[hillstones]

Kirk, you and your so-called test buddies must all be going deaf. I doubt they claim a 96 kbps file sounded the best. What kind of music was in your sound test? You will degrade the sound quality by recompressing an already compressed sound file. I have heard music encoded at 96 kbps and it sounds terrible compared to higher quality files.
The title of your article is misleading since you initially explain how to convert an UNPROTECTED AAC file to MP3. If the file is already unprotected, then the person probably already owns the original CD. So you are better off using the original CD to encode an MP3 at a high bit rate for best sound, instead of recompressing an already compressed file. Later in the article you reference the store purchased file.
Since most players today can play AAC files, I don't think this article has any relevance. Also, the iPod still has over 70% of the marketshare. The MP3 format has been dead for years.

[LouKash]

Just for the sake of clarity, Hillstones, it should be stated that you likely refer to a 96 kbps STEREO file. If you encode a true MONO file (i.e. one audio channel) to 96 kbps, you will get an compression equivalent of a 192 kbps stereo file. And I for one actually cannot tell (anymore) a stereo 192 kbps track from an uncompressed AIFF...
(In other words: if you import a CD to iTunes which you know that the audio is actually mono, you can save half of the bandwidth and hard drive space by temporarily switching the import options from Automatic/Stereo to Mono. When you have instructed iTunes to import 256 kbps AAC, it will then import the mono tracks as ONE channel mono files at 128 kbps. This is not an error or a bug, but this time it realy is a feature... ;)

[kirkmc]

hillstones: the title of the article talks about iTunes Store music files; in fact, those are the exact words. You either get iTunes Plus, which is without DRM, or "old" iTunes files, with DRM. It's not talking about people who have unprotected files they ripped from CD; obviously, they'd just rerip them.
As for the test, I used six complete classical tracks (from about 3 to 8 minutes), covering a variety of instruments and ensemble types, as well as voice.
As for "most players" playing AAC files, no, that's not the case.

[kirkmc]

Yes, it's not a bug, but it's pretty darn confusing. Because you have to manually check mono. Years ago, when I started ripping CDs, I had the feeling that iTunes was going to know which tracks are mono (which is pretty easy, because the actual musical information is exactly the same on both tracks) and automatically choose mono for those tracks that were mono. Alas, after ripping a lot of CDs (including a whole bunch of recordings from the 50s), I realized it didn't know. So I have to remember when I rip a disc to change the setting. They could do better there.

As for the files I ripped for the test, they were obviously all ripped from CD to WAV, then from WAV converted to the various bit rates. I didn't re-rip already compressed files. I don't think anyone's going deaf, I just think that the reality of compressed music is that very, very few people can hear the difference.

[Chris Breen]

hillstones said:

Kirk, you and your so-called test buddies must all be going deaf. I doubt they claim a 96 kbps file sounded the best. What kind of music was in your sound test? You will degrade the sound quality by recompressing an already compressed sound file. I have heard music encoded at 96 kbps and it sounds terrible compared to higher quality files.

Have you ever participated in a blind listening test? If not, it's time to try. I've conducted a couple of them with people who were just as sure as you that they could detect the difference between 128kbps AAC files, 160kbps MP3 files, and AIFF files. When put to the test, they couldn't.

Seriously, try it with several music tracks over any music system you like. While you're at it, try converting some iTunes Plus tracks to MP3 and see if you can tell which is which. Post your results when you've got them.

[dougster]

-Hi,

hillstones said:

The MP3 format has been dead for years.

HUH???...I don't think so. NOT in CA anyway. B-)

[LouKash]

>"Yes, it's not a bug, but it's pretty darn confusing. "

Agree.

>" I had the feeling that iTunes was going to know which tracks are mono (which is pretty easy, because the actual musical information is exactly the same on both tracks)"

Well, not necessarily. Just one hour ago I've been listening to mastered files for a CD/LP reissue I'm producing, where all tracks were recorded 1967-1970 and some of them were originally mastered to mono. The digital transfers from the analog tapes as I have received them from their owners, they were all done to stereo files, though. I have passed them unchanged to the mastering engineer who continued to process them in stereo as well. Now that he returned them to me for listening, I have noticed that at least in one of the mono tracks, there are quite ugly balance fluctuations which were already present on the original raw file. So I will likely have to advice him to remaster the track using only one channel, hence it will then become a TRUE mono file. (There are other serious issues with the remaster as well, but that's a completely different story...)

To make a long story short, it's quite likely that many if not most of the mono re-masters aren't clean mono at all. Not to speak of the read errors from the CD...

As for comparing 96 kbps STEREO files to uncompressed: It depends what kind of material you're listening to, of course. But if you take a well known, well recorded and well mastered pop/rock/jazz track where you can hear enough cymbals for example, and you still can't tell any difference between the two formats, then you might definitely want to visit your ear specialist... :)

[scy0101]

May sound like a dumb question, but seriously, can you explain to me step by step how exactly, with older itunes purchased music, you burn to a cd (that part I get) and then you then rip it from the CD in MP3 format back to itunes (?) and its drm free. With preferences on itunes it says changing settings (import options) won't work with purchased music....

[Jon Seff]

scy0101 said:

May sound like a dumb question, but seriously, can you explain to me step by step how exactly, with older itunes purchased music, you burn to a cd (that part I get) and then you then rip it from the CD in MP3 format back to itunes (?) and its drm free. With preferences on itunes it says changing settings (import options) won't work with purchased music....

Once you burn protected tracks to an audio CD, the DRM no longer exists. From that point, you can insert the CD and rip it as if it were any other audio CD.

[scy0101]

Jon- thanks for taking the time to reply. The last part...can you explain it to me like I'm 6 years old? That's the part I don't get. I burned to a cd but when I try to reimport to itunes and convert I get the message that purchased music can't be altered (or something like that).

[totoro]

Sounds like you dragged your iTunes song to a burnable CD (so they are still M4V files), instead of burning a playlist of iTunes songs to a CD, which turns them into WAV files. Make sure "Audio CD" is selected, not MP3 CD or Data CD.
Then you will have an audio CD identical to one you would buy at Virgin Records, which you can then rip back to MP3s/AACs.

[Jon Seff]

Sounds like maybe you're burning as a data CD, not as an audio CD. When you have your files ready to burn, click on the Burn Disc button and you should get the Burn Settings window. Make sure you choose Audio CD (and not MP3 CD or DVD CD Or DVD) and then click on Burn. The audio CD it creates should work just fine in iTunes for ripping purposes.

[scy0101]

Thanks. Humbling experience.... more empathy for students who don't catch on... This time I have it. Your instructions were perfect..I'm just a little slow...(or old).

[mpole]

You mention in the article that AAC files are best compressed at lower bit rates but yet iTunes sells them at 256 so what is the sweet spot for compressing AIFF files and which format is truly better?
thanks