[Captain Humble]

Can someone provide a basic explaination or direct me to an explanation of MP3 and IPOD formats?

How do they compare in sound quality to one another and to store bought Redbook CDs?

A friend of mine claims that he can convert a Redbook CD to MP3 then convert the MP3 back to Redbook CD and the two CDs will be identical and sound the same.  True or False?

Thanks
Jeff

[Levi]

Can someone provide a basic explaination or direct me to an explanation of MP3 and IPOD formats?

How do they compare in sound quality to one another and to store bought Redbook CDs?

A friend of mine claims that he can convert a Redbook CD to MP3 then convert the MP3 back to Redbook CD and the two CDs will be identical and sound the same.  True or False?

Thanks
Jeff

No matter how high you rip CDs to MP3, you will not have the same sonic qualities as the original.  That's why I use .wav to store information in my iPod.  

When you compressed original music files to MP3 format, you loose information.  Converting MP3 back to original CD will not give you the same sonic qualities as the original CD.     This basic principle applies to RAW vs .tiff vs .jpeg images.

This is for you info.  We made a comparison of a Copied/burned CD from the original and the copied CD did not sound the same.  It lost it's sparkle.  All this copying and conversion depends on what machine and software you use.  If you use top of the line equipment to copy, rip, convert softwares, you may have better results...closer to the original.  Commercial grade copying, and converting rig normally are extremely expensive and will not be cost-effective for home personal use.

I hope this helps.

Levi

[Captain Humble]

Thanks Levi.

[Levi]

I always thought iPod does not have an audiophile sound anyway.  My Sony Mini-disc sounded better.  I guess this is the price we pay for portability.  iPods are hot!

[Ferdi]

Hi, it is slightly more complicated:

The native compressed format used by iTunes/iPod is AAC. This is very similar to to MP3 but considered by some to have somewhat better quality for the same bitrate. Plenty of discussion in different places.

AAC is also what is used by Apple for songs sold through the Music Store. These songs are said to be encoded professionally and be of higher quality for the same bitrate, compared to home-ripped songs.

A recent innovation on the iPod is Apple Lossless encoding. This still achieves a reduction in file size by maybe 50% but contains all the original data.

PCM (CD signal) -> AAC or MP3 -> PCM is guaranteed to lose data and sound quality. If this difference is big and if this is acceptable to you, only you can decide.

PCM -> Apple Lossless -> PCM is theoretically a perfect copy.

It seems your friend got somewhat confused, possibly by the above options.

[brj]

Here is a link to a double blind test that compares various audio codecs used at various compression rates:

Roberto's public listening tests page

Again, note that the iPod can handle native, uncompressed WAV files (straight from CD) or Apple's new lossless codec.  Either of these is probably the better option if you have the original source media.

[Captain Humble]

You guys are amazing.
Thanks for the info.
Jeff

[yertletheturtle]

I found that Apple Lossless format is quite palatable in a entry level Hifi system (Jolida, Morrison, Pass labs, GMA europa) which is quite revealing.  certain music sounded a little bit "dead", but deatil was there.  MP3 sounded awful as did AAC (better, much).  I could not tell the difference between AAc and ALLF on my ipod, period. MP3 sounded worse at standard settings.
hope this helps.  I tried streaming WIFI audio (also Apple Lossless) too.....similar to hardwired Apple Lossless)  In this setting depending on the wifi router (airport express) to do the DAC duties.

Dimitri

[orthobiz]

Here's my deal.
I've been ripping 192 AAC for some time now. Have about 900+ ripped, almost everything here in my home library. First had MP3 with a 20GB G2 iPod, now have a 30 GB G3 iPod (Don't buy the G3: the row of four upper buttons simply suck).

So, I was walking around with several hundred CD's on my hip but I got a new pair of Sennheiser 650's, Etymotic 4(?s?), headphone.com portable amp and suddenly the AAC is passable but not hi-fi.

My iPod experience is morphing: am thinking about a terabyte drive, downloading all my CD's. Then, when I take out the iPod, grab some stuff I want to switch out. So instead of having 10 Beatle CD's on the 'pod, maybe just have 4 essential and add 4 Badfinger. I've evolved where I've gotten over the "snail with the house on his back" routine. So what if I can only carry 40 CD's?
When I come back home I can always switch things out, right?

Then, I don't have to worry about re-ripping. I went from MP3 to AAC and then the lossless comes out...there's simply no end to it!

biz

[yertletheturtle]

I have not doen the head to head comparison of CD copy in AIFF vs Apple Lossless.  
On a side note I actually got rid of all my CD's (430), ripped them all into Apple Lossless format, saved a core 30 which I listen to a lot.  the sale of cd;s paid for the hard drives (2x 120gb with room to spare)  I figure time will tell how lossless it really is, but by then there will probably be some other music format which will require a whole bunch of investment.  Although the used cd market has essentially eveporated in this country (everybody has broadband, itunes etc, ) there is still a market for used cds in countries where downloading is limited by telephone modems.  The guy I sold to picks up your whole collection (including the junk) for $1-2/cd.  He then sells in lots of 20,000 to a foreign dealer where there is a market for them.

[mgalusha]

On a side note I actually got rid of all my CD's (430), ripped them all into Apple Lossless format, saved a core 30 which I listen to a lot.  the sale of cd;s paid for the hard drives (2x 120gb with room to spare)  

This raises the question of what you are going to do when one of the hard drives fails? It *WILL* happen eventually, they all give it up sometime. Hopefully this won't be for a long time but I've seen too many of them fail to trust my entire collection to hard disks. Hopefully you are running them in a mirrored configuration.

I have ripped a lot of my CD's to disc using Monkeys Audio lossless codec but I've never considered getting rid of the originals. Just too paranoid about the hardware failing, not to mention the legality of doing so.

mike g

[Rob Babcock]

Yikes!   I'd never sell my CDs.  First off, I like to have the art & liner notes, plus as Mgalusha mentions, there could be legal issues.  Moreover, I'd be worried about either a drive failure or a fatal crash of my OS or some virus that forces me to restore my HDs.  

I do plan eventually to transfer most of my CDs to HD, but I don't intend to get rid of the originals.  Actually, at some point I'd like to make a CD-R copy of every one of my CDs just as a backup.

[orthobiz]

I actually collect music, not just listen to it. Recently got into Rogue Wave at a Shins concert, bought their original issue CD, then bought the subpop remastered "reissue" and even got the LP! At least with the LP I can actually read the artwork!

I also have no plan on getting rid of my CD's and have no problem actually owning the music. I have never done a download of a song and iTunes as a concept makes me shudder but there's probably a real market for poor quality music at 99 cents a song with no fidelity and no artwork.

Is it true, as Levi said, that a copy of 010101 digital sounds worse than the original CD?

And I guess I'd need TWO terabyte hard drives to hold the music and a copy of the music, which is why ownership is not a bad idea.

Companies will have to seriously lower the price of CD's in the future to spark future purchasing...

biz

[Levi]

Don't take my word for it.  It probably depends how your system is able extract microdynamics.  You can probably ask the guys at NY Audio Rave about the results...
 

Forgot one other thing we did (we did a lot at this mini-Rave!).  Someone had a question about CD-Rs versus original CDs.  We happened to have a CD-R and an original CD of the same recording (Black Light Syndrome).  It was pretty clear that the CD-R had a smaller soundstage and less depth...so at least in this one experiment, it was clear that the CD-R fell short of the original CD...

[eico1]

Is it true, as Levi said, that a copy of 010101 digital sounds worse than the original CD? ...

If you rip a cd and a copy of that cd to a hard drive for play back, it will be the same. If you pop those cds into a cd player they may sound different as you have the electro-optical mechanisms as part of the performance.

steve