Audio file bit rates are measured in thousands of bits per second, or kbps. I mentioned above that a CD contains audio at 1, kbps, and when you convert that audio to a lossy file, its bit rate is much lower.
The bit rate of a lossless file depends on the density and the volume of its music. Two tracks on the same album, ripped to a lossless format, may have bit rates of, say, kbps and kbps , yet when played back, they both reproduce the original audio from CD at the same level of quality. Lossless compression uses as many bits as needed, and no more. Here are two albums I converted to Apple Lossless. You can see the bit rates vary from kbps to kbps.
The first album is a chamber ensemble, and the second solo piano. The complexity and volume of the music affect the final bit rate needed for lossless compression. Audiobooks are often ripped at 32 kbps, and they sound fine.
High-resolution audio, once a niche format, has gotten a lot of press recently. High-resolution audio is defined by certain numbers: the bit depth of files, and their sample rate. CDs contain bit audio at a sample rate of 44, Hz. And there are also several types of DSD direct-stream digital files, which use a different recording method.
The MP3 version is 1. These versions sound a bit muddied compared to the Kbps versions. The MP3 is almost 1MB smaller. The AAC file is a bit clearer and brighter than the MP3, which suffers from slight muddiness and slurring some sounds together. The file sizes are almost exactly the same.
While there are differences in the sound waves of the files, they sound roughly equivalent to the ear. Though there may be a bit more detail in the Kbps MP3, it's difficult for an untrained ear to discern. The only place you're likely to hear a difference is in the low-end Kbps encodings, which aren't recommended. Most audiophiles who place great value on the best possible sound quality tend to avoid MP3, AAC, and other digital audio formats because these formats use compression to create smaller files.
The trade-off is that the highest and lowest ends of the sound range are lost. Most average listeners don't notice the loss, but it can be a deal-breaker for audio aficionados.
Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Use precise geolocation data. Select personalised content. Create a personalised content profile. Measure ad performance. Select basic ads. Create a personalised ads profile. This way you will only ever need to rip your CDs once. Make sure you back-up your music too hard drives are cheap enough these days. For portable use, I would say go for variable bitrate mp3 encoded with LAME at V0 as it sounds just as good as the CD but is quite a bit smaller than kbps constant bit rate.
I see this is more or less what Somnam suggests. Whilst you are right that lossy to another lossy is not great it is a not really relevant since using that option in iTunes the original doesn't get touched and the only "duplicate" exists on the portable device for a limit amount of time, and b it is perfectly possible to transcode from one format to another without it being destructive and thus transcoding is not always a sin. A good example is where you change the container but not rencode the payload.
Yeah I realise you can transcode from lossless to lossy I mentioned this in my post , but in general parlance, especially on certain music trackers, "transcoding" refers precisely to lossy to lossy conversion. I assume that once the files are on the iPod, even if temporarily, they will be listened to. In which case I would argue strongly that it's better to have decent quality if you can.
Making a V0 from a lossless source gives you small files for your portable without losing quality unnecessarily. You could go to V2 for even smaller files and still maintain decent quality. Well they are wrong. And likewise a. Trigonomotery Banned. Steven Senior Moderator. As RobM says, converting from lossy to lossy is not advantageous because you have already lost the original data. You cannot put back in what you have already lost and will probably result in worse sound quality because you are adding yet another layer of digital manipulation.
If SQ does matter then unfortunately there is no shortcut and you have to start again from CD. Click to expand Well that Wikipedia article says exactly.
This is about a feature in itunes that let's you on the fly reduce the bitrate for devices that don't require it that high. No foobar, not about how the original gets ripped. Purely about the files you already have in itunes and whether you copy as is or at reduced bitrate. All my responses are given in that context only. It can then transcode on the fly like you say. Actually you said Flac first which wouldn't work ;- But anyway.
There is a challenge with having your originals ripped to a lossless format and stored in iTunes like that.
Whilst iTunes can do onthefly conversions for it's own devices it can't currently do that for creating mp3 CDs or DVDs like those used in a car etc. Also when using the apple media browser to use those tracks in any other program is becoming more interesting.
I started doing that in apple lossless format many years ago, but it soon became more hassle than it's worth it for what's very little additional audio performance gain. It's free. Sure and there are lots more tools that do that, but it doesn't integrate with iTunes does it? As such it will create duplicates etc I don't even know what you are going on about now.
0コメント