Re: iTunes

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/10/13]

From: Chris Nandor
Subject: Re: iTunes
Date: 02:47 on 13 Oct 2006
At 3:22 +0200 2006.10.13, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>* Bill Page <bill.page@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-13 02:15]:
>> But really, I'm of the "can't hear anything better than 192
>> mp3" camp - and even then it's something of a stretch.
>
>So am I. I'd say it's not a stretch at all, however I can only
>really tell when I compare files directly. Mostly it's the
>percussions that give it away. But in any case I'm not much of an
>audiophile. I just obsess over quality of my data in general. I'd
>prefer to avoid any conversion processes whatsoever.

I can only occasionally tell the difference between, say, 192 and 320 kbps
MP3.  Usually on, like you say, percussion.  Especially on classic jazz,
also in some classical music.  But it depends on the track.  Sometimes it's
easier.  AAC works a lot better than MP3 to get smaller bitrate files that
sound good.

But I eventually gave up trying to find the "best" bitrate I could.  Too
much work reripping something when it came out poorly.

But the other thing is, as I said, simply a matter of being able to
recompress later.  I actually do rerip my entire collection to 128 kbps AAC
for putting on the 60 GB iPod.  A perl script (of course) compares two
iTunes libraries on two computers, and updates one to be like the other,
converting all the lossless files as necessary.  Someday when the iPod has
some better format available, I just change a line in the script, delete
the old converted files, and boom.

And I have the entire main library mirrored to an external FW drive, too.
Mmmmm backups.

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pudge@xxxxx.xxx    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Technology Group       pudge@xxxx.xxx     http://ostg.com/
There's stuff above here

Generated at 10:01 on 14 Oct 2006 by mariachi 0.52