
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2005-08-11, 18:10

Quote:
Originally Posted by SabRhund
Okay, so what are the pros and cons of say, 192 AAC and MP3?
AAC is the way to go in the aac vs. mp3 discussion. It's better quality at the same size or equal quality at smaller sizes. The one advantage is what I listed above.

If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong.
  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2005-08-11, 18:13

I use 192 kbps VBR MP3 (set to "Highest" quality). My songs end up averaging closer to 200-210 kbps.

As for using 192 kbps AAC or MP3 instead of lossless... well, obviously it's going to take up a lot less space. The sound quality will be lower, but many people can't tell the difference unless they have good sound equipment. I won't make too many strong judgments because this is a hotly contested area.

As alcimedes said, lossless files will play on your iPod, but they won't play as well. There may be gaps in the middle of long songs as the iPod refills its buffer (normally the iPod loads several songs into its buffer, but with lossless you are likely to encounter song files that are larger than the iPod's entire buffer). Also, it'll eat up battery life because lossless files work on the principal of data compression, and the iPod will have to do a lot of on-the-fly decompression in order to play the song.

If you have all the original CDs, I'd say keep them around and encode your music at 192-256 kbps MP3 or AAC. That'll provide good quality (most people wouldn't be able to distinguish it from a CD, though again this is contested) and it won't take up much space. You can always re-encode the songs at a higher bitrate (or in lossless) from the original CDs if you find you want higher quality. If you do encode in lossless, it might be a good idea to also keep a separate collection of smaller MP3 or AAC files for use with your iPod.

As for MP3 vs. AAC... well, supposedly AAC is a little higher quality at the same bit rate, but on the other hand MP3 is incredibly compatible with everything. Basically, if you encode in AAC, you'll be limited to playing the encoded music from your computer and your iPod. For many people that's fine, but some people like to be able to transfer music to a different MP3 player (one that doesn't necessarily support AAC) or burn their music to an MP3 CD for their car stereo. A lot of higher-end car stereo decks now have MP3 CD capability. If you use AAC, you'll have to burn plain audio CDs, which means you can only have 15-25 songs per CD. An MP3 CD can hold 100-150 songs, encoded in MP3.
  quote
Electric Monk
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2005-08-11, 18:21

AAC will sound better at equivalent or slightly lower bitrates. AAC is harder to transport on CD's given that many players only support MP3's.
That's it.
However MP3 encoded with LAME are very very near to AAC quality and can of course be VBR (Variable Bit Rate) files. Although you can make AAC files that are VBRs, you have to use quicktime and convert the .mov container.

AACplus/HE AAC and AACplus v.2 improve AAC at lower bitrates.


I personally use LAME and rip 160-192k VBR MP3's as my personal best compromise between sound quality and size.


Edit: Looks like Luca beat me to it. But I still mentioned LAME so I'm on top... Mad laughter.

Last edited by Electric Monk : 2005-08-11 at 18:22.
  quote
gsxrboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
 
2005-08-11, 18:33

192k AAC
  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2005-08-11, 18:36

Isn't LAME one of those command line things? I just don't think it's worth the effort for me, personally. If I want higher sound quality, I may as well just up the bitrate and use VBR in iTunes instead, even if it means it'll take up more space. I'm not afraid of the command line, I just see it as an unnecessary hassle. But by all means, if you're looking to get higher quality in as little space as possible, look into using LAME!

Oh and I also don't have many CDs to import anyway.
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2005-08-11, 19:03

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca
Isn't LAME one of those command line things? I just don't think it's worth the effort for me, personally. If I want higher sound quality, I may as well just up the bitrate and use VBR in iTunes instead, even if it means it'll take up more space. I'm not afraid of the command line, I just see it as an unnecessary hassle. But by all means, if you're looking to get higher quality in as little space as possible, look into using LAME!

Oh and I also don't have many CDs to import anyway.
There's a LAME iTunes plugin that takes it off the CLI. I used it before AAC came out. I used "alt-preset standard" for most things and got around 200 kb/s. I've since converted all those to 192 AAC for the minor space savings. Can't really tell a difference.

If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong.
  quote
Wrao
Yarp
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
 
2005-08-11, 20:11

C...d?
  quote
Yontsey
*AD SPACE FOR SALE*
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cleveland-ish, OH
Send a message via AIM to Yontsey Send a message via Skype™ to Yontsey 
2005-08-11, 20:44

i use 128 mp3 so i can get as many songs as possible onto my 20gig 3g ipod. personally the quality is good enough for me.
  quote
InactionMan
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-08-11, 23:53

I keep bouncing around. At first I just used the iTunes default, the bumped it up to 160 aac. Since I started using eMusic for legal downloads I started ripping at 192 VBR mp3s. They sound much better to me than 160 aac's.

Though on my iPod the sound quality doesn't much matter because I crank it to 11 to drown out the idiots on the subway. The low bitrate does kind of bug me when I'm playing my iPod through my stereo. But I have little interest in re-ripping everything.
  quote
shatteringglass
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
 
2005-08-12, 00:20

I just use the default, 128 kbps AAC. Maybe my ears suck, but I don't notice much difference unless I listen very closely.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can't read data CDs? omem Genius Bar 14 2005-05-10 13:01
Burning CDs in iTunes with Crossfade? blissed Apple Products 7 2005-04-11 10:28
iTunes/PB unable to read certain cds for transfer? nathanaaron02 Apple Products 17 2005-03-29 23:19
is copying 1,200 library CDs stealing music? ohara AppleOutsider 43 2005-01-26 21:53
best AAC import bitrate for iPod/iTunes? joe.syracuse Genius Bar 1 2004-09-12 13:58


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:55.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2019, AppleNova