• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

ITunes

You shouldnt.
You should leave them as AAC files.

Otherwise you are transcoding, which inevitably results in quality loss when transcoding from one lossy compression method to another (as in this case).
 
Originally posted by leukotriene
You shouldnt.
You should leave them as AAC files.

Otherwise you are transcoding, which inevitably results in quality loss when transcoding from one lossy compression method to another (as in this case).
Click to expand...

because being only able to have 3 copies of a song is a WONDERFUL idea.
 
because being only able to have 3 copies of a song is a WONDERFUL idea.
Click to expand...
Because transcoding from lossy to lossy makes your songs sound like ass. Especially when the source is a 128kbps file.

There is a way to get around most of the DRM limitations provided you actually bother to look.
The reason I want to is so I can put the songs on my non-Apple MP3 player.
Click to expand...
In that case try using alt-preset-insane - the additional bits may help to reduce some quality loss.
 
In my opinion the problems with transcoding is one of the biggest myths out there on the internet. Yes, the sound quality definately does degrade when you do it. However, when I transcoded a 128kbps mp3 to a q-4 ogg I could neither hear nor ABX a difference. I suggest you try transcoding them yourself once, check whether you can actually tell a difference (which I highly doubt) and then make your decision.
 
However, when I transcoded a 128kbps mp3 to a q-4 ogg I could neither hear nor ABX a difference. I suggest you try transcoding them yourself once, check whether you can actually tell a difference (which I highly doubt) and then make your decision.
Click to expand...

How exciting for you.
Perhaps if you'd tried with a higher quality source file (or MORE files , or transcoded to mp3 rather than ogg), the difference would be noticable.

When I've tried, LAME ABR 128 (which is better than CBR 128) is not transparent to me with the classical I've tried, so perhaps your equipment, source material or ears are limiting your attempts.
Or perhaps you're not familiar with enough with artifacting.

ABXing a low quality source (CBR 128kbps mp3) from transcoded crap might be quite challenging, but that's not the point, nor is transcoding from mp3 to Ogg even remotely analagous to the situation the thread starter is in.

The question is whether transcoding from 128kbps AAC (which is not the same as 128kbps mp3, and uses a different psychoacoustic model), to mp3 will lose quality.
It will.
You might not be able tell, but that says essentially nothing about anyone else, since they have different ears, different equipment and different material.
Hence the danger in making sweeping statements.

If you want to make viable statements about the effects of transcoding in this particular instance: take an uncompressed source file (wav), compress it to 128kbps AAC, then transcode it to mp3.

Then ABX the AAC from the Wav and the mp3 from the Wav.

If you can't tell the difference on a variety of types of material, then come back (or better yet, go to Hydrogenaudio) and make sweeping statements about how transcoding is such a "myth"....for your ears.

I personally have been able to discern the difference between mp3's made from Ogg Vorbis (q6 GT3b1 encoder) and AAC (224kbps QT-AAC) in the past. Does this mean you would be able to?
Not necessarily.
 
Originally posted by dravalier
I suggest you try transcoding them yourself once, check whether you can actually tell a difference (which I highly doubt) and then make your decision.
Click to expand...
I can hear a MAJOR loss at 192 AAC/LAME MP3/OGG from a CD and 128 MP3 to 128 AAC sounds a bit better then the MP3(?) but I still hear the loss. People have different hearing thats why you don't hear a difference but I have pretty good hearing (superman like if you ask my brother) and I can hear the difference.
Actually with the volume of heavy metal that I listened too when young I'm suprised that my hearing isn't heavily degrated. :D
As for the question at hand I would suggest transcoding it at a higher rate (320), I don't know if that would help but it atleast makes me feel a bit better then a 128 MP3.
 
Originally posted by leukotriene
There is a way to get around most of the DRM limitations provided you actually bother to look.
Click to expand...

So you mean I can put AAC files on a non apple MP3 player?
 
AAC files aren't lossless?

that is ridiculous if you're paying $.99 a song, you should get full quality.
 
Originally posted by mcryptic
AAC files aren't lossless? That is ridiculous if you're paying $.99 a song, you should get full quality.
Click to expand...
Do you know the size requirements for a lossless format?:rolleyes: They would be impossible for download. Although I think they should be at a higher bitrate then 160 AAC, the lowess I'm encode is 192.
Anyways $.99 is seems about right for that, now if it was $1.99 or more then yes I would have to agree with you.
 
Originally posted by CrimandEvil
Do you know the size requirements for a lossless format?:rolleyes: They would be impossible for download. Although I think they should be at a higher bitrate then 160 AAC, the lowess I'm encode is 192.
Anyways $.99 is seems about right for that, now if it was $1.99 or more then yes I would have to agree with you.
Click to expand...

i thought AAC was more like monkey's audio or FLAC, where it has compressed file sizes but does not reduce quality.
 
It doesn't reduce quality. A 160 AAC file is smaller then a 160 MP3 and it sounds better but when you go from one format to the other, like how this guy wants to, your bound to loss some quality, not much since I have done this before with older MP3s but I reencoded them at a much higher rate (128>320).
 
if its smaller then a mp3 then its a LOSSY file, it is going to have reduce quality.

lossless files are more like winzip, it makes the wav files smaller, but they can be extracted back to wav and have the exact same quality.
 
So you mean I can put AAC files on a non apple MP3 player?
Click to expand...

No. The response was regarding the number of copies and some of the other restrictions due to Apple's DRM.
To get it to play on an mp3 player it will have to be transcoded to AAC or decoded to (uncompressed) wav/AIFF.
i thought AAC was more like monkey's audio or FLAC, where it has compressed file sizes but does not reduce quality.
Click to expand...

AAC is definitely lossy, but uses a more sophisticated psychoacoustic model than mp3 and supports spectral band encoding at low bitrate (HE-AAC, which Apple doesnt support) like mp3 pro. It is capable of making good sounding encodes at lower bitrates than mp3 is generally capable of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top