hey Bjorn - absolutely no offense taken, as my second paragraph shows I actually know and understand what you meant. I know the resulting CD is not magically different from the original I-tunes file, and thus a compressed 128k music file that just so happens to be wav encoded now.
My question was just whether anyone has made an experience or has a better practise in place, since I am aware that all this transcoding thing is flawed, and within that flawed world I am just trying to see how others meet the challenges. Guess my approach is to be a tad wastful and take some possible minor quality losses (which given the flawed original may not count for much, but some may perceive it to be the opposite) and go for 192k, while others go all the way to FLAC. The reason I do not want to do the latter is because, sometime down the line, I want to remember the quality of the source. The 192k MP3 to me is a constant reminder that, perhaps, sometimes, I should upgrade the file. If I store it as a FLAC I'll just forget... I know there are also many other ways of dealing with that consideration... Cheers & Thanks for sharing your thoughts! bhaagensen;233597 Wrote: > I hope you were not offended, it was indeed not my intention. My point > was just that if you do the itunes > cd > mp3 thing, quality wise it is > the same as if you took the itunes mp3 file and encoded it again as a > e.g. 192K mp3 file (I know its not possible due to DRM). You loose > quality in both steps regardless of whether a higher bitrate is used in > the second step (unless it is looseless in which case you get the same > quality as the original itunes file). > > Another possible issue is that if at some point in time a new and > better lossy compression method comes along, and you want to convert > your files to that format (because e.g. the hardware you like supports > that), then you will again loose quality corresponding to the path, > itunes > CD > mp3 > "new shiny format". > > Of course you might settle for something in between if you find that > the quality you get is satisfactory for you. Perhaps someone with a > better knowledge of various compression algorithms can recommend > something. I would maintain that given the price of harddrives, the > best shot is e.g. flac. > > Also you can have a look at: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_data_compression#Applications > > Regards Bjørn -- pablolie ------------------------------------------------------------------------ pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39123
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
