Which Format For Listening?

[Doctor Varney]

Just got a laptop computer for my partner and she wants to know what format she should use for ripping audio CDs to eventually upload to her ipod. I don't think MP3 is good quality and I just downloaded MediaMonkey and it only does MP3, WAV, FLAC and a bunch of stuff I've never heard of. I'm thinking AAC but you have to buy the full version of MM to get that. All I know is that MP3 is not good quality. I use WAVs for sampling in my studio but is WAV too big in file size for every day listening?

The question is - which is better for compatibility and playback quality? We are used to vinyl and audio CDs which we listen to on our audiophile quality equipment so we want something which bridges the gap nicely without taking up too much room on the hard drive.

I'm torn between Winamp and MediaMonkey but it seems MediaMonkey won't do AAC like WinAmp does. I downloaded MediaMonkey because it has a cover flow so she would feel at home with it resembling the interface on her ipod. Which players and formats do you prefer and why?

Second opinions welcome - and thanks for reading.

Dr. V

 

[gecko zzed]

WAV replicates what you have on the CD, so it is, by definition, the best format. However, the file sizes are big, and you will start burning up your storage space.

MP3s are actually fine for listening. How good or bad they are depends on the conversion. For example, if you convert to a 64kbps MP3, it will sound pretty dire. On the other hand, converting to anything better than, say, 160 kbps is going to sound pretty reasonable. Going for a 320kbps bitrate gives the best results, and generates a file still a quarter of the size of a WAV.

A four minute MP3 at 320 is about 9mb. The same as a WAV is 43mb.

I use Winamp for general listening.

 

[Doctor Varney]

Thank you, Gecko Zzed. So what do you think of AAC? Some time ago, I started a WinAmp library using AAC and I was led to believe this is what the Apple ipod prefers...?

 

[RWhite]

WAV replicates what you have on the CD, so it is, by definition, the best format. However, the file sizes are big, and you will start burning up your storage space.

MP3s are actually fine for listening. How good or bad they are depends on the conversion. For example, if you convert to a 64kbps MP3, it will sound pretty dire. On the other hand, converting to anything better than, say, 160 kbps is going to sound pretty reasonable. Going for a 320kbps bitrate gives the best results, and generates a file still a quarter of the size of a WAV.

A four minute MP3 at 320 is about 9mb. The same as a WAV is 43mb.

I use Winamp for general listening.

I second all of this. When I built an MP3 server I did a lot of listening to decide what bitrate for MP3 had the best "quality / space ratio". I decided on 192 kbps. The sound is decent and the file size small, but you should really rip a favorite song of yours to a couple of different files with different rates and decide for yourself. And yes I use WinAmp and am happy with it.

And in case you didn't know FLAC is "loss less" compression which should sound just as good as a .WAV file, but save some space. Its not as well supported as some other formats though.

 

[Doctor Varney]

Thank you, Mr. White!

 

[Doctor Varney]

Is it worth using AAC or would I save a lot of space and get the same listening result using MP3 at 320kbps? Because someone else just said MP3 320kbps is quite good enough.

 

[Armistice]

We're talking an end user destination of an iPod, right? Listened to through ear buds? Or at best, small headphones...?

320 MP3s are almost overkill for that listening environment. I have no experience with AAC myself, but I'd say that if this is purely going to an iPod, then 192 MP3 will most likely do. I believe you can specify different bit rates with AAC as well, so it's not just a straight comparison... although I believe the files will be smaller again as a lower bitrate gets you equivalent playback quality (apparently).

I've ripped all my CDs, and I go to 320 MP3 (these days) because I also plug the thing into my hi fi and only occasionally pull out actual CDs. I can tell the difference there between 320 and 192 but not on my iPod so much through small Sennheiser headphones..

I also have an iPod with a 160 GB hard drive rather than flash memory so I'm not lacking for space. You can easily fill the smaller ones up... mine's not even half full yet and I've got about 10000 songs on it (not all are 320 MP3 I should add... I did lots before I knew the difference..).

Try it and see... iTunes would play AAC, surely? Plug some decent headphones in and compare...

 

[Doctor Varney]

We're talking an end user destination of an iPod, right? Listened to through ear buds? Or at best, small headphones...?

Not primarily, no. As with my old laptop, we like to send through into our audiophile equipment (British made amp & floor standing speakers). In addition, we also use a combination of the Gear4 dock and Edifier speaker system for use around the house. The ipod + earbuds situation only occurs on long train journeys. So, for the most part, we're either going straight from the laptop PC or an ipod augmented with speaker systems/ docking arrangement.

When I take the ipod out, I almost always take my Sennheiser cans, if I have enough room to stow them.

 

[Armistice]

Not primarily, no. As with my old laptop, we like to send through into our audiophile equipment (British made amp & floor standing speakers). In addition, we also use a combination of the Gear4 dock and Edifier speaker system for use around the house. The ipod + earbuds situation only occurs on long train journeys. So, for the most part, we're either going straight from the laptop PC or an ipod augmented with speaker systems/ docking arrangement.

When I take the ipod out, I almost always take my Sennheiser cans, if I have enough room to stow them.

In that case I'd definitely investigate the higher bit rates of either format. Especially if it's nice quality audio equipment. You will tell the difference.... That does limit your options re. the iPod though as at 10MB for the average pop song, 320 MP3s can chew the space up pretty quickly...

 

[mjbphotos]

Whether its a laptop/PC or an iPod dock - what speakers/amp are you sending the music to? The typical 'all-in-1' iPod docks are crap for sound fidelity, as are computer soundcards and speakers (but you knew that).
I thought everyone used iTunes to load music into their iPods. I don't have one, so have no idea!

 

[Doctor Varney]

That does limit your options re. the iPod though as at 10MB for the average pop song, 320 MP3s can chew the space up pretty quickly...

Yes, but that's horses for courses. I have a friend whose portable holds literally thousands of titles. He is not as discerning about sound quality as I am. He's in IT and seems to have been bitten by the 'convenience bug'. Everything has to be wireless automatically synced. For us, it's about quality, not quantity. He would likely cringe seeing us taking time to create playlists for a journey but we're cool with it.

On a side note. On his last visit, we were sat comparing his new snazzy portable with my stack of hi-fi separates and as gestured to my towering stack of beloved seperates, he uttered the words "Do try and think about your 'carbon footprint'."
I looked at him in utter amazement. "WTF?! Mate, I happen to like this old gear..."

 

[Doctor Varney]

Whether its a laptop/PC or an iPod dock - what speakers/amp are you sending the music to? The typical 'all-in-1' iPod docks are crap for sound fidelity, as are computer soundcards and speakers (but you knew that).

Accepting the limitations, the Gear4 and Edifier are good products for half decent sound quality on the move or in the background in places like the kitchen. The main system uses a NAD C375 and Gale 30/30 loudspeakers.

I thought everyone used iTunes to load music into their iPods. I don't have one, so have no idea!

If you own a Mac, then yes. But many don't. Most PC users I've spoken to report that iTunes messes up their existing libraries and is altogether not a very nice experience on a Windows system. The average Mac user probably doesn't care as long as it "Just works".

I've discovered that Winamp is clearly the better choice for Windows and it features an iPod syncing plugin which seems to work seamlessly.

I tried to use MediaMonkey but it was missing the AAC encoder. I used to use Winamp, so we've decided to go back to what we know. Winamp & AAC. I believe if we want to compress them further, we can export them as MP3. It now seems like a good idea to me, to rip to the highest standard, then take compressed copies off that for maximising space on a portable. If I need more space, I can always expand my storage.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Personally, I would avoid getting absorbed into the Apple collective at all costs. Their stuff is great for people who are okay with their software making important decisions for them, but I don't want my music player to decide what I can burn to a disc and what I can't (which iTunes will do depending on how you obtained a music file).

With storage as cheap as it is I would go for something lossless if you're an audiophile, perhaps even plain old wave files as big as they are. You can always squash them to death later for iPod use.

 

[mjbphotos]

With what you are describing for your playback systems, I wouldn't worry about WAV vs high-quality MP3 or other compressed format. You're really not going to hear the difference on those small dock systems, and on your big Gale speakers - these are bass-overcompensated speakers for home theater use, if you're using them for music, you have to do some good EQ on the amp anyway.

 

[Doctor Varney]

You're really not going to hear the difference on those small dock systems, and on your big Gale speakers - these are bass-overcompensated speakers for home theater use, if you're using them for music, you have to do some good EQ on the amp anyway.

I can hear the difference when an MP3 or Youtube video is at low quality. It has that terrible ringing sound to it. You must have heard that? Horrible.

I wouldn't put a graphic EQ anywhere near my stereo. I often have the amp set to tone defeat anyway. It doesn't really need bass and treble controls. If there are any, then sat in front of the Gales is where I'm most likely to hear differences.

 

[RWhite]

Most PC users I've spoken to report that iTunes messes up their existing libraries and is altogether not a very nice experience on a Windows system. The average Mac user probably doesn't care as long as it "Just works".

I am one of those folks. I used iTunes to rip my entire CD collection - it did a better job than any other program at correctly identifying the CDs and naming everything, including some VERY obscure CDs. But on two occasions when trying to play back files it did its best to screw up my carefully organized music library. iTunes has an option "Do not move files, let me organize them myself". I found that to be a cruel lie. Despite this option being selected, it began moving and re-organizing my files. The first time I caught it right away but the second time it took me literally HOURS to repair the damage. Since then I have banned iTunes on all my PCs, I install it if I need to rip a CD and then immediately remove it after I'm done.