Macworld: Which iPod is best for non-compressed ...

Up to Discussions in iPod and iTunes

7 Replies Last post: Sep 18, 2006 11:45 AM by Nobody

badmusic

1 posts since
Sep 16, 2006

Sep 16, 2006 3:20 PM

Which iPod is best for non-compressed (aiff) files

Before purchasing an iPod, I'd like to find out which 'Pod is best suited to playing non-compressed (aiff) audio files. I've heard that large files can fill up the cache on an iPod, causing "skips" or pauses as the 'Pod catches up to the music, so to speak. While non-compressed files really eat up storage space, they do sound better, and I'm more than willing to have fewer songs on my iPod in exchange for higher quality reproduction.

While the Nano has a lot less storage space than the standard iPod, it is a flash memory device, so access times must be shorter than the hard drive standard iPod, but I don't know about any cache differences...

So, NOT taking storage capacity into consideration, which of the two 'Pod's might be more suited for non-compressed files?

Thank you in advance.

Nobody

58,347 posts since
Oct 18, 2007

1. Sep 16, 2006 10:14 PM

in response to: badmusic

Re: Which iPod is best for non-compressed (aiff) f

I have a conventional iPod and I have never experienced skipping yet, including when I played uncompressed files in the beginning. I think that the fear of skipping my be overstated.

Although on the surface it may seem that the memory used in Nano may have a large speed advantage, in practice it may not be so, assuming that to keep cost lower, Apple may not be using the fastest version. Hard drives have come a long way because of their very high information density. Additionally, if you were to use a 2GB Nano and assuming there is really a big problem with skipping in hard drive based mechanisms and given that you would only like AIF files, do you suppose being able to fit 3 CDs worth contents would satisfactorily justify the price of a Nano?

Apple2Mac

22 posts since
Sep 3, 2006

2. Sep 17, 2006 11:11 AM

in response to: Nobody

Re: Which iPod is best for non-compressed (aiff) f

I've used a 5G with uncompressed it works fine, why wouldn't you at least use losless audio, there is no compression in the signal, the codec just throws away redundant information from stereo sources it's very similar to Joint Stereo in MP3s. Save tons of space sacrifices 0 Quality..

pdrayton

1,821 posts since
Sep 19, 2003

3. Sep 17, 2006 11:32 AM

in response to: Apple2Mac

Re: Which iPod is best for non-compressed (aiff) f

I have to agree that if you want to use uncompressed files you use Apple Lossless. Takes up approximately half the space of AIFF without losing anything.

A big question is, how are you listening to these files on your iPod? Through headphones? If headphones, which kind?

From the double-blind studies I've seen, even audiophiles have difficulty distinguishing between uncompressed and compressed files.

People will swear up and down that they can hear the difference.... very few that claim to notice a difference can actually do so in a trully controlled scientific study with any kind of accuracy.

There are, of course, good reasons for creating a lossless library. I always recommend having a lossless library on an external drive, and a compressed (I use AAC at 128kbps) on your computer. This is handy for converting your CD library into a digital library.

Nobody

58,347 posts since
Oct 18, 2007

4. Sep 17, 2006 8:39 PM

in response to: pdrayton

Re: Which iPod is best for non-compressed (aiff) f

I agree that Apple's lossless format that saves a considerable storage space over AIF is quite good-- at least I do not detect much difference, whereas MP3 files that are compressed more sound inferior, some are even painful to listen.

pdrayton

1,821 posts since
Sep 19, 2003

5. Sep 17, 2006 9:54 PM

in response to: Nobody

Re: Which iPod is best for non-compressed (aiff) f

Here's a double-blind test I was referring to above. 5 different compressed codecs were tested and compared against uncompressed (CD). Different compression rates were used for each codec.

As you can see from the results (you have to scroll way down to get to them) rarely are people able to discern a difference between AAC at 128kbps and uncompressed CD.

PC World Double-Blind Audio Test

I'm a big fan of Apple Lossless... I love that codec!

Dan Frakes

3,341 posts since
Apr 14, 2003

6. Sep 18, 2006 5:02 AM

in response to: Nobody

Re: Which iPod is best for non-compressed (aiff) f

Quote:<hr />
I agree that Apple's lossless format that saves a considerable storage space over AIF is quite good-- at least I do not detect much difference

<hr />

You can't detect any difference at all. "Lossless" is just that -- no data is lost. If you compare the digital output of an uncompressed file with that of an Apple Lossless file, they will be bit-for-bit identical.

Lossless audio encoding is not like JPEG image compression, where data is discarded. Rather, it's analogous to StuffIt or Zip file compression -- after expanding, every bit is exactly the same as that of the original file.

Dan Frakes | Senior Editor, Macworld

Nobody

58,347 posts since
Oct 18, 2007

7. Sep 18, 2006 11:45 AM

in response to: Dan Frakes

Re: Which iPod is best for non-compressed (aiff) f

Well, no wonder it sounds good!

Go to original post

Sep 16, 2006 3:20 PM

Which iPod is best for non-compressed (aiff) files

Actions

More Like This