Since the topic for the past days was about the collections in our macs and ipods.

What is the best compression setup for an MP3 that gives good sound but not too much occupying a big space?

And what are the other compression formats in itunes?

I cant get to decide which is the best?

As for you guys/gals, what do you use?

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Macmon]

Originally posted by Macmon
What is the best compression setup for an MP3 that gives good sound but not too much occupying a big space?
The answer to your question hinges on what you consider "good sound," or in other words, how much audio quality degradation you're willing to accept in exchange for file size economy. For some people, the whole idea of compressing a song in MP3 ( or any other "lossy" compression format) is barbaric and destructive. Other people aren't too particular and are unperturbed by the quite obvious audio artifacts in an MP3 file encoded at 128 kbps.

Short answer: if you're very particular about audio quality, then you will encode at the highest bit-rate possible, which in iTunes is 320 kbps, which will also yield the largest file sizes. If you're not too picky, the type of person who can't really tell or notice the difference between the original audio CD and a 128 kbps MP3, then you're free to experiment with lower bit rates (128, 160, 192, 256, etc). Personally, I encode at 160 or 192 kbps.

There's another factor to consider here: whether or not to turn on the option for Variable Bit Rate (VBR) encoding. The original MP3 spec employed Constant Bit Rate encoding, or CBR, and most people still use this today. CBR works by adjusting the audio quality to ensure a consistent and predictable output file size. Easy passages in songs (those with narrow stereo separation and less audio data, for example) get assigned more bits in CBR, while complex passages may get less bits than optimal. For example, a 128k (16k/sec) bit rate audio file that is 30 seconds in duration will consistently produce a 480k MP3 file. In brief, CBR sacrifices audio quality to ensure consistent output file size.

VBR is a newer development in the world of MP3. With VBR, the number of bits allotted to song passages varies with its complexity, ensuring the optimal bit rate for highest audio quality. In VBR, therefore, output file size cannot be predicted, because the bit rate varies. In general, VBR sacrifices file size to preserve audio quality. The downside to this is that you must check first if your MP3 player supports VBR-encoded files.

And what are the other compression formats in itunes?
iTunes can encode to MP3, AAC (Advanced Audio Coding) which is the format of the iTunes Music Store, AIFF, Apple Lossless format, and WAV.

AAC - a newer and supposedly more efficient compression format than MP3, capable of producing equivalent audio quality at smaller file sizes. Downside: relatively few players support AAC, and only one player (iPod) supports protected AAC, which is the format of songs bought from the iTunes Music Store. If you have an iPod and don't foresee having to play your songs on a different device, then this shouldn't be a problem for you. AAC is probably the best way to go for most iPod owners.

AIFF and WAV - very large file sizes, roughly one minute = 10 mb. But much better audio quality than any highly compressed format such as MP3 or AAC.

Apple Lossless format - new in iTunes 4.5. Supposedly can bring a song to half of its uncompressed file size with no audio degradation, allowing you to double the number of songs on an audio CD, say. I haven't used this yet, so I can't really comment.

There are other compression formats not supported in iTunes, such as Ogg Vorbis (http://www.angrycoffee.com/tutorials/vorbis/) (unlike all the other formats mentioned here, this one is free and open source, and supposedly at par with AAC/MPEG-4) and Windows Media Audio (WMA) (I will spare you the agony of linking to Microsoft's labyrinthine and hard-to-navigate web site). If you're going to stick with iTunes as your encoder, then there's no need to concern yourself with these other formats.

The question isn't really "which is best" but rather "which is best for you?"

Hope this helps. :)

[Edited on 6-6-2004 by gonz]

Thanks so much for the detailed info, Gonz. You know, I Googled this topic yesterday and I couldn't even find anything as complete and as simple as your explanation.

Originally posted by elbertc
Thanks so much for the detailed info, Gonz. You know, I Googled this topic yesterday and I couldn't even find anything as complete and as simple as your explanation.
My pleasure, Elbert. I'm glad that this info might prove useful. :)

The best compression is one that offers LOSSLESS compression, of course.

gonz,

Thanks for that brief but concise explanation. I have been reading articles in the web and it makes my head spin with it.

I have noticed that using the earphones will not make the sound difference obvious but when I play the songs in the ipod on bigger speakers it makes the sound so 'lata' in some way.

Experimented on one song in terms of sound quality and size in compression and noted the following.

Original song of the Corrs' Don't say you love me - 46Meg AIFF

MP3 format
basic High quality 192kbps = 4.5 meg
custom: 256kbps at 44.1khz with VBR to medium - 8.8 meg

AAC format
Custom 256 kbps at 44.1 khz - 8.6 meg

Apple lossless format
31.2 meg

For the quality, as a regular listener only the lossless format retains the detail sound. As for the 256kbps... it seems almost the same.

As for the rest what are your compression settings?

Originally posted by Macmon
As for the rest what are your compression settings?

I encode all my CDs to 256Kbps MP3s, CBR, Normal Stereo. Better highs and more punch in the low end. No AAC for me (yet) 'coz I always play my MP3 files in set-top DVD players and MP3-capable head units.


~Henjie

Just like macmon, for the sake of comparing the size of songs in the different compression formats, I took one song end encoded it in 4 formats. Here is the result:

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by elbertc]

Originally posted by directX
The best compression is one that offers LOSSLESS compression, of course.

I would have to say that 'best' is relative.

For some, small size with good quality is more important (for the purpose of fitting as many songs as possible in an iPod, especially if it's a mini). For this purpose, AAC would be best.

For true audiophiles, Apple Lossless would probably be best. It's CD-quality with a 40% reduction in size compared to AIFF.

For me, it' AAC at 128 kbps.

Originally posted by elbertc
I would have to say that 'best' is relative.

For some, small size with good quality is more important (for the purpose of fitting as many songs as possible in an iPod, especially if it's a mini). For this purpose, AAC would be best.

For true audiophiles, Apple Lossless would probably be best. It's CD-quality with a 40% reduction in size compared to AIFF.

For me, it' AAC at 128 kbps.

I agree. "Best" is relative to the purpose at hand. For my iPod and PB, it's AAC at 128 kbps. That's good enough for me when I'm mobile. If I want to hear better quality, I listen to my CDs on my home audio system. :cool:

This thread has been so informative! Thanks to everyone who contributed.

kAt

as much as i can, its 192 mp3 for me.. so i can easily move songs to cd and play on my car..

but when i get the aux input adapter, it wont matter that much anymore :)

AIFF is what's best for me. I'm still a Mac OS 9 user and the last version of iTunes that's available for my Mac is 2.x. It does not support the newer AAC and Apple Lossless formats and the highest bit rate that it supports for MP3 is 192 kbps.

That said, yes, I did try encoding some of my favorite tunes to MP3 at 192 kbps. Some songs sounded great with minimal to barely noticeable loss in sound quality but others particularly The Who's rock classic, Won't Get Fooled Again sounded awful in MP3.

So now, it's only AIFF for me. Sure, it occupies more disk space but then again I do burn all my playlists in CD-R. Sure, I can put more songs in my playlist per CD-R with MP3 and AAC but I'm already very happy with AIFF so no big deal.

The best thing about AIFF is that older computers (both Mac and PC) and pre-MP3 CD audio players (like my Sony Discman) have no trouble reading and playing it. :):):)

Originally posted by Jughead
The best thing about AIFF is that older computers (both Mac and PC) and pre-MP3 CD audio players (like my Sony Discman) have no trouble reading and playing it. :):):)

You mean Red Book Audio a.k.a CD Audio format?

Medyo OT: at first, i thought this thread is all about ZIP, RAR, SIT, DMG... hehehehe.. hindi pala!

Very informative and interesting indeed!

Originally posted by McArenas
Medyo OT: at first, i thought this thread is all about ZIP, RAR, SIT, DMG... hehehehe.. hindi pala!

Very informative and interesting indeed!

Thanks Macarenas for pointing that out.

That is why I edited the heading and added Music compression for a more clear topic.

will i lose some high pitch or low pitch if i convert one compressed format to another? say from aac to mp3 (using iTunes) or mp3 to aac or aiff?

how can i rip wma files so i can play them using my iTunes? thanks! i tried to add or import my wma files (from my desktop) to my iTunes but it didn't recognize them. im just too OC i would like to consolidate them... hope to hear from you soon :)

Originally posted by the_butcher
will i lose some high pitch or low pitch if i convert one compressed format to another? say from aac to mp3 (using iTunes) or mp3 to aac or aiff?

how can i rip wma files so i can play them using my iTunes? thanks! i tried to add or import my wma files (from my desktop) to my iTunes but it didn't recognize them. im just too OC i would like to consolidate them... hope to hear from you soon :)

Conversion from lossy to lossy format is not recommended. MP3 to AAC as an example.

Check out Leo Laportes techanswer for his podcast at March 19, 2005 shownotes (http://leoville.tv/radio/pmwiki.php/ShowNotes/Show127)

It is in number 3 topic.

ohno sayang, i imported my music collection to the iTunes at 128aac. i should have done the 192 bit. is there a bit difference?