Highest Audio Quality in iTunes?
 

what Import Setting should you use in iTunes to get the best quality when importing from a CD?

AAC or Apple Lossless?


I don't see any of the old rate settings options that were on older versions of iTunes...


(I have plenty of HDD space & this is on a Mac Mini BTW)

aiff

Ian

What Ian said. I don't know the specs on apple lossless, but I suspect it isn't actually lossless. .aiff and .wav are uncompressed audio formats that have both been around for decades, so there's no real reason to reinvent the wheel, thus my suspicion. You can rip a cd to wav or aif and have exactly the same data structure that was on the cd, bit for bit.

If you're going uncompressed, there's no reason to use iTunes in the first place, unless you're syncing it with an apple device. There are better rippers and players out there, IMO.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1347316192.jpg

:D:D:D

Thanks! - I do indeed offload stuff onto iPigs and etc.


Now, is aiff so much better than Apple Lossless that I should reburn selected CDs? e.g. SACD, MFSL CDs etc.?

How do you do (know) that? Loaded question, as I know how, but it's not easily done and even I don't do it "right"...too time consuming. To get to the point, there are no checksums, CRC, etc. on the redbook format for an audio cd, so there is simply NO way to guarantee an accurate bit-for-bit copy on a single play/copy. An audio format just is NOT the same as a data format. Bottom line...always keep music in raw data format .wav (aif), or a true lossless compression format like FLAC or SHN if you want to be "audio geeky" about it.

I suppose you're right, technically - the file header will be different in a wav vs. aif vs. red book format. But the part of the file that's the actual audio *should* be identical. But no, I can't say I've ever checked it. I don't care enough about it. My ears certainly can't tell the difference, even in a pro studio.

Mine either :). I used to do a lot of cd mastering (from DAT) and show trading, etc. and there are plenty of "audio purists" out there who do get bent out of sorts. Many generations down the line, it "might" make a difference...those were the rules "we" played by. Geeky...yeah :D

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1347324678.jpg

From The Absolute Sound series "Computer Music Audio Quality" Dec 2011 through Mar 2012.

We are an advertiser & I am sure RH wouldn't mind me posting this snippet. A good series of articles.

Ian

Thanks for posting that Ian! Interesting that no mention is made of any hardware, as all "rippers" are dependent upon the device/connection. As I stated earlier, there is simply no way to guarantee a bit-for-bit copy if the laser "reads" a bit incorrectly (and it does happen) whether on a rip or a playback (or bit parity errors occur). Data formats detect (and correct these type of errors) by the use of checksums. CRC, or other algorithms. To be clear, it doesn't matter for most, but to "guarantee" bit-for-bit accuracy on a audio "copy function" software such as EAC (which I have used) simply "reads" an audio cd many times and compares the bits. The device hardware is more important imo...Plextor is the burner/reader of choice for me and most others that gave a crap about this geeky technical stuff :). Again, I reiterate...it simply doesn't matter for most and you'll likely never "hear" a difference on a first-generation copy.

Have you listened to vinyl lately? ;)

Music originates as analog, and enters the ear drums as analog :). All of this "digital crap" is just for convenience in between the two processes. I don't disagree with ya at all...but nuthin' ticks me off more than a scratch on an album or a "click/pop" on a cd either :D

I don't understand that table. How can the sound scores vary if all the wav files were found to be identical (as stated in the footnote)?
Also, I find some of those numbers dubious... I use Easy CD-DA extractor, and it rips AND encodes (LAME -v0) faster than 3.6X.

I prefer to use an mp3 encoder for maximum player compatibility.

PX-LB950UE


if the stream of bits is right, it's right -- is your idea that this reader/drive requires less error correction and that the correction does not accurately reconstitute the data stream, merely approximate it
?

The list is the result of subjective listening to the files produced. Even though it might be a 'bit perfect' copy, that doesn't mean that the original disc & its burned reproduction contain the exact same information. Errors can be introduced in the CD stamping process or in its playback & these are reproduced or error corrected in the burn process. Error correction is not exact. It reads an error & fills in this data point with a synthesized approximation of the missing data. If you use EAC, you can watch the EC in action. Some discs will only light up the EC box briefly while others will quadruple the burn time or - in some cases - fail completely. As well, the burn copy actually has better definition of the 'hills & valleys' of a disc when compared to the stamped original. But . . . they might not accurately represent the original digital music file as well, although in practice they usually sound better (subjectively again).

Kind of like scratches or spilled beer or seed burns alter an LP's grooves & the ability of a stylus to wiggle through them . . . :D

Ian

I just glanced at that table this morning, and I agree, it leaves a lot of unanswered questions :). Don't get me started on MP3...I won't go there :D

If that is directed at me, yes Plextors are better, but not bulletproof either. You simply have no way of knowing if a bit stream is accurate (detecting, much less correcting) on an audio format cd...the capability simply isn't built in due to the redbook format of an audio cd. Bit errors can be introduced by inaccuracy on the read due to lower quality optics, smudges on the laser, smudges on the disc, dust on the laser/disc, etc. or can also be introduced during the transmission of the bit stream over the data bus, or any digital transmission for that matter. That's absolutely an issue in the real world, and why data formats, TCP/IP packets, etc. use algorithms (CRC, checksum, et al) to detect and correct those bit errors. Audio cds were designed without the appropriate headers which allow one to cram a few more minutes of music on a disc. For purists...if at all possible, an audio cd is always the last in the chain and not used as a source if possible. When one must have absolute bit-for-bit accuracy on an audio formated cd, EAC accomplishes this by reading the disc multiple times (sample size is a user setting), and compares the bit streams. I too would question the above table that Ian provided (knowing what I know) without asking more about how the benchmarks were performed. Again...I've gone "geeky" the average user simply won't know and doesn't give a "rip" (pun intended) :). Hope this helps...

edited: I see Ian responded while I was typing, and I always removed the seeds on those old double albums before playing :)

In all honesty, I don't know about the list's results either. I posted it just to point out that it is worth looking beyond iTunes. I have ripped with Media Monkey (poor imho) & EAC (good but . . . ).

I managed to waste the audio on my PC to solve a video/streaming glitch last night & I am still fighting with it. I did d/l JRiver last night & it does sound very good as a player. I will try a burn.

Ian

How can you have a "bit perfect copy" if the reproduction doesn't contain the same information as the original? Isn't that why audio cds have 1 byte of redundant parity data for every 3 bytes of audio data? Error correction vs error smoothing. That's an awful lot of space to waste if you're just blending a skip in the track.

I still can't make sense of the list, but I would agree that there are better programs to rip with than iTunes.

Also, ripping and encoding music in a lossless format so you can listen to it on your iPod is stupid.