<strong>By the way, should I wait till iTunes supports AAC before ripping every single CD again?</strong><hr></blockquote>No.
You aren't going to find many (if ANY) MP4 players on the market. Besides, MP4s cannot store ID3 tags (for title, artist, album, track, etc.) as MP3s do.
Go ahead and make them good MP3s. The MP3 format isn't going away any time soon.
You aren't going to find many (if ANY) MP4 players on the market. Besides, MP4s cannot store ID3 tags (for title, artist, album, track, etc.) as MP3s do.
Go ahead and make them good MP3s. The MP3 format isn't going away any time soon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is that's what holding Apple back from implementing AAC in iTunes? I mean it sounds like a great format and all...
Also, I've got my iPod recently and noticed that I've had to charge the battery quite frequently despite very light usage (I use my PowerBook for music whenever I am home).
Did I give my iPod a bad start by letting drain completely before charging again?
If so, what can I do?
I'm sorry for adding something on the iPod when the thread's about iTunes, but I'd really hate to create another thread and bug everyone. Thanks!
VBR can be better and worse at the same time. I decided to go with straight 192 after a lot of experimentation with VBR and other straight bitrates. I found that if I set it to VBR with minimum quality of 128kbps it was actually acceptable for the most part, and usually about 1 MB smaller than ripping it at 192... but it wasn't consistant like just doing it at 192, hence the "variable" part. I found that most of the time, the VBR tracks were acceptable but then they would drop down closer to 128 kbps in some parts and it didn't sound too good.
So why not just up the minimum VBR quality to 192? Because then the MP3 actually ends up being bigger in size than a straight 192 kbps MP3. So I decided straight 192 was the best compromise for file size and consistant quality.
But this is all personal taste of course... your mileage may vary.
<strong>Is that's what holding Apple back from implementing AAC in iTunes? I mean it sounds like a great format and all...</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes and no.
Don't forget that there's also the licensing issue with MPEG4 and that Apple's audio implementation is far from complete.
MP4 can store tags. I picked up a script called "Make Mine MP4" and although it's a quite a bit slower to encode I think it's worth it. I haven't MP3'ed anything since QT6 came out, mind you I don't have an iPod.
<strong>VBR can be better and worse at the same time. I decided to go with straight 192 after a lot of experimentation with VBR and other straight bitrates. I found that if I set it to VBR with minimum quality of 128kbps it was actually acceptable for the most part, and usually about 1 MB smaller than ripping it at 192... but it wasn't consistant like just doing it at 192, hence the "variable" part. I found that most of the time, the VBR tracks were acceptable but then they would drop down closer to 128 kbps in some parts and it didn't sound too good.
So why not just up the minimum VBR quality to 192? Because then the MP3 actually ends up being bigger in size than a straight 192 kbps MP3. So I decided straight 192 was the best compromise for file size and consistant quality.
But this is all personal taste of course... your mileage may vary. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You should go with LAME. Often times the files are smaller than 192 and they sound better than 192 CBR all the time. If you use the standard presets, you can have things that range from around 140 upto around 200 (some things go higher). It's not just bitrate that's important, it's the encoding method. I've reencoded some of my albums using LAME and while the file size on the whole is less than that of 192k, the sound quality is MUCH better. (ex.: re-encoded all of Kid A most are under or at 192k and that translates directly into smaller files.)
Comments
I still think iTunes could be better! Its lacking something in the quality department!
I've started importing new mp3s at 192 but i still find some imperfections with certain songs and have to re-import them...
By the way, should I wait till iTunes supports AAC before ripping every single CD again? :eek:
[ 09-08-2002: Message edited by: catalyst ]</p>
<strong>By the way, should I wait till iTunes supports AAC before ripping every single CD again?</strong><hr></blockquote>No.
You aren't going to find many (if ANY) MP4 players on the market. Besides, MP4s cannot store ID3 tags (for title, artist, album, track, etc.) as MP3s do.
Go ahead and make them good MP3s. The MP3 format isn't going away any time soon.
<strong>No.
You aren't going to find many (if ANY) MP4 players on the market. Besides, MP4s cannot store ID3 tags (for title, artist, album, track, etc.) as MP3s do.
Go ahead and make them good MP3s. The MP3 format isn't going away any time soon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is that's what holding Apple back from implementing AAC in iTunes? I mean it sounds like a great format and all...
Also, I've got my iPod recently and noticed that I've had to charge the battery quite frequently despite very light usage (I use my PowerBook for music whenever I am home).
Did I give my iPod a bad start by letting drain completely before charging again?
If so, what can I do?
I'm sorry for adding something on the iPod when the thread's about iTunes, but I'd really hate to create another thread and bug everyone. Thanks!
I usually import at 192 also, at times aslo 256 if its something very good or precise.
So why not just up the minimum VBR quality to 192? Because then the MP3 actually ends up being bigger in size than a straight 192 kbps MP3. So I decided straight 192 was the best compromise for file size and consistant quality.
But this is all personal taste of course... your mileage may vary.
<strong>Is that's what holding Apple back from implementing AAC in iTunes? I mean it sounds like a great format and all...</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes and no.
Don't forget that there's also the licensing issue with MPEG4 and that Apple's audio implementation is far from complete.
<strong>VBR can be better and worse at the same time.
So why not just up the minimum VBR quality to 192? Because then the MP3 actually ends up being bigger in size than a straight 192 kbps MP3. So I decided straight 192 was the best compromise for file size and consistant quality.
But this is all personal taste of course... your mileage may vary.
You should go with LAME. Often times the files are smaller than 192 and they sound better than 192 CBR all the time. If you use the standard presets, you can have things that range from around 140 upto around 200 (some things go higher). It's not just bitrate that's important, it's the encoding method. I've reencoded some of my albums using LAME and while the file size on the whole is less than that of 192k, the sound quality is MUCH better. (ex.: re-encoded all of Kid A most are under or at 192k and that translates directly into smaller files.)