# Which Encoder to use?



## the_rookie (Sep 30, 2008)

There are several choices to choose from for my iPod.

AAC Encoder at 320kB bit rate
AIFF Encoder at unknown Bit Rate
Apple Lossless Encoder at unknown Bit Rate
MP3 Encoder at 320kB bit rate
WAV Encoder at unknown Bit Rate

I have a 160gB iPod, so im not worried about size of songs.

I just want the highest Quality sound i can get.


----------



## Harpmaker (Oct 28, 2007)

the_rookie said:


> There are several choices to choose from for my iPod.
> 
> AAC Encoder at 320kB bit rate
> AIFF Encoder at unknown Bit Rate
> ...


For maximum audio quality use an uncompressed or lossless encoder. Of the codecs you listed above these would be AIFF (not AIFC or AIFF-C) and WAV. I'm assuming the Apple Lossless Encoder is really AIFF. if it isn't then it would be a third choice.


----------



## the_rookie (Sep 30, 2008)

I noticed a big difference when I re-burned CDs to my computer from MP3 128kB to AAC 320kB.

If I erased the older AAC songs re-burned my music a third time, and re-burned my music a third time in AIFF would it sound even better than the AAC?

Cuz I don't care about the time consuming of burning the CDs to my computer.


----------



## Harpmaker (Oct 28, 2007)

the_rookie said:


> I noticed a big difference when I re-burned CDs to my computer from MP3 128kB to AAC 320kB.
> 
> If I erased the older AAC songs re-burned my music a third time, and re-burned my music a third time in AIFF would it sound even better than the AAC?
> 
> Cuz I don't care about the time consuming of burning the CDs to my computer.


You might notice the difference, or you might not; it depends on the quality of your headphones/speakers, the type of music you are listening to, and finally your own hearing ability.


----------



## the_rookie (Sep 30, 2008)

I played back Halo 2 Vol. 1 Soundtrack at 192kB, And than the Uncompressed Halo 2 Vol 1 Soundtrack...and the difference was amazing...

It's hard to describe, but the overall effect was realism. The Orchestra sounded much more real than I have ever heard, as well as it sounding like It was in front of me! 

All in all, I am very pleased with the effects of uncompressed music. I just wish I had an even bigger iPod than my 160gB...Heh...Its big...but when ya want uncompressed music...its not quite as big as I originally thought. Cuz doing some numbers...i will have alot less songs to fit on here if i do all uncompressed.


----------



## Harpmaker (Oct 28, 2007)

You're obviously using good equipment and have good ears. :T That can almost be a curse at times.:bigsmile:

The average person using a cheap player with cheap ear-buds usually can't tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed music unless the compression level is simple ridiculous.

Some types of music can be compressed better than others. Most "popular" music today can usually be compressed without losing much since it has gone through many layers of mixing and having effects added, as well as being compressed (a different type of compression) to sound "good" over an AM radio.

As you've noticed, orchestral music can't be compressed much, if at all, and not lose quality.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

This brings me in to ask how does VBR affect the bit rate and quality of music. I've been using 60%VBR for most of my MP3's and have found for most of it it sounds very good. I agree that nothing sounds better than the original CD or at least an uncompressed format but that for me is not an easy option as I have over 400 CDs all done at 60%vbr and it would take me days to redo them all and I dont have that sort of time.


----------



## the_rookie (Sep 30, 2008)

Haha, I really dont use my iPod for personal listening, I had a Shure earbuds...but the wire is worn on the left ear bud...not visablly, but if ya move it, it will flicker the sound...which sucks they were pretty decent head phones.

But I do most of my listening on my HT, my Polk Audios play the music pretty dang good. But man, that uncompressed stuff is a real kick in , I enjoy the realism I get from it.

And yes, when ya play in an actual orchestra for 5 years, you get an ear for quality as well as tuning your ear.


----------



## Harpmaker (Oct 28, 2007)

tonyvdb said:


> This brings me in to ask how does VBR affect the bit rate and quality of music. I've been using 60%VBR for most of my MP3's and have found for most of it it sounds very good. I agree that nothing sounds better than the original CD or at least an uncompressed format but that for me is not an easy option as I have over 400 CDs all done at 60%vbr and it would take me days to redo them all and I dont have that sort of time.


This would boil down to how the codec being used implements VBR (variable bit rate), and what settings you use (if any are available). It's way beyond my poor abilities to critique the various audio codecs out there.

We always want to have the best sounding recordings we can; we also always want to fit those recordings in the smallest space possible. :bigsmile: Like with almost all things in life, we have to compromise somewhere along the line. In my limited experience, most people and equipment really don't need maximum source quality and can get away with some compression. How much is really up to the user to decide. For my own self; my ears, music type and equipment let me use 192kB MP3 without much noticeable quality lose. Those with golden ears, and equipment to match, can't get away with that.


----------



## marois (Dec 29, 2008)

There is a decent article, www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html which compares MP3, AAC, FLAC and CD/WAV.

I believe AIFF or AIF is not compressed at all, like WAV on the PC. Apple's losseless codec is ALAC. Check out wikipedia's articles for more details.

So IMHO, ALAC would be a better choice for the iPod if you don't mind larger file sizes. The music should sound the same as CD but will take less space than WAV or AIF.

Jean


----------

