AIFF is Apple's name for audio CD. Nowadays it is common practice to
use AIFF and audio CD interchangably.
WAV stands for Windows Audio File (for the windows folks). Not quite
the same as AIFF, but used quite a bit.
Jerry
On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 08:38 PM, Marta Edie wrote:
> 16.03.2003 19:15 UhrJerry Yeagerjerry at browseryshop.com:
>
>> At the risk of confusing things,
>>
>> When CDs first came out, they had a three letter code of the back of
>> their
>> carrying case composed of As and Ds. This code let you know what
>> technology
>> was used in making the CD. A stood for for analog, D for digital, the
>> order of
>> the code was: Recording, Mixing, Mastering. So a DDD coded CD had
>> digital
>> processing at every step of "making the recording" of the music.
>> (There were
>> no AAA CDs.)
>>
>> Very little of the music back then came out on CD as DDD. Most were
>> redos from
>> old master tapes and were put out to CD as AAD. There are some notable
>> exceptions. Some (Steely Dan comes to mind) were re-mixed,
>> re-mastered and put
>> out as ADD.
>>
>> Later this code use was dropped. Some artists preferred ADD vs DDD,
>> some folks
>> that bought CDs gripped that they paid the same money for a AAD as
>> for a DDD
>> CD. AAD CDs just do not sound nearly as good as DDD CDs do, and
>> cannot.
>> Limitations in the mixing process are such that an AAD CD does not
>> record onto
>> disk with as much "sound" as do DDD CDs.
>>
>> So what does this have to do with MP3s?
>>
>> Well it is the same principle. When you convert from audio format
>> (CDDA if you
>> will) to MP3, you can lose some "sound". But you might not notice. It
>> depends
>> on what technology went into making the CD to begin with. If the
>> artist made a
>> ADD or DDD CD that you convert into MP3, and you have a good stereo
>> to play
>> the "before" and "after" on, you might notice that it (the MP3) does
>> not sound
>> as good as the original CD does. If the artist made a AAD CD then you
>> probably
>> won't notice a difference.
>>
>> As Lee points out, if you playing them while driving in your car, you
>> probably
>> won't notice a difference unless your car is very quiet and the
>> stereo is very
>> good.
>>
>> More to the point now:
>>
>> If you import CD songs with the idea of putting them back out as
>> audio CDs, be
>> careful about using MP3 in the middle. You can introduce pops and
>> crackles
>> into the song. Try your new CD you just made on a cheaper system at
>> middle
>> volume, before popping it into a high end stereo at loud volumes.
>> Better yet,
>> make it MP3 at both importing and exporting and you won't get the
>> Rice Krispy
>> gang singing backup. Best yet, import and export as audio format
>> (this though
>> will limit you to 70 minutes instead of several hours of music per
>> CD).
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> That was a handful of acronyms to add to the list. The day is coming
>> when
>> English will not be recognizable to its speakers!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 05:55 PM, Marta Edie wrote:
>>
>>> 16.03.2003 16:50 UhrLee Larsonleelarson at mac.com:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, March 15, 2003, at 10:53 PM, Marta Edie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks so very much Lee." Hut ab" to all that knowledge.. So I
>>>>> was on the
>>>>> right track, I looked at my preferences again and for the import
>>>>> it says it
>>>>> is a MATSHITA CD-RW CW-8121, it is burning at maximum speed. For
>>>>> the import
>>>>> it says Better quality 160 kbps, It also has a best quality of 192
>>>>> . Should
>>>>> I set it on this quality? I learned from your explanation 192
>>>>> is better
>>>>> . but Is there a drawback somewhere else in setting it that high
>>>>> , and
>>>>> once set at 192, can I keep it there indefinitely?
>>>>>
>>>> The tradeoffs are between sound quality and file size. More
>>>> kilobits per
>>>> second gives you better sound quality, but the file sizes are
>>>> bigger. I
>>>> can't tell the difference between a CD and an MP3 when the rate is
>>>> 192 kb/s,
>>>> and rarely ever hear a difference at 160 kb/s. I can hear the
>>>> difference at
>>>> 128 kb/s on good playback equipment.
>>>>
>>>> My daughter, who knows a lot more about music than I do and has
>>>> younger
>>>> ears, claims she can tell the difference at 160 kb/s.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the time I listen to MP3s when I'm driving. (I have an
>>>> in-dash
>>>> MP3-CD player.) With all that background noise, there's no
>>>> difference
>>>> between 128 and an audio CD to my ears.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> | The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will | be
>>>> March 25.
>>>> The LCS Web page is <http://www.kymac.org>.
>>>>
>>> Thanks, Lee. I see now. It makes the files larger. As long as I
>>> don't want to
>>> put oodles of hours on a CD for meinen Hausgebrauch, well - So, this
>>> tidbit
>>> of technical knowledge is now stored on my hard disk in my brain. I
>>> shall
>>> hope it won't get erased by an interference of a component related
>>> to my
>>> age. They say age and memory aren't always compatible. Marta
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> | The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will | be
>>> March 25. The
>>> LCS Web page is <http://www.kymac.org>.
>>>
>>>
>
> I am going to ask like Pooh does with the honey- is there anymore ?
> -Rabbit
> says no, but you guys always say :yes! Thanks again Jerry and Allen,
> I
> just said thanks again to Lee. What would we do without you? Maybe I
> shall
> end up a diskjockey , even randomly playing songs. Before I leave
> tomorrow
> for OLD EUROPE, I shall have all this neatly sorted out in my
> brain,and
> when I come back, I'm sure, it will have vaporized in my head --
> but--- I
> will still have your e-mails. - Question again: my computer says I can
> import in Audio CD mode or in this MP3 format. On the burn side it
> says:
> MP3 or AIFF or WAV. It doesn't say audioCD. So I guess I can only
> burn in
> the MP3, not knowing what the others signify or whether I even have
> them in
> my computer's insides. And to tell the truth, I am not all that much
> into
> playing CDs. My curse is that I always want to know more about things
> than I
> need. Marta
>
>
>
> | The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will
> | be March 25. The LCS Web page is <http://www.kymac.org>.
>
>
>
| The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will
| be March 25. The LCS Web page is <http://www.kymac.org>.
