Highest Quality Music format

I just got myself a new ExtremeMac Tango 2.1 Audio dock for my ipod. It sounds pretty good with the bass, good value for money! But now with decent speakers, I've started to notice some songs really do sound better than others.

I have a large collection of CD's on my iPod which im considering re-ripping to get the best Audio quality from.

what format and settings should I use? and why?

AAC?

AIFF?

Apple lossless? (how big are the file sizes on this one usually?)

mp3? (what settings?)

Wav

ogg?... haha NO. DIE OGGERS DIE!.... sorry but im not joining the OGG format cult.

I dont really care how much space they will take up, as space is virtually free these days... But at the same time, if theres a format which sounds almost just as wicked with a smaller file size, then i'd go for that.

Ultimately I use iTunes and an iPod, and thats it. So long as its compatible with both I dont mind what I use. I dont need to be compatible with other pcs or mp3 players.

#498107

Since you're re-ripping... go with AAC. AAC 128kbps is as good as Mp3 160kbps (in some cases, 192kbps).

If size is not concern to you, then nothing will sounds better than WAV (it's lossless, it's big).

There are some catch though... if you primary usage is with headphones, then AAC/Mp3 are just fine. Another thing is, Higher bitrate files drain your battery bit faster than regular compressed mp3 (128kbps). But if your usage on Dock is going to be more than portable usage, then Higher biterate or even lossless shouldn't be any issue (I assume the dock works as charger as well).

You will attain best audio quality with lossless (wav/apple lossless), but it's worth only if you don't have space issues + you've very good speakers.

OffTopic : Since we are talking music here, did you manage to find the damn song you were looking for?

#498111

Since you're re-ripping... go with AAC. AAC 128kbps is as good as Mp3 160kbps (in some cases, 192kbps).

If size is not concern to you, then nothing will sounds better than WAV (it's lossless, it's big).

There are some catch though... if you primary usage is with headphones, then AAC/Mp3 are just fine. Another thing is, Higher bitrate files drain your battery bit faster than regular compressed mp3 (128kbps). But if your usage on Dock is going to be more than portable usage, then Higher biterate or even lossless shouldn't be any issue (I assume the dock works as charger as well).

You will attain best audio quality with lossless (wav/apple lossless), but it's worth only if you don't have space issues + you've very good speakers.

OffTopic : Since we are talking music here, did you manage to find the damn song you were looking for?

No...ohh lol... woops, i was gonna record my voice humming it. but my folk are always round and I feel like an idiot humming into a computer. lol. But I will, and I will let you know when I upload it. hehe.

So is AAC better than MP3? or is it just better sounding for its file size?

I own an iPod classic, and usually sit it on the dock each night, but take it on the train during the day. I've never really had an issue with battery life.

What I'm really after is a format that "distinguishes" highs from low better and sounds less muddy. I was listening to Architecture in helsinki (yes, that crazy band) and it sounded perfect, better than I'd ever heard it. But then I listened to Linkin Park (yes my tastes vary somewhat) and it sounded really dodgy, maybe LP isnt as well mixed as I thought they were.

#498113

I feel like an idiot humming into a computer

I know... around 8 years ago, when web telephony is making it way. I was beta testing for some US calling website. My mod freaked out when she saw me talking to my monitor with headphone & mic. LOL.

is it just better sounding for its file size?

It is. Like I said... AAC 128kbps is approx. equal to MP3 160kbps in terms of sound quality. Though it's tough to generalize sound quality, as one song may differ drastically from other at same bitrate. But yeh, on an average that equation (AAC to MP3) holds water.

What I'm really after is a format that "distinguishes" highs from low better and sounds less muddy

Again, as I said... nothing is going to sound better than WAV. But then again... You'll have problem tagging wav files, they will be very large in size. Although I'm not sure how much difference it would make on battery life, but I'm sure that it does make some difference.

Simply put... Large file means bigger cache/buffer loads, frequent cache/buffer reloads, more reading from hard drive due to size, higher bitrate means more processing power.

You know what, I can go on and on when I start to ramble.. . So I'll cut it short and put it in simple terms.

AAC would be your best bet, for size to quality ratio. While AAC 128 would be good enough, you can use AAC 160/192 kbps encoding without VBR. One thing I have learnt from experience is that, Audio quality is subjective to listeners ears. So, try couple of different genre of albums with differnt bitrate encoding AAC (different format as well, if you have time for experimenting) and listen for yourself. No advice is going to beat your own experience.

#498117

Wav is definatly the best, as it´s uncompressed. But one song 30 Mb.

#498120

hmm ... ok... yeah I think i'd be happy with each song under 10mb, now that I think of it ...

i just noticed most of the dodgy mp3's are in 128kbps... so im gonna rip them in 256kbps AAC.

what do u reckon?

#498122

256kbps AAC is good. I'd also recommend variable bitrate. That way, the song only uses what it needs in terms of bitrate. So, if you have one song that's less complicated, it'll use a slightly lower bitrate than one that's more complicated.

This method usually works for me.

#498127

256kbps AAC is good. I'd also recommend variable bitrate

256kbps for AAC isn't really necessary. In my personal experience, 192kbps max sounds really good for AAC. Not that there is anything wrong with 256, I feel the gains over 192 aren't that great compared to filesize.

As for VBR, well it's again subjective. What Nic said is right. But I'm personally bit biased towards CBR. I think VBR doesn't do much than saving bit of a size. CBR on the other hand, can guarantee constant quality throughout. Plus, VBR files are tab heavy on processing (constating chaging bitrate for handling on processor, thus affecting battery life). Although I must say that my stressing on battery life may sound bit exaggerated. The battery consumption may not be that big, but it's there nevertheless.

Anyway... you can go VBR / CBR, whatever you feel right. Same again for bitrate, 256 or 192... it's your choice.

#498134

FLAC man, only FLAC. It's lossless and got great compression. Got near all of my library in it, and think it's the best format for now.

#498135

FLAC man, only FLAC. It's lossless and got great compression. Got near all of my library in it, and think it's the best format for now.

FLAC doesn't play in iTunes, nor on the iPod .

#498136

Yeah, I had to download mediacoder to get FLACs I've found into a format iTunes understands (even though I thought I installed something to allow iTunes to play them).

Long story short, iTunes doesn't like them.

Most of my files are 128Kbps MP3s. The AACs are the ones I've downloaded from the iTunes store, and I have a few 192Kbps MP3s. I can tell the difference between 128 and 192, but I can tell the difference between 160 and 192.

#498137

but I can tell the difference between 160 and 192

Houstan... we have found the golden ear !!

#498139

FLAC doesn't play in iTunes, nor on the iPod .

It doesn't? o_O Well... shame on you Apple!

#498140

i use my iopd exclusively in my car, and mp3 128 is just fine, what, with road noise and all. and, those mp3 128s sound pretty damn good through my home stereo. not perfect, but pretty damn good. for me, it was well worth the barely-noticeable loss in quality to have my entire library available via a media server.

so, let's talk turkey for a sec: while the tango dock gets good marks for design, it only ranks fair-good for sound quality. even if you were pumping 128kb pcm audio through there, the sound quality will be limited by the hardware. the rest of the time, you're listening through earbuds/headphones; another audio bottleneck. and let's not forget: the ipod itself is no class 'a' piece of hardware.

so, here's what i would do: pick a song you think is particularly demanding. rip it to multiple formats (mp3 128, mp3 192, aac 160, apple lossless, etc.) and check 'em out. remember, the one that's technically superior may not be the one that sounds best to you. maybe those crystal clear high sound brittle in your earbuds. maybe that extra kick in the low end sounds mushy in your dock.

c'mon levi: spread those wings and soar like an audio eagle!

#498141

I can tell the difference between 128 and 192, but I can tell the difference between 160 and 192.

i have a friend who cringes when he gets in my car. he thinks mp3s are the scourge of the earth. then again, he hates cd's too. nothing says snobby old dude like vinyl!

#498142

I can tell a difference between 128 and 192, the 192 bit rate music sound much more clearer than 128

And Most of my songs are about 180kbps (VBR) or more, those settings work best for me, I cant even tell that much of a difference between 224 vbr and 320kbps so I just keep it lower than 320 since it sounds the same if not even better O.o and takes up less space

#498150

I go with 192kbps AAC as well, I don't have space on my iPod to use anything else. To be quite honest I don't find any difference between that and anything higher like Apple Lossless when going through speakers like that. You'd have to go up to something like the B&W Zeppelin before it's worth sacrificing storage space for that.

#498151

so can I, the 192 bit rate music sound much more clearer than 128

Well so can I.... but I think you need to read the text I had quoted !!

Oh f**k it, you might miss it again...

but I can tell the difference between 160 and 192

I hate it when I've to explain a joke... :mad:

#498160

edit: You're right I didnt read it carefully...

#498161

Houstan... we have found the golden ear !!

Darn it. I meant "can't." Serves me right for typing half-asleep.

LOL.

#498164

Darn it. I meant "can't." Serves me right for typing half-asleep.

LOL.

everyone knew what you meant, even if you didn't.

#498165

FLAC man, only FLAC. It's lossless and got great compression. Got near all of my library in it, and think it's the best format for now.

die Ogger DIE!

As for the Tango speakers... they sound brilliant! honest, they have wicked bass. Just some songs sound lacking because they're dodgy rips. Yes, they're hardly Sony 7.1 sorround sound Hi-Fi... but for thier size they pack a formidable punch.

I think I'll use AAC... and choose the constant. SO long as each song is under 10mb roughly then I will be happy.

#498188

Welcome to crazy (and sometimes stupid) world of Audiophilia !!

#498236

If you want the highest quality audio i would use .wav at 320kbs because it is the best imo, but the files are rather large.

#498246

The answer is obviously 32.

I win.

#498264