Hatrack River Forum: iTunes question (possible mayfly)

This is topic iTunes question (possible mayfly) in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=045609

Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :

I'm going through my CDs, which are ripped at 128 kb/s, and gradually re-ripping them to 192 kb/s. When I got to the ones I downloaded from iTunes, I wanted to make sure this would be possible. I usually download the music, burn it to CD, then rip the CD to mp3 so that I can play it on my mp3-CD players. But I save the CDs and keep the files on the hard drive in the format in which they were downloaded.

The files themselves don't seem to reveal the bitrate in their details the way mp3 files do. I read some conflicting accounts online, and no official answers from Apple. Some people seem to say that iTunes upgraded from 128 to 192 a couple years ago. Other places say that there's a function in iTunes that allows you to choose what bitrate you want to download. I've never seen that, though, and the ratio of file size to track length seems to indicate that all the m4p files I've downloaded are 128 kb/s.

The questions I have, and have not been able to find difinitive answers to, are as follows:

What bitrate do iTunes tracks download at?
Is there a way to change from 128 to 192 downloads?
If I have been downloading at 128, is the m4p format efficient enough that I can get a reasonable 192 mp3 rip out of it, or am I pretty much boned?

Thanks in advance for any enlightenment the gurus here have for me. [Smile]

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :

I have answers for you, but I don't think you'll like them... [Frown]

quote:
What bitrate do iTunes tracks download at?

128 kb/s AAC (m4p), which IIRC Apple claims sounds as good as 160 kb/s mp3. YMMV; I've found 128 kb/s AAC suitable for me most of the time, though when I'm ripping CDs I usually rip to 160 kb/s AAC.

quote:
Is there a way to change from 128 to 192 downloads?

No. iTunes audio is 128 kb/s AAC only.

quote:
If I have been downloading at 128, is the m4p format efficient enough that I can get a reasonable 192 mp3 rip out of it, or am I pretty much boned?

You're boned. There's no way to regain the data that was lost during the compression from a lossless format to 128 kb/s AAC. This is true of any lossy format, not just AAC. Once you compress, that additional data is gone for good. If you burn it to a CD and re-rip to a different format, you may well lose even more data in the transition.

Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :

quote:
Originally posted by twinky:
If you burn it to a CD and re-rip to a different format, you may well lose even more data in the transition.

Oh there's no may well about it.

Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baron Samedi:
I'm going through my CDs, which are ripped at 128 kb/s, and gradually re-ripping them to 192 kb/s. When I got to the ones I downloaded from iTunes, I wanted to make sure this would be possible. I usually download the music, burn it to CD, then rip the CD to mp3 so that I can play it on my mp3-CD players. But I save the CDs and keep the files on the hard drive in the format in which they were downloaded.

The files themselves don't seem to reveal the bitrate in their details the way mp3 files do. I read some conflicting accounts online, and no official answers from Apple. Some people seem to say that iTunes upgraded from 128 to 192 a couple years ago. Other places say that there's a function in iTunes that allows you to choose what bitrate you want to download. I've never seen that, though, and the ratio of file size to track length seems to indicate that all the m4p files I've downloaded are 128 kb/s.

The questions I have, and have not been able to find difinitive answers to, are as follows:

What bitrate do iTunes tracks download at?
Is there a way to change from 128 to 192 downloads?
If I have been downloading at 128, is the m4p format efficient enough that I can get a reasonable 192 mp3 rip out of it, or am I pretty much boned?

Thanks in advance for any enlightenment the gurus here have for me.

You can always download them, burn them to CD and then rerip them at 192? More work than you probably want but if your making back up cds any way might be a good thing to do?

Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :

Is it because I'm partially deaf or can people really tell the difference between something at 128, 192 or higher?

Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :

Actually yes. I knew a sound guy that could definitely do it and you can tell only because there is a little less distortion and the music really comes out better. Sounds odd but very true. [Smile]

Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :

I can tell the difference. I am also partially deaf, and I can tell. I ripped my CDs at 128 and realized they sounded a little muted, I ripped to 192 and was quite happy with the results so I didn't go higher.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
Is it because I'm partially deaf or can people really tell the difference between something at 128, 192 or higher?

I can tell the difference if I'm in my car or listening on my main system. From a boombox, not so much.

I know people who are far more aurally perceptive than I, so I doubt it's unusual.

For some reason, I hear the difference more on rock with heavy guitars, probably because I know the different parts of those songs better.

For example, Sunshine of Your Love has parts that just drop out at 128. So does Boston. GnR, too.

Edit: I just confirmed it with my 128k rip of "Sweet Child of Mine."

It's almost criminal what it does to the song.

Edit to the edit: It still rocks, though - the part after the long solo where the lead guitar is exactly backing the melody of the lead vocals is amazing.

Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by B34N:
You can always download them, burn them to CD and then rerip them at 192? More work than you probably want but if your making back up cds any way might be a good thing to do?

That's what I've been doing. I just didn't know how efficient the codec iTunes uses is.

I know there are some formats that claim to have better sound per bitrate than mp3. For example, wma claims that their 64kbs compressions sound as good as 128kbs mp3. I thought that maybe if this were true for the m4p format, I could burn a CD from a 128kbs iTunes download and re-rip it to a reasonable approximation of a 192kbs mp3. But apparently, from the responses here, it's not that good.

Anyway, the 128kbs rips I've made from the discs I've burned off iTunes downloads sound fine to me. But I'm not a super audiophile. Although since I've started my office job that consists of sitting down at a computer all day with a big pair of very nice headphones listening to music, I've been able to notice a lot more compression artifacts than I ever had before--hence the 128 => 192 upgrade project.

Fortunately I've only ever bought maybe 15 albums from iTunes, so if it really comes down to it I guess it won't break the bank to replace them to original CDs. It is, however, kind of annoying. But what can you do? At least I know better now, so I won't be getting my albums from there in the future.

By the way, I appreciate all the responses I've received so far. Thanks, Hatrack audiophiles. [Smile]

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :

128k m4a/m4p approaches 192k mp3 in 'sound quality', but that's not the only issue. Each compression algorithm takes a different approach, so what the mp3 algorithm cuts out will be on top of what the m4a/m4p algorithm cut out.